Style

Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts

Monday, August 19, 2013

Is condemning the loss of innocent lives taking a side?

Misconceptions float around so easily when an Egyptian speaks up against the military's excessive use of force against civilians gathered for a vigil in support of the first democratically elected President of Egypt. The immediate reaction for taking such a stance results in accusations of being affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Mohammed Morsy. Ironically this misconception only exists among some Egyptians, while the rest of the world looks on in horror at the events unfolding before their eyes.

Persuaded by the likes of media outlets sympathetic to the state apparatus (such as Al-Ahram, MENA, and Al-Masry Al-Youm), liberalists choose to believe the Armed Forces are defending their nation against an unstoppable force of "Islamists" who are hijacking the country of its democracy simply because they won elections. The fallacy begins when this propaganda claims that foreign media is misguiding the billions around the world about the "truth" that only Egyptians living in Egypt could only ever know. Obviously this is because Western media choose to sympathize with such a controversial Islamic group such as the Muslim Brotherhood... it makes perfect sense...

It no longer becomes a factor that the condemnation could be the result of evidence revealing the military used live ammunition to kill almost 600 unarmed men, women and children, and injure almost 4000 more. Gun shot wounds have been found penetrating the head and chest of protesters after the snipers pulled their triggers, and the sounds of automatic rifles were heard ringing around the encampment. This deliberate targeting of civilians was not an instinctive reactionary decision made by the ground troops bombarding the sit-in, rather it was the order given after the announcement was made a week prior to disperse the protesters by "all necessary measures". The Armed Forces were so certain of success that they made the bold statement claiming it would only take one hour to remove protesters from Rabaa Al-Adawaya. Such an efficiency could only mean a "necessary" use of force.

Many worldwide listening intently on the updates coming from Cairo found it hard-pressed to come up with an excuse to justify such an act, even when performed against "Islamists".

Hypocrisy starts to ring true amongst some when support for the beloved Armed Forces are chanted in the streets of Tahrir for protection against extremism and "Western influences". This protection, of course, is only be made possible when General Al-Sisi and his troops collect their $1.5 billion annual paycheck that was gifted to them since the Camp David Accords, back when Egypt had forsaken their pride against the occupying forces of Israel.

Ultimately, the argument is no longer a political debate on who has legitimacy, or whether one is pro-Morsy or anti-Morsy, or whether the overthrow of the President was a coup or not. The reality is that the situation in Egypt has rapidly changed from being "politically unstable" to being a "war crime against humanity".

Anyone would be obliged to condemn the situation all the same if the military attacked the liberals.

The military has the sworn responsibility to protect both sides and prevent both sides from escalating their demonstrations into violent clashes, and yet instead they have opted to support one group's rights, and deny the other's.

The incident that has occurred on the streets of Cairo can only ever be described as a massacre, regardless of who the victims supported, and the world now fears the situation will turn into another Syria.

In order to prevent that, Egyptians must condemn the military for it's horrific acts against its own people.
That is the neutral stance. The only side that one should take to condemn the loss of innocent lives is the one in support of humanity.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Justifying Military Actions Against the Muslim Brotherhood

There are many Egyptians today that claim any killing of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood is justified because they are religious extremists. Nothing can be further from the truth. Although there are many complaints about how the Muslim Brotherhood governed the nation, the entire course of their one-year political history cannot provide any conclusion as to whether or not they were the best or worst decision made by the people of Egypt. The only fact on the ground that can be confirmed is that they were the first free democratically elected party in Egypt’s long history.

Many who followed the political progress over the last year had legitimate claims over their poorly organised conduct in cleaning up the country, especially with regards to a lack of short term "wins" in the hearts and minds of citizens. This included dealing with sanitation, fuel & petrol, traffic conditions and many others. Although expecting to pass judgement on a party after one year in office to clean a 30-year mess may be a little premature, no one can deny that there were urgent matters that could have been resolved to keep the people of Egypt satisfied in knowing that the wheels were indeed in motion. It's all about the PR campaign and how you sell yourself to your clients, and in this case the Brotherhood's clients were the people who elected them into office in the first place.

That being said, there were also many who didn't follow the political progress over the last year. Rather they occupied their time with a myriad of false accusations and rumours that left us wondering whether or not Egyptians were capable of distinguishing between a devout Muslim and an extremist. Ill-informed claims posted on Facebook and Twitter flooded feeds with noise louder than that of the parliamentary debates, and it reached levels of ignorance and even bigotry.

The Muslim brotherhood is simply a membership club, comparable to an Australian RSL club. Some claim that one in every ten Egyptian is an "Ikhwani" (of the Brotherhood). That includes women & men, bearded men & shaven men, members who dress in the traditional Islamic garments or wear suits & ties. They are doctors, lawyers, taxi drivers, teachers, and Islamic scholars. They are regular people who are part of an Islamic group; much like the Islamic Egyptian Society is an Islamic group in Australia (only that their numbers aren't large enough to contest a seat in parliament). The only thing that makes them stand out as an Islamic organisation is that they are comprised of practicing Muslims who simply pray their five obligatory prayers daily and read the Quran regularly rather than having it left on a shelf as an historic ornament. That is primarily the only thing that differentiates them from anyone else who earnestly rejects the concept of having the political scene flooded by "Islamists"; dubiously named as though it were a movement like Communist, Fascist or any other “-ist” that could instill fear in the "moderate" populous of society. Apart from their duties, devout Muslims still go out on weekends, they watch TV, and celebrate birthdays. More importantly, they reject hard-line Sharia-run countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran; just like anyone else in Egypt considered moderate. It is concerning that people like the Muslim brotherhood are attacked not for their political direction, but for being extremists simply because they prefer their religion as priority over their culture. Nothing more.

Any Islamic group that enters the political scene is immediately attacked with non-constructive criticism such that the following statements begin spreading throughout social networks like wildfire: "Just wait until they force all women to wear the Burka"; "They are going to knock down the Sphinx because they think idols are prohibited"; "They will close all the beaches because they don't like bikinis"; "Look at that bearded man on TV; he thinks he is a Sheikh trying to be an expert in politics"; And worst of all: "The army killed them? Good riddens!"

As a practicing Muslim, I am saddened to hear such anti-Islamic sentiment sweeping Egypt far worse than any discrimination I've ever experienced here in Western society.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

15 reasons why a 'YES' vote on Egypt's Draft Constitution makes more sense



Based on the above links to the constitution in Arabic and English, the following reasons are why a 'YES' vote makes more sense.
  1. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests, explicitly or implicitly, that Islamic organisations will directly benefit from the Constitution itself, nor are there any special privileges given to them.
  2. Contrary to what people have said, if Islamic organisations gain more influence in politics, women's statuses are elevated and protected with regards to the following principle: "there is no dignity for a country in which women are not honored; women are the sisters of men and partners in all national gains and responsibilities." as well as in Article 10 which states: "The State shall provide special care and protection to female breadwinners, divorced women and widows."
  3. The Constitution gives the right for Christians and Jews to worship freely and implement their own rules based on their faiths as mentioned in Articles 3 and 43, which also provides them with the right to choose their own spiritual leaders.
  4. There is now a clear separation of control. The real power of the government will be handed to the people through the House of Representatives and removed from the President and any other executive positions, as mentioned in Article 116.
  5. There are no dictatorial powers bestowed on the President. He does not have the will to dissolve Parliament at his own discretion, and even if he tries to push for a dissolution, it must be put to a public referendum. If the majority disagree with the President's decision and support the legitimacy of Parliament, then the President has lost his credibility in government and must be forced to resign. Article 127
  6. In the event that Parliament does actually get dissolved, power of legislation is handed to the Senate (Shura Council) as priority above the President as mentioned in Article 131.
  7. If the President declares a state of emergency to give him temporary powers, it must be approved by Parliament, and has an expiry of 6 months. If it needs to be extended, only the people, through public referendum, can agree for an extension of emergency powers. Article 148.
  8. Police can no longer arrest civilians and keep them detained indefinitely without the right to fair trial. They are obliged to provide legitimate reasons for their arrests and treat the detainees with respect and dignity without harm or interrogation. Articles 35-36.
  9. Internal affairs can no longer tap phones or spy on civilians with internet technology using their own discretion. People's privacy is now sacred as mentioned in Article 38.
  10. People have the freedom to voice their opinion (without insult, or risk to national security) whether verbally, through blogs or even via Media outlets and the press, which is a new concept for Egyptians. Article 45, 48, and 215
  11. Education is planned to improve, and illiteracy is planned to be removed. Article 61
  12. Free healthcare services to all poor citizens, as mentioned in Article 62, which is something the United States haven't even been able to provide.
  13. The government is willing to implement a minimum wage plan, with all workers having equal rights and safety in the workforce. Article 63.
  14. Civilians can no longer be tried in Military courts if they commit a civil crime. Article 198.
  15. The transitional period is solid, providing the Shura Council, NOT the president, full authority of legislation for the current transition towards a new elected Parliament. Article 230
The arguments that oppose the Constitution have not been strong enough to convince me to vote otherwise.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Why did Palestinians elect Hamas if most view them as a militant organisation?

This is a common trait in a state of conflict where people naturally choose the hard-lined leader in order to protect their people with strength and courage against an external threat, rather than with their PhDs in diplomacy.

We saw the same scenario with the rise of a General who became Prime Minister in Ariel Sharon, or Binyamin Netanyahu who was part of the General forces unit and a captain, and even Menachim Begin who was part of the Irgun terrorist group that bombed several British buildings and traded with illegal weaponry.

This is even evident between two military leaders who took separate paths in their methods of leadership regarding the zealous persona of Gamal Abdel-Nasser who was popular in Egypt because he promoted protection against the Zionist invasion, rather than the more diplomatic approach to peace in Anwar Sadat, who subsequently was assassinated for his attempts at peace. This similarity can also be seen in Israel when Yitzhak Rabin was also assassinated for his attempts at peace in a heightened time of conflict.

This stems from the propaganda created for warfare. The classic situation where newspapers and radios promote the perception of "near-annihilation" as troops battle to defend their country's existence. While a people face the depressing realities of daily bombardment, they need a hero to turn to in order to give them hope of victory.
In the first world countries today, we witness people naturally inclined to seek justice in internal affairs rather than in warfare against an external entity. This is especially common amongst the youth who have lived all their lives in a world without any direct imminent threat from external entities, as was the case before their forefathers fought to win their own independence.

Gaza is no different. Rather than the people seeking a government that can provide them financial stability, economic opportunities, and social justice, they believe that none of this can be achieved with the constant humiliation of occupation and a disruption of normality with ongoing checkpoints and land confiscations in areas that were replaced with settlements, as was the case before the seige began in Gaza in 2006. With absence of peace in their everyday lives and the uncertainty of their future, those who become popular were the highest bidders for security.

Hamas' militant approach is the strongest and most secure option for the people of Gaza because no one else can provide them with the protection they need. It is unfortunate that since they have taken office their militant approach has been like punching the apartheid wall with their bare fists; achieving nothing but reactions from those who imposed the blockade around the Strip, rather than a stable solution for the people's livelihoods. These reactions by the occupying powers continually result in civilian casualties even after democracy was implemented in the region with Hamas. That particular democracy was shunned, and was still frowned upon even after Hamas were willing to accept a truce with Israel based on the pre-67 borders in the same year they were elected into office.

What resulted from the elections that birthed Hamas' political careers was evidence that violence ultimately spawns violence, just as the Gaza siege in 2008/2009 will undoubtedly bring up another child who witnessed brutality with the horrific scenes of burned bodies and the pools of blood. Those scenes could only traumatize a collective group of youth that will grow up in a violent environment and a vengeful disposition.

Israel's mistake in dealing with the situation of trying to remove Hamas has not yet been realised. Rather than a collective punishment imposed on Gaza because the people elected the "wrong leaders", the withdrawal of violence will actually have a positive effect, and it will naturally dissolve support in such reactionary groups amongst popular Palestinian opinion.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

The similitude of the Two-State Solution and the Treaty of Hudaibiya

Many Palestinians are too anxious with regards to their right of return that they believe jumping into a bid for the state of Palestine would be a political disaster. Longer term advantages, however, would significantly benefit the Palestinian cause, just as patience was shown during the early years of the Muslim refugees that were displaced from their homes in Mecca and hunted down. There is a striking similarity between the UN bid and the truce that was agreed upon by the Muslims and the Pagan Arabs who tried to eradicate them.

According to the Treaty of Hudaibiya, a truce was declared between the Muslims and the tribe of Quraish for ten years. If any other tribe wished to enter into a treaty with the Muslims it could do so, and whoever wished to enter into a treaty with the Quraish was likewise free to do so. If any one from the Quraish came to the Muslims and was converted to Islam he was to be returned to the Quraish. On the other hand, if a Muslim sought refuge with the Quraish, he was not to be delivered to the Muslims. It was further stipulated that the Muslims would withdraw that year without performing the Hajj in Mecca, but they would be free to perform the Hajj the following year when they could stay in Mecca for only three days before being removed again.

The truce was obviously very one sided and the pact was significantly in favor of the Quraish, so most of the Muslims were extremely critical of these terms. Umar gave expression of his dissatisfaction with the terms of the treaty, but Muhammad (SAW) assured him to put faith in the truce.

Seventeen years prior to this truce, Quraish had been waging a war against the Muslims with their aim to crush Islam. Therefore the treaty of Hudaibiya, when Quraish agreed to the truce for a period of ten years, amounted to a confession of their failure.

By this treaty both the Muslims and Quraish could have allies from amongst the tribes surrounding them. This was a subtle point fraught with grave consequences. The fact that the Muslims were able to travel freely to forge alliances without fear of being attacked by their enemies, meant that they were more advantageous over the Pagan tribe. And that is exactly what they did. As things took shape, it was such alliances that paved the way for the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims without a single drop of blood spilled.

In this comparison, we can also conclude that the same technique can be implemented with regards to the current volatile situation for the Palestinians where at any given time their lives can be taken by a flyover or a home demolition. The more time they can spend "regrouping" by forging strong alliances amongst the free people of Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Jordan whilst a truce is in play, the stronger the Arabs will be united in demanding their right of return regardless of how many settlements are built today, and especially when considering that much larger empires were dismantled in the history of mankind.

Remembering that Jerusalem was brutally occupied by the crusaders for almost 100 years until Salahudeen was successful in giving the land back to the people it was stolen from, we can be reassured that Zionism's brutal occupation of the region for only 63 years will not be an exception. Forcing a situation in the region against its natural demographic has never proven to be a sustainable solution for any ruling power.

Considering a "set-back" by declaring the state of Palestine at the UN assembly and accepting a two-state solution doesn't necessarily mean defeat. It can only provide, at the very least, a legitimacy for the Arab world to take a stronger stance in supporting Palestinians in years to come.

Sources: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/19_ali_bin_talib.htm

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

History of Jews in the Arab world

Currently there are numerous misconceptions surrounding Jewish refugees who were allegedly caused by Arab nations during the years that the state of Israel was established. The notion of collective punishment and discrimination under Arab rule has widely been accepted as a fact based on interpretations from verbal accounts on the historic events surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict. History paints a different picture of those accusations when the complete story is put into perspective.

Since the beginning of the British frontier in the Middle East, not only was Palestine a British colony following the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, but the Empire had also controlled Egypt since conquering the French in 1882, as well as Sudan in 1899 and Yemen as early as 1839. The land that was once borderless under Islamic rule was slowly being sliced up and became provinces under the British Commonwealth.

At the outbreak of World War I, an emerging Zionist movement became prominant throughout Europe and was thriving economically. Many of the Jews of Europe excelled in trade, usury and public relations.

Two of its significant leaders, Dr Weizmann and Baron Rothschild, helped fund Britain’s victory in their European campaign during the Great War. They had only one request in return for the favour they bestowed on the Commonwealth for its victory, and that transpired in the form of the historic Balfour Declaration which was written to Rothschild in order to hand over one of the regions in the Middle East to establish a Jewish-only state.

This declaration was in direct contradiction to the promise given to Arabs to play a significant part in Britain's establishment of monarch-lead nations following their help in dismantling the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI.

Since the Kingdom of Egypt was part of the British Commonwealth prior to this, it was already an open gateway to the Middle East for the Jewish community before they could claim a land of their own. Egypt subsequently made exemptions to rulings over compulsory visas in favour of Jewish immigrants. Naturally, many Jews flocked to this hub of multiculturalism across the Mediterranean from their origins in Europe. Many Egyptians today tell the tale of Jewish neighbours who had become friends over the years with many cultural exchanges including family recipes and traditions. Egypt provided a safe haven for many Jews who comprised of Sephardi Jews (migrating from Morocco and other Arab countries), Ashkenazim Jews (predominantly from Eastern Europe and those from pre-WWII), Jews from southern Europe, and the native Jews who had already existed in Egypt for centuries (namely the Karaites and Rabbanites) and who were previously living under the laws of the Islamic province of Egypt.

Regarding the lifestyle of these indigenous Jews before British rule, the Islamic governor of Egypt had ordered that others could not interfere with their way of life nor in their celebrated holidays. They were considered Dhimmis or "protected subjects". Their protection came with the precondition that a jizya or "poll tax" must be paid to provide security, build roads, help fund places of worship and other benefits that ultimately influenced fundamental practices of modern governance today with modern tax. While Muslims did not pay jizya, they were obligated to pay zakat, which is part of the tenants of their religious obligations. Obviously since Dhimmis were not required to perform one of the obligatory pillars of Islam, another method of taxation was required of them in society.

In the Muslim world, Jews also obtained high social positions such as doctors, clerks, tax collectors, and even received special positions in the Egyptian courts as early as the 9th century. There are historians today that prefer to consider these minority groups "second-class citizens" simply because they were excused from Muslim duties and the Shari'a Law, yet they were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation, and were given rights to maintain their own religious rites and freedoms. Incidentally this provided more flexibility and allowances than what is currently provided in Western society today for those who wish to establish their own religious laws within sub-communities for minorities.

Further to this, under British occupation treatment towards Jews was no different. The Jewish community which had otherwise been persecuted abroad was embraced by Egyptians citizens. Some Jews during British rule even had their entries at the royal court and were able to contribute to the nation's public transport, cotton industry, sugar refinery, banking, department stores, real-estate developments, agriculture, as well as having jobs as accountants, shopkeepers, teachers, and merchants. They had just as much opportunity to fulfil a successful life as any other Egyptian citizen at the time.


Following the popular uprising against British rule in 1919, Britain ended the protectorate in 1922 and the Kingdom of Egypt became nominally independent, although still dependent on Britain financially. This did not phase Jewish migrants.

In 1932 and 1933 the Egyptian government conducted a campaign offering Egyptian citizenship to any resident of Egyptian territory who wanted it. Some Egyptian Jews were among those who took advantage of the offer and became Egyptian citizens, while others chose to remain stateless, though it became more difficult for stateless residents to become citizens later on.

Due to the end of capitulations between Egypt and European countries in 1937, which shielded foreign nationals from the law of the land, and due to high unemployment in Egypt which increased dramatically when many businesses closed after WWII, these foreign nationals, including many Jews, found it difficult to maintain jobs especially because they did not have Egyptian citizenship.

Jewish migration from Europe was growing during WWII and it didn't take long before the Nazis followed them. Amongst many other things, one of the main reasons why Hitler attempted to conquer Egypt was an attempt to eliminate the Jews from Egypt.

These two critical issues created the first wave of Jewish emigration. As a result, they fled based on their own fear and insecurity. But while an attempted eradication of Jews in Egypt was unsuccessful, many Jews still remained in Egypt; especially the higher class citizens that had much of their wealth invested in the country.

After the Nazis failed, the Kingdom continued to maintain its own laws. Some of the Ottoman systems that still existed were sustained by the Egyptian monarchy. At the time, Ottoman systems maintained legal protection for non-Muslim minorities which obviously included the autonomous Jewish communities. Any crimes committed against these Jews were not represented by the Kingdom of Egypt, and were rather considered criminal acts of racism. Although demonstrations and riots broke out following the commemoration of the Balfour declaration with some Egyptians lashing out violently against all who supported the letter to Rothschild, these protests consequently subsided with increased security by the Egyptian government to provide guards to protect the Jewish Quarter.

The Egyptian Kingdom's protection was maintained even after the independence of the state of Israel regardless of the fact that war was declared against the Zionists who took Palestinian territory unilaterally.

Egyptian rulers implemented martial law and stamped down their authority on any Zionist supporters living in Egypt as they were officially declared enemies of the state following the invasion of Palestine. Particular emphasis on "Zionist supporters" rather than Jews themselves was made because it was the growing secular movement with it's intention to take Arab land that was a threat to the nation. This law was not exclusive to Zionists however, as many Egyptians were arrested for violence within a nation that suddenly became volatile. The Muslim Brotherhood became outlawed and so were many other opposition organisations. Egypt was completely alienated due to being in a state of war.

Some Jews (primarily Ashkenazim Jews) were extremely fearful of the animosity of the war between Israel and the Arab world that they decided to migrate to the newly formed state especially because Zionist campaigns encouraged them to run to the hills and take land while it was "there for the taking". This is in contrast to what many people describe as an "exodus" in 1948, especially when the Jews themselves describe this ritual as the spiritual "aliyah" or ascension as was the Jewish aspiration since the Babylonian exile.

Egypt's status changed over the next few years when a military coup overthrew the monarchy in 1952 for failure to protect their neighbours from the humiliating defeat against the Zionist movement's invasion. Other reasons for the coup also included political corruption due to remnants of British influence which had helped form the Zionist state.

The state of Egypt was then transformed into a military ruling nation where emergency laws were enforced. One of the most significant changes due to this law was the deportation of those who lived in Egypt without visas or any other kind of evidence to prove Egyptian citizenship. This wasn't a direct attack on Jews, especially since British and French supporters were primarily considered enemies of the state for their support in the attempted invasion of 1956 by France, Britain and Israel, and so were subsequently expelled from Egypt.

Despite these expulsions, there were still Jews who claimed they were still making a good living from their growing businesses even up until the late 1960's and were reluctant to leave the country empty-handed. They were able to stay because they had citizenship and were not supporters of the enemies of state.

Egypt was drastically changed from having open borders to being in a state of security. This behaviour is common throughout the world today and is mirrored in Western countries such as the US with the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001.

This harsh environment regarding the changes in Egyptian policies were mainly due to the undeniable and overwhelming fear that resulted from the establishment of Israel because the Zionist state posed a very imminent threat for a potential expansion beyond Egypt's borders, as it ultimately did in 1967.

Thus military rule created instability and political uncertainty in Egypt, even when considering the significant shifts in alliances from the Soviet Union to the US and up until the days of Mubarak's downfall. Many Jews actually decided to leave Egypt voluntarily, pre-empting repercussions from the political instability. This is no different than the Egyptian citizens who also fled from their own homeland and became migrants in countries across the world including the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, particularly after the 1967 invasion. These Egyptian migrants were not considered refugees, just as the Jews were not. They fled for much the same reasons, and were considered migrants because applications were never made for refugee status with the UN. Jews either migrated to the United States, France and Australia or had answered to the Israeli call to establish settlements on Palestinian soil.

Currently, some Jews claim that racial discrimination against the few remaining Jews in Egypt still exist today especially because of an isolated incident recently regarding the prevention of a marriage between an Egyptian and a Jew. The reality is that even amongst Jewish sects there are significant cultural differences. The Karaite Jews (followers of the Torah) and the Rabbanite Jews (followers of the Talmud) have their own separate synagogues and their own separate schools, and although they both recognise each other as the indigenous Jews of Egypt who lived there for centuries, mixed marriages were an issue for their cultural traditions, let alone cultural differences between Sephardi Jews from Spain, or the Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe.

Some also claim that discrimination against Jews existed because they were denied the right to vote in elections, however this claim does not take into consideration the fact that all of Egypt including its citizens were denied the right to vote in any national election that existed ever since military rule took control of the country, with the staged formalities of elections to try and show Egypt's "democracy".

There has been a common trend amongst the Jewish Diaspora to isolate the sufferings of Jewish people during the time of war so that their own stories would be vindicated by excluding stories of suffering from the general population in the region as a result of the cruelties of war.

Incidentally this victimisation is also used with the constant reminders of genocide that occurred as a result of the holocaust during WWII while failing to describe the many tens of thousands of men, women and children who also suffered collectively from the war. Somehow the words "holocaust" and "exodus" have only been attributed to the Jewish people and astonishingly these words are not accepted nor tolerated to be used in conjunction with any other suffering people as a result of collective punishment in warfare.

Its time that we started sympathizing for humanity collectively when a population suffers at the hands of invasions and political and economic instabilities throughout the world. This ongoing story of suffering is not exclusively kept for the Jews.


Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Is the theory of the Nile to the Euphrates a realistic possibility?

Regarding a recent article called In defense of reason, not Israel by Amr Yossef, an Adjunct Professor of Political Science, there are a few points that can be made about his comments.

Most of his article is very well written and provides a realistic perspective of the situation between Israel and Egypt especially when considering that there are many conspiracy theories regarding the two nations that provide an inaccurate outlook on their relationship. That is because they are exactly what the name suggests: "theories" without tangible evidence or without factual analysis to support any of the accusations mentioned.

However, there is one vital note that Amy Yossef makes that needs to be examined carefully.
"Israel is not interested in a territorial expansion that would go far beyond its capabilities."
This statement is absolutely correct, and as the world witnessed in the events after the six day invasion of 1967, Israel clearly could not defend and maintain the newly occupied territories. The reality is that it wasn't ready to occupy Egypt's Sinai, Lebanon's south, Syria's Golan Heights, and the entire Palestinian territories comprising of the West Bank, Gaza strip, and East Jerusalem because it provided an economic strain on the state especially at such an early stage of its establishment. .

The problem with this statement though is that it does not rule out the fact that the region is actually witnessing territorial expansion and annexation within East Jerusalem and the West Bank today that has not ceased since those six critical days.

One can safely say that almost 45 years on, East Jerusalem and the West Bank are definitely within Israel's capability to annex, otherwise current settlement constructions would not be occurring.

While the quick adolescent approach to occupation proved to be a failure, the more mature and steady approach to increasing the Israeli Empire has proven to be extremely successful, especially when, as Amr Yossef put it, "Israel is satisfied with the current status-quo", and no peace with the Palestinians will help Israel continuously expand.

What no one has asked is whether or not Israel has actually defined a limit to the ever-growing expanding territory. There is no evidence to suggest that Israel will stop at the West Bank and East Jerusalem especially when the state has been internationally condemned for annexing regions within these territories in the first place.

If the Israeli government simply cannot abide by International Law to halt the current illegal activity of expanding its territory, there is no evidence to suggest that there is any limit at all. This raises issues on whether or not a reason to prove the theory of the Greater Israel being from the Nile to the Euphrates is relevant, but rather that a counter to this theory is necessary when considering Israel's current behaviour.

As Israel's economy grows and their military strength increases, there is nothing to suggest they wouldn't try to continue to expand on more Arab land within their "capabilities" so long as they have the ability to do so.


The only thing that has in fact changed since 1967 is that Israel has learnt that conquering its surrounding land in only six days is simply not a sustainably reality.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Western interests in the Middle East

US foreign aid sent to Israel currently stands at a total of $3.6 billion annually which is the largest foreign aid given to any country in the world. With regards to budget for military aid alone, the following figures have been proposed for the next few years:


Military Aid to Israel FY2009-FY2018
  • FY2009 $2.55 billion
  • FY2010 $2.77 billion
  • FY2011 $3.00 billion
  • FY2012-2018 $3.09 billion annually
Source: U.S. State Department

This strong US support has been maintained for many decades and goes well beyond any Presidential administration. It is too strong an alliance for anyone to challenge, and as the Obama administration found, it is extremely hard to put pressure on Israel with a lobby seemingly embedded at the core of Congress.

This "Israel First" lobby is a result of a deal that the two nations struck when the US and Israel acknowledged they had common interests vital for strategic power in the Middle East that stemmed primarily from the 1967 Israeli invasions. This event was quickly followed by the significant influx of funds to help the new state thrive in military and agriculture.

Allowing Israeli control of the region results in the following two strategic benefits:
  1. For the US: Instability in the region would lessen the threat of the Arab and Muslim world on the West. Arabs have two extremely important commodities that could potentially cause serious ramifications that would spread throughout the globe as had happened in the 1950's with the Suez Canal crisis and the embargo of the largest oil deposits in the world. Sanctions on either of these would give enormous power to any Arab demands.
  2. For Israel: The Jews can fulfill their ancient religious beliefs of a Greater Israel and ultimately their prophetic "Promised Land".
Despite these advantages, Obama realises that persistent strain on the region may cause the bubble of power to burst and the "Arab Spring" revolutions have shown a potential breach in the stability of their dominance. However as Obama has realised this, his attempts to draw it to Netanyahu's attention has been spat back in his face.

The tension between Netanyahu and Obama from their back and forth dialogue was a result of the fear that the Arab revolutions might actually spread to Israel's occupation of Palestinian Territories.

Obama's Middle East speech was more an urgent cry to Israel to show some flexibility to their violent occupation, in the fear that Israeli rule could potentially be ousted just like Egypt's powerful dictator Mubarak was ousted - who incidentally received the second largest US foreign aid in the world totaling $2 billion annually to help silence the masses regarding the genocide occurring on the other side of their border.

In the eyes of the Israelis, his speech was a minor hiccup in an otherwise unblemished friendship.

Ultimately, this deadly alliance with the US government has helped Israel stand uncontested with regards to the ongoing land confiscations, home demolitions, settlement expansion, systematic deportations, civilian displacements, violent checkpoint misconduct, water resource reallocation, residency revocation, border blockades, airspace "no-fly" zones, and maritime seaport isolation, regardless of any condemnation coming from the International Community requesting Israel to adhere to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Complete support for Israel provides a significant boost to America's dominance internationally, however it is seriously affecting national responsibilities. It basically comes down to what would be considered more important for the United States: being a super-power, or providing their own citizens with a better lifestyle.

Priority on the latter seems to be the lesser of the two.

Obama is looking at solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the wrong angle. If the US pulls out funding for this balance of power, then the two parties might actually approach each other on a level playing field, and negotiations could then be taken seriously on both sides. At the moment it is just a staged formality. Israel is getting exactly what they want so why would they need to negotiate?

One would seriously doubt that a few blind Al-Qassam rockets over the borders are a threat against Israel, who incidentally is one of the top 10 most powerful military forces on the planet possessing state of the art tanks, Apache choppers, F16 fighter jets, anti-missile "Iron Dome", remote-controlled drones, heat-seeking missiles, white-phosphorous chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and $3 Billion to spend on a force that provides the state with unlimited ammunition. Israel could quite literally take over Gaza, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon in a matter of days if they decided to. Lets face it, they actually did invade those regions in just six days in 1967.

It is a pretty hard PR game to play to try and convince the world that Israel is trying to "defend" itself from being driven out to sea.

Unfortunately what has happened now is that this generous foreign aid has been taken for granted by the Israeli government, and they are not afraid to express their disapproval of US opinions if anything but their own unilateral policies are accepted. The US has no choice but to submit to the overwhelming pro-Israeli support in Congress.
"Since the peace process began with the Oslo accord of 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank has risen from around 110,000 to more than 300,000. The government of Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu refused to agree even to the extension of a temporary halt, despite an offer of jet fighters worth billions of dollars. American aid has been running at around $8.5 million a day for many years but obviously doesn’t buy much influence."
[Bernd Debusmann - Reuters]
"For far too long many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peace-making have acted as Israel’s attorney, catering for and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker ... then surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the requirements of both sides."
[Aaron David Miller - Middle East negotiator and adviser, US State Department - Washington Post 2005]

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Netanyahu Exposed

The speech Obama gave last month to the Middle East was spoken perfectly if one were to dissect it using lexical analysis. The structure, tone and context of the speech, whilst trying to appease two cultures with a deep-seeded, bitter conflict was actually admirable. But that is as far as it goes because ultimately a US president cannot give more than what Obama gave: a speech.

There was admiration in his words as he bounced around the joy of witnessing history in the making with regards to the freedom fighters of Egypt and Tunisia, then a stern reminder of the failure of terrorism, and then there was a teasing and a dancing about of his words while trying to work his way through stating what has always been discussed for many years with Israel, and even though nothing new was mentioned, what made the speech successful from an Arab perspective is that it called Netanyahu's bluff.

It exposed him for what he really is, a manipulator of his own words. Netanyahu has always been calling out for a two-state solution as being the "only solution for peace" because he knows very well that a single-state, multi-cultured, purely democratic country involving a majority Arab and minority Jewish population would vote out and subsequently end the Jewish leadership and the identity of a Jewish state entirely.

What this speech showed, as obvious as the call for a two-state solution was, is that Obama’s call to action for Netanyahu to begin implementing such a notion could not possibly be carried out by the leader of Israel. After all, he has a Promised Land to fulfil for his people.

His immediate response by meeting with Obama to settle his "differences" proved that he really wants one thing that can no longer be denied through his PR campaigns and his "contempt" for the status quo: Arab land completely annexed from the Sea to the Jordan River, and nothing left for the Palestinians. What he fails to hide is that he has no intention to consider a viable "defensible" state for the Palestinians because frankly he doesn’t really care. His subsequent speeches to provide "clarification" of what Obama "really" meant never once mentioned the best interests for the Palestinians, which naturally would be a topic of conversation if a leader of a democracy wanted a sustainable region for all people to thrive in.

Although there will be no obvious progress following the back and forth of the Obama/Netanyahu speeches, the exposure of the lies that seeps through the very pores of the Israeli Prime Minister was there for all to see.

Lo and behold, once the penny dropped there was no looking back, and the result of this was the exposure of the Likud Platform, which looks strikingly similar in intent to the Hamas Charter:

Likud Platform
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Why doesn't Egypt annex Gaza to provide Palestinians a reasonable life?

This question was actually asked on Quora.

Simply put, Egypt, like all the other surrounding Arab countries, do not want to remove Palestinian Identity. It is a concept that even the Palestinians accept. They must not be a forgotten people. Their self-determination is just as great as Israeli self-determination. One could ask the same question as to why Israel wouldn't agree to a multi-cultural, purely democratic, non-racial single state that is enjoyed by both people in the region - after all, Arabs and Jews shared the land amongst themselves for many centuries prior to European colonisation. The answer that would most likely be found would be no different than that of the Palestinians.

This identity is in contradiction to the statement that Golda Meir made when she believed that Palestinians didn't exist. This rhetoric is untrue, because they have always existed and were described as Philistinieen (arabic phonetic). The English translation of that is Palestinians, so naturally the Brits named their colonial region Palestine after the indigenous people that lived there for centuries.

Egyptians know this history well.

The very implication of annexation is an immoral act of delegitimizing a people of their identity and of their rightful home wherein you will find a critical distinction between that and the notion of colonisation as was the status of the region when it was Mandate Palestine. While the British occupiers had control of Palestine between WWI and WWII - much to the dislike of the Arabs - they did not create settlements over existing homes, nor did they displace or deport the inhabitants of the land. Their presence was purely a military presence, and while there were checkpoints, Palestinians were able to travel and trade freely between each city without restrictions.

Based on the above information, a more resonable question would be why Egypt wouldn't colonize the Gaza Strip and provide Palestinians living there with a resonable life? The answer to that is simpler still: That was in fact the status during 1948-67 where Egypt provided military protection for the people of Gaza while promising those who where displaced from their homes the Right of Return. Never at any time did Egypt feel the need to remove the Palestinian's identity in addition to those who were made refugees. Unfortunately with their blind hatered and zeal, there was no vision in restoring that identity and they subsequently lost legitimacy as protectors of these people.

Having said that, hypothetically if either annexation or colonisation were in fact a possibility today, it would definately be a contentious topic regarding the Rafa border crossing that Israel would no doubt want a cruical role in playing a part of. Currently Israel's intention is to demilitarize a newly formed State of Palestine which is ironic in its own right because this is in fact the current status quo, and it leaves a large blur in the definition of sovereignty.

No doubt Israel would want to ensure its "safety" by trying to prevent the border from being continuously open for free trade and movement at the Rafa crossing. Israelis would most likely feel that it is in their own interest to be the state responsible for "colonising" Gaza with their demilitarization edict to complete their blockade around the entire strip.

That is of course if they don't have another friendly dictator by the time Egypt have their civil elections.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Is Egypt trying to be an Islamic State?

The current incidents taking over the country of Egypt have left its citizens more confused rather than optimistic about their country's fate.

Currently, the interim government is engaged heavily in foreign policy, namely that with Hamas and Fatah, yet the people of the country have not even been asked to counsel this involvement. The people's advise was not sought after regarding how the nation should proceed with this partnership nor were they asked about the amount of resources and personnel that should be invested into this deal. These decisions are usually made by an authority entrusted to do so, and while Egypt is very much in a transitional period, the government is not really in any position to take such initiatives. Field Marshal Tantawi et al have seemingly assumed the rank of authority as though they themselves were elected into office as a result of the ousting of their former leader who supposedly, in their eyes, paved the way for Martial Law.

Another grave concern is that which involved the violent clashes between the people and military outside the Israeli embassy on the Day of Nakba. It was almost as though Mubarak was still flowing through the veins of the soldiers who took it upon themselves to openly fire rubber bullets and throw tear gas at unarmed civilians. 353 people were injured on the first day with guns pointed at children forced to lie on their stomachs and smacked on the back of their head if any looked up while shots were fired into the air. These scenes frightfully mirrored those in the early days of Tahrir square.

Even more alarming however, is the growing tension of sectarian violence that has resumed as it was left off early January as though the revolution never really happened at all. The horrific Church burning incident in Imbaba and the Maspero thuggery suspected to be the work of the Salafis, begs the question, are these infiltrators trying to take advantage of the fragile situation to establish Egypt as an Islamic state especially when the interim government is preoccupied with their own policies and foreign affairs?

What would that entail for the future of Egypt if it were in fact to implement Shariah Law? The Coptic Orthodox have clearly expressed their grave concern about this possibility. Even Livni, the former Israeli Foreign Minister expressed her government's stance on strongly opposing a neighbouring Islamic state.

It is quite unfortunate that regardless of the countless centuries that Islam ruled the land and protected the "People of the Book" when they had called for aid against the barbaric rule of the Byzantine Empire, the native Coptic Egyptians have indeed forgotten what it was like to be ruled with protection rather than treated as lower-class citizens by the general exclusions of the higher class Greek-speaking occupiers from Constantinople in the early 7th century.

During the times of Islamic law, the ruling Muslim authority charged taxes to Egyptians in order to build schools, pave roads and even Churches to improve their way of live - a concept which was alien to them at the time because it drastically contrasted the tyrannical Byzantine rule. That very philosophy is in fact what shapes the modern world as we see it today. This system of rule caused a rippling effect in Europe with feudal systems subsequently being abolished because the people saw endless benefits in establishing a tax system whereby each citizen claimed their own portion of land rather than having the King claim ownership over all property, including their wives.

Unfortunately Coptic memories of burning Churches are fresher than those of Churches being built for their benefit, and what is worse is that their association with this "authoritative" religion has been narrowed down to a minority of extremist Salafis who don't seem to understand that their is no possible benefit in having a large rift from sectarian violence - especially when their ancestor's beliefs completely opposed this behaviour.

The seemingly more moderate, responsible and organised "modern-day" Muslim Brotherhood is more akin to the golden days gone by when respect was shown regardless of theological differences, especially because their party comprises of well educated intellectuals. Their maturity was evident when they did not try to hijack the protests, and moreover, their current reluctance to apply for candidacy in the September elections show they actually have genuine interests for a better Egypt without necessarily having an Egypt ruled by their specific law.

Considering these qualities for such a strong political party is now more important than ever because the revolution has opened up endless possibilities where one could very well be witness to an Egyptian rule by Islamic jurisprudence, if indeed the Muslim Brotherhood do choose to run for elections.

This does not necessarily mean that it will happen, but if it did, would it really be a horrible thing? Islamic law has shown for many centuries that it can successfully govern the country and help it flourish. This is in complete contrast to a potential extremist takeover, and the two should not be confused.

Putting this into context, and considering that Egypt is essentially a Muslim majority, if democracy prevails and the majority want an Islamic state, then the Egyptian people will have to warm up to that possibility.

However, the more probable scenario of course is that a secular government will be established for the simple reason that protests were carried out by the common people striving for freedom out on the streets: men, women, and children; Christians, Muslims and Atheists. There were no Islamic movements; just a people who wanted their freedom back.

Whoever gets chosen based on the people’s consensus will be the rightful leader of the country regardless of what faction they represent, and regardless of what policies external governments believe should be established.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Mubarak's Regime Exposed

Mubarak was considered a "friendly dictator" in the eyes of the West. The contradiction found in that statement begs the question: what type of allies do Western countries choose to deal with?

Many claimed Egypt was a "stable" country simply because it did not declare war on the West, and namely on the state of Israel. However this impression of stability was not echoed by the people of Egypt.

The Egyptian economy was plummeting, unemployment was soaring and poverty was becoming unbearable. Egyptians weren't even allowed to have gatherings of more than a dozen people out for a night on the town. When it came to political views, no one could dare question decisions made in parliament otherwise they would be imprisoned without legal proceedings, or worse, tortured by electrical rods and raped by police apparatus if there was suspicion of activity that would threaten the regime's image.

While some political prisoners have been missing for more than five years without their family knowing of their whereabouts, others have survived the "torture chambers" of the State Security headquarters to tell the tail. One such man, Adel Reda, recalled his nine months detained:
"I saw people's nails being ripped out and people hung from the ceiling by their arms or legs... They would throw our food in sand before giving it to us and splash us with cold water day and night. Sometimes it was so dark you couldn't see your hands."
When asked whether he was ever allowed access to an attorney, Reda raised his hands heavenward and replied: "My lawyer was God."

The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, an independent nonprofit organization, puts the number of political prisoners at around 17,000. Official government figures are much lower, an estimated 500.

A Guardian correspondent, Robert Tait, amidst the events of the revolution itself was detained, then later gave a detailed account of what the police were actually capable of doing:
"'Get the electric shocks ready. This lot are to be made to really suffer,' a guard said as a new batch of prisoners were brought in.'Why did you do this to your country?' a jailer screamed as he tormented his victim. 'You are not to speak in here, do you understand?' one prisoner was told. He did not reply. Thump. 'Do you understand?' Still no answer. More thumps. 'Do you understand?' Prisoner: 'Yes, I understand.' Torturer: 'I told you not to speak in here,' followed by a cascade of thumps, kicks, and electric shocks."
During Mubarak's reign, the security forces would go as far as to imprison journalists of private news agencies if there were reports released of Mubarak's admission into hospital because of an illness. This was subsequent to his dramatic illness of March 2010 when people started questioning who his successor would be. The portrayal of his strength and his apparent immortality needed to be upheld at all cost.

The government even wanted to show the world its democratic capabilities by allowing an opposition leader, Ayman Nour, to run for election. The elections were rigged with 90% in favour of Mubarak, and Nour was later imprisoned.

During this regime, the US government sent financial aid to the Mubarak government which averaged just over $2 billion every year since 1979, according to a Congressional Research Service report. That was the year Egypt struck a peace treaty with Israel following the Camp David Peace Accords. This US foreign aid is the second largest in the world, only shadowed by the aid to their neighbouring state of Israel.

Military aid alone totalled over $1.3 billion annually in a stream of funding known as Foreign Military Financing, according to the State Department.

With this, the government was able to maintain a stronghold on its people with the elite businessmen of Egypt ruling the country alongside Mubarak.

The US government had kept this dictator as an ally for thirty years knowing that this financial aid was a large contributor to the sustained power that allowed the violation of human rights to continue.

What was obvious, however, was that this "friendly dictator" was no longer wanted by the Egyptians, and there was no price tag the US could offer against a people yearning for their freedom.


When these pro-democracy protesters went to the streets in numbers never seen before, they managed to maintain themselves well. They were out on the streets of Egypt handing out bread to those in need; they had been voluntarily picking up rubbish to keep their streets clean; and they had been self-appointing themselves police to protect the museum as well as religious places of worship.
The utmost care was taken to ensure that their beloved country would not be corrupted by their own revolution. They proved that the notion that revolution could only be carried out with violence was only just a myth.


These are the freedom fighters the West keep writing books on and making movies about, and yet this shining moment in Egyptian history wasn't in their best interest.

Today, while the people of Egypt rejoice, the US and Israel voice their concern about the "stability" of the region now that Mubarak is gone, claiming that "there had been peace because of Mubarak".

If "stability" is the silencing of millions of people so that they can turn a blind eye on the genocide occurring in their neighbouring state of Israel, then "convenience" is perhaps a more suitable word of choice.

But the convenience of one state cannot come at the expense of the livelihood of another.

The essence of democracy has been forgotten by the West. They have forgotten that democracy is for all, regardless of what they prefer for others.

And Egypt wasn't able to sustain itself in those dire circumstances any longer.

[Reference: guardian]
[Reference: mh]

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Mémoires of the Egyptian Revolution

Dedicated to all the amazing Egyptian men and women behind the peaceful protests.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Mubarak steps down

Jubilation in Tahrir Square the moment Mubarak steps down... A moment to be remembered in the history of mankind:

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Potential Opposition Leaders

The following list of potential opposition leaders has been comprised based on sources from the Guardian, BBC and Al-Jazzera:

  • El-Baradei (National Association for Change)
  • Israa Abdel-Fattah (April 6 Movement)
  • Essam El Erian (Muslim Brotherhood)
  • Al-Sayed al-Badawi (WAFD Party)
  • Ayman Nour (AL GHAD Party)
  • Abdel-Rahman Youssef (Youth Movement)
  • Amr Moussa (Arab League)

    Saturday, February 5, 2011

    Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

    Karim Sabet, had this to say on his blog during the January 25th revolution in Egypt:
    "A large group of the ones organizing them (the protests) yesterday were people in galabeyas and long beards shouting 'Al Jihad fe Sabeel Allah (Jihad in the name of Allah), you have to continue fighting...'

    NO! This is NOT why we were in the streets on Friday being tear gassed and dodging rubber bullets and it is not why we have been going to Tahrir everyday to be heard. The reason why this revolt went through and became successful was because it was not religiously or politically charged. Don’t let the ones who have been watching this unfold in the shadows ride this wave and hijack what you have been fighting for."
    He indirectly mentions that Ekhwan el Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) have started to hijack the protests, and I couldn't help but reply to his comments.

    The Muslim Brotherhood have been on the government's black-list for many years now trying to protest the very same way the rest of Egypt have been in the past week, and have done so long before January the 25th. They are looked at as "evil Islamists" because that is what the government has portrayed them to be, regarless of how moderate they actually are.

    If the government had any significant authority during these protests, all pro-democracy demonstrators would be considered radical just like they were, and no doubt dealt with in the same way the Muslim Brotherhood were treated.

    There is nothing wrong with an Islamic group fighting for the same cause of freedom. That is the whole point of unity, regardless of what they chant.

    If there are Egyptians today that have resentment against Islamic organisations then they should keep it to themselves. The Egyptian people are one, united under the same banner and believing in the same cause. That is what should be taken at face value rather than concentrating on petty little differences by trying to vent disapproval of people crying for freedom in the name of their own Lord.

    We shouldn't forget what we are doing here, and concentrate on the unifying force that is the Egyptian people of all walks of life, believing in many diverse faiths.

    I'm sure we can all tolerate that... Otherwise what is the point of protesting?

    Why were news reporters being attacked in Egypt?

    Journalists have mainly been targeted by pro-government "protesters" (or thugs if you like).

    There are plenty of articles and comments from the Guardian UK, BBC, Reuters and Al-Jazeera to confirm that the moment the pro-Mubarak group entered the barricade in Tahrir square, they had two targets: firstly, any foreigners carrying cameras and voice recorders and secondly, the peaceful protesters.

    Some of these pro-government "protesters" were detained and found to be in possession of their ID cards that prove that they were in fact the police force that withdrew from the crowds on Friday last week.


    This was not a spontaneous reaction, rather a well drilled, well organised series of attacks targeted specifically at the media and the peaceful protesters.

    There were also reports of the main lights in the square turned off during the night.

    History has shown that these are common protocols when a larger group or organisation is preparing to do a horrific injustice to innocent people without any witnesses from the international community.

    This “horrific injustice” may have just been the subsequent attacks made on the protesters directly after the attacks on journalists during the same assault.



    That failed on two accounts: the pro-Mubarak thugs were not able to force the protestors to retreat, but also that media footage managed to be filtered out and released showing the despicable acts made by the plain-clothed government officials.

    [Image source: http://wl-tsunami.posterous.com/-identification-cards-confiscated-from-pro-mu]

    Wednesday, February 2, 2011

    How do we communicate if the Internet goes down?

    This question was actually asked at quora.com and I had answered it as I will here with a simple counter question:

    How have human beings been able to communicate for thousands of years before the internet was born?

    I'm sure we all remember how we used to call our friends on a land-line (yes, a term that is slowly being forgotten) and told each other when and where to meet for a specific event. If there was a large number of people attending, we would make sure we kept our paper-based address book close at hand in case there was a phone booth (a what?) near the rendezvous point. All it did was force us to be a little more co-ordinated with our meeting arrangements. If someone was late, they were left behind, it was as simple as that.

    Regarding the convenience of such a technology as the internet, the only difference is that it has made us more flexible in cancelling, postponing or setting a new meeting point... conveniences I'm sure we could live without if we absolutely had to.

    Looking back at the Egyptian protests (which is a perfect example of the new age being forced to live two decades behind its time), the worst mistake that the Mubarak regime did was take that modern form of communication away from the people.
    The only effect that had was to force the people out onto the streets to vent their anger and frustration towards the government directly rather than behind a computer screen.



    [Image source: http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/10/]