tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225763752024-03-23T11:25:35.668-07:00The Egyptian ObserverThis website is intended to provide a secular perspective on the current political situation in Egypt and Palestine/Israel. Furthermore, it will observe and discuss prominent global issues in all areas of the world affecting predominantly Muslim and Arab countries.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1158096326218564832006-09-12T14:25:00.000-07:002007-02-16T06:20:30.053-08:00The World Today And Remembering 9/11Memory is a powerful tool of introspection, a medium for vicarious voyages and both a route for melancholic nostalgia and euphoric reminiscence. It has helped me reconstruct the days of those terrible events back in September. I knew where I was, what I did the whole day and discussions which I had with my parents – so vividly. <br /><br />Five years ago yesterday, I remember being awoken from my slumber to a surreal dreamy-like chatter from my parents in Arabic. I was only five days shy of starting my orientation at the University of Chicago. My parents and I were staying at a nearby rented apartment close to the university campus. We had taken an American Airlines flight from San Francisco to Chicago on the eve of September 11th 2001. <br /><br />“America is being hit! One of the World Trade Centers in New York is burning…” is what I heard my parents discussing. Having had a mediocre nights sleep due to chest wheezes and allergies, I disregarded the fact that it was 8 am CT and jumped out of bed only to see United Airlines Flight 175 crash in to the second World Trade Center tower almost 3 minutes later. <br /><br />The whole day was incredibly surreal. My family and I were contemplating the perpetrators, but most importantly discussing the repercussions. Thankfully, having been admitted to an incredible liberal and intellectual university, I came under no scrutiny as an Arab. <br /><br />September 11th opened my eyes to a new reality and to the “War of the 21st Century.” The 20th century witnessed a long, draining list of battles most notably WWI, WWII and the Cold War. On the other hand, the War of the 21st Century was to be something no government or nation-state has ever experienced – a war of ideas and principles. The ideals behind democracy and freedom (as is defined in the West and the US) have geared their heads on to a clash with a misconstrued version of Islamic jihad. <br /><br />So what is the world like today? <br /><br />The world remains replete with hatred and tension. The US refuses to understand the roots of the terrorism problem, al-Qaeda continues with its fascist ideologies and the cleavages between the West and the East is constantly growing. More people have been innocently slain during this battle of ideas in all corners of the world: from London to Madrid to Palestine. <br /><br />Palestine remains stateless while Israel continues its state-sponsored brutality and the presence of American troops in Iraq has encouraged more sectarian bloodshed and divided the region. <br /><br />Iran remains the only true state which seeks to challenge Israel and the United States (the country’s official rhetoric from Ahmadinejad has been indicative), while Syria’s draconian regime (supporting Iran and Hezbollah) has remained quiet in the background yet an instigator of further antagonism. <br /><br />All summer long, Lebanon had been the playground of the IDF and Hezbollah’s militants while Russia and China play power politics diplomacy with the US a la the Cold War. <br /><br />The world still remains at grave danger post 9/11. This is certainly not a fatalistic, pessimistic perspective yet the truth. Osama Bin Laden and his right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri remain at large, more importantly their ideology has been spreading like fire. <br /><br />Al-Qaeda copycat zealots have caused further security breaches around the world with amateurish-style bombing techniques (i.e. such as the recently foiled plot to bomb US-bound airplanes from the UK) and have caused major efficiencies in traveling and any joys derived from a globalizing world. <br /><br />What should one expect after the 10th anniversary of September 11? <br /><br />Will my decade anniversary post contain such abysmal observations or will a new American administration along with its Western allies start to think about their actions and the root of the problem? Will Palestine finally gain its own state and live in some sort of peace next to Israel? Will the Islamic fascists finally come to a halt? Will some sort of harmonious survival exist or will people continue to live in fear and hatred? <br /><br />When will all this just stop?The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1155074427705913042006-08-08T14:58:00.000-07:002006-09-04T12:43:22.100-07:00Close Observations and Long Deliberations: Hezbollah, Israel and Lebanon<em>Sincere apologies for my remiss; work, time off and the unprecedented wave of events has abated my frequency of posts.</em><br /><br />It’s been almost one month since Israel started its bombing and ground force campaign against Lebanon. The estimates of those killed during the attacks has varied, the IDF has confirmed 98 Israeli citizens and soldiers have died while the Lebanese authorities have placed a conservative estimate of 750 civilians (with some sources reporting as high as 900). <br /><br />For the last few weeks, these are the observations which have recurred or have been reinforced in my mind:<br /><br />1) Hezbollah is the only true Arab organization (pseudo state actor) which has put up a formidable resistance against Israel since the 1980s. <br /><br />2) Hezbollah has made the puppet leaders of the Arab world (i.e. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan and King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia) look shameful in the eyes of their citizens as they remain idle and acquiesce to Israel’s aggression.<br /><br />3) Hezbollah has started to gain more support among skeptical Lebanese citizens as the savior, guardian of Lebanon per se and not the instigator of violence (however the opposite is also true and still exists). Hezbollah’s popularity has also increased among Michel Aoun's <em>Tayyar Wataniya al-Hur</em>, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) since the FPM has been welcoming Shia refugees in to their homes and supporting them. <br /><br />4) Hezbollah has been able to inflict more damage on Israel and IDF than previously anticipated. Hezbollah’s arsenal has proven to be more destructive than had been initially calculated. <br /><br />5) The war looks like an adapted version of Vietnam minus the jungles. In addition to the difficult terrain, the true difference is that this time the war is taking place in the Middle East with much more sophisticated guerilla warfare. <br /><br />6) The asymmetric war has frustrated Israel who has inflicted a much higher fold of citizen casualties than Hezbollah fighters – this has been the protagonist in fueling opposition to the war (i.e. the bombing in Qana dubbed Qana II after Israel bombed the same area during the 1980s). <br /><br />7) The Bush administration has absolutely no idea what is truly going on within Lebanon’s borders and in the region on the whole. It is easy for them to support Israel in its fight against ‘terrorism.’ In fact this has been the easiest way out for the Bush administration in justifying its acts as well as those of Israel. <br /><br />8) A ceasefire is essential at this point, however Israel will not stop until it feels it has disarmed Hezbollah.<br /><br />9) It is difficult to defeat Hezbollah since the organization is an ‘idea’ a ‘concept’ and an ‘outlet’ for resisting Israel. This implies that even if Hezbollah is defeated militarily, the legacy and the support the organization has will live on and a new Hezbollah will surface with a vengeance, more powerful than ever (i.e. a la al-Qaeda and Zarqawi in Iraq). <br /><br />What next?<br /><br />A UN backed ceasefire will take place sooner or later and it is merely a matter of time. Hassan Nasrallah has publicly stated through Hezbollah’s owned broadcasting station al-Manar that if Israel’s halts the shelling, Hezbollah will stop as well – a simple tit for tat. <br /><br />Lebanon will have years of rebuilding to come. The 1980s civil war was obviously much more detrimental however the damage the country has inflicted has been absolutely disastrous. The war will also leave room for a ‘reshuffling’ of sectarian order and hierarchy – a little early to determine the ultimate outcome since it rests on Hezbollah’s residual influence (i.e. post-war mortem analysis). <br /><br />The geo-politics of the region will certainly change. A peacekeeping force will probably be deployed in Southern Lebanon in order to patrol the border and maintain order. Ehud Olmert has sarcastically stated that Lebanon’s voluntary decision to send 15,000 troops to help patrol is “interesting,” highlighting the lack of responsibility he places on the Lebanese government. Granted Syria stays out of the war militarily, Bashar al-Assad could find this a golden opportunity to extend his umbrella of influence back in Lebanon after Syrian troops were kicked out after the Cedar Revolution of 2004 and the assassination of former Lebanese prime-minister Rafik Hariri in February of 2005. <br /><br />Israel is frustrated and has severed a blow to its confidence. The war has fueled more anger towards it as well as the US and the UK since they are the only three countries which continue to support the war and believe that a premature ceasefire would only make things worse.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1155674493803333132006-08-15T13:35:00.000-07:002006-08-24T19:03:30.846-07:00Status quo ante bellum: A Possibility In Lebanon?A ceasefire has finally taken place.<br /><br />Regardless, Hezbollah and the IDF still fired against one another in ‘lighter’ skirmishes post the 0500 GMT deadline yesterday. In fact Sunday night and early Monday morning saw the most intense fighting between both sides as they sought to inflict more damage before the ceasefire was to take effect. <br /><br />The <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4789569.stm">‘official’</a> end of the war brought detrimental economic, civilian and infrastructural damage to both sides. According to the Lebanese government, 1,071 Lebanese have been killed (mostly civilians). On the other hand, the news agencies estimate conservatively that 900 Lebanese have been killed and place an upper aggressive estimate of 1,150. The Israeli side witnessed the death of 114 IDF soldiers and 43 civilians. <br /><br />Even worse, according to the UNHCR and the Lebanese government, 700,000 – 900,000 Lebanese have been displaced. Human Rights Watch estimates 500,000 Israelis have been displaced as well. The actual 34 days of fighting cost Lebanon a conservative estimate of $2.5 billion in losses and $1.1 billion was incurred by the state of Israel. <br /><br />However, the costs are just beginning to kick in. Lebanon’s foreign real estate investments as well as the income continuously derived from tourism have plummeted. Moreover, the ‘expected’ income from these two sources for the following years has also plummeted. <br /><br />The results of the conflict:<br /><br />1) The passing of UN resolution <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4785963.stm">1701</a> which called for a peacekeeping force stationed in southern Lebanon (15,000 Lebanese army personnel and 15,000 UN troops). <br /><br />2) Israel did not accomplish its goal of ‘eliminating’ Hezbollah. In fact, in many respects Hezbollah has gained more credibility as a viable political and military power in Lebanon. <br /><br />3) Contrary to the previous point, it is still unclear what will become of Hezbollah’s position within Lebanon’s borders. They have angered many Shia businessmen who had poured millions of dollars in investments around the country. <br /><br />4) The Lebanese population (to an extent) remains split with regards to their position on Hezbollah. The poor echelons of society see Hezbollah as their liberator and savior whereas on the contrary the richer niches of society see peace with Israel and the absence of violence more beneficial to their well being (regardless of their sectarian affiliation – even Shia). <br /><br />5) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been greatly criticized in the Knesset by both the Labor and Likud parties for various reasons. Firstly, he initiated a conflict which Israel did not finish and was not able to complete in a timely manner and instead wasted the lives of the civilians and of the IDF. Secondly, he was criticized for not being tougher with Hezbollah thus achieving the government’s goal of incapacitating the group and halting all future threat to Israel.<br /><br />6) Hezbollah has gained further support from Syria and Iran who rejoiced after Hezbollah’s resistance against Israeli forces and their ability to inflict substantial damage on Israeli soil. Both countries considered the battle a victory for Hezbollah <br /><br />7) The war was overall a complete waste with lives lost, economies tarnished and no peace agreement signed. However, it did send very powerful messages which have rippled across the Arab world and as far West as the United States. Ahmadinejad and Assad embodied such a message in their post-bellum speeches, <br /><br /><blockquote>“[Israel] is in front of an historic crossroads — either it [Israel] moves toward peace and gives back rights or faces constant instability until a generation comes and puts an end to the issue”</blockquote><br />Hezbollah is much more powerful than Israel previously anticipated and as I mentioned in my previous post, the crux of its foundation relies on an ‘idea’ and a ‘concept’ of resistance which will continue to prevail. <br /><br />8) The apathy and acquiescence of neighboring Arab governments cannot continue. The conflict proved that one can certainly not rely on the West and especially the United States to find a solution to the overall Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as the general hatred towards the state of Israel. Leaders of the Arab world must take a more proactive and pragmatic approach to the situation and most importantly need to decide which side they belong to; in this case among Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Iran – quite a decision to be made. <br /><br />The status quo ante bellum in Lebanon? Not for a while.<br /><br />Lebanon has much work to do to reach its position prior to July 12th. More important than the mere status quo is the assurance that security will be maintained. While Hezbollah’s future remains somewhat esoteric at this point, the current situation within Lebanon’s borders is floating on a sponge which is willing to absorb a multiplicity of changes such as the:<br /><br />• Empowerment of Hezbollah politically<br />• Weakening of Hezbollah politically<br />• Reintroduction of Syria in Lebanese politics<br />• Repulsion of Syria from Lebanese politics<br />• Shifting of relations among the sectarian lines within LebanonThe Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1153112823972839362006-07-16T21:51:00.000-07:002006-07-25T01:20:00.810-07:00A Proxy War: The Israeli-anti-Israeli DebacleLebanon has become a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/16/mideast/index.html">battlefield.</a> <br /><br />The past few days have witnessed continued bombings and tit-for-tat between the IDF Hezbollah’s militants in Beirut.<br /><br />My friend <a href="http://lebop.blogspot.com/">Lebanon Profile</a> is currently in Beirut and has been writing extensively on the day to day events. Hezbollah unleashed its biggest and deadliest missile in to Israel today killing eight people in the major port city of Haifa. The Israeli cabinet decided to immediately step up their military campaign in order to drive Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon.<br /><br />Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz stated that, “for those who live in the Hezbollah neighborhood in Beirut and feel protected – the situation has changed.” The crisis has showed no signs of abatement or de-escalation – it has been progressively exacerbating. <br /><br />Amr Moussa, the current Secretary-General of the League of Arab States stated that the Middle East process is ‘dead.’ The situation is a complete catastrophe for the region.<br /><br />The IDF has claimed that rockets fired in to Israel have been built by the Syrians and the Iranians (the recent missile fired on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/world/middleeast/17mideast.html?hp&ex=1153195200&en=5f23b85fa2989853&ei=5094&partner=homepage">Haifa</a> was allegedly a Syrian-produced model of a Iranian Fajr-3). If credible evidence ascertains such claims this would open a new chapter in the history of the region. Syria has been suspected in former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s death in 2005 and Iran has been unsuccessfully pressured by the international community to halt its uranium enrichment program. <br /><br />If Syria and Iran are implicated, this would be a great opportunity for the US to intervene. Despite the shortcomings in Iraq, the US still has its eyes set on Iran and Syria. Both countries have caused trouble for Israel and they’ve maintained a hard-line attitude towards the West and Ahmadinejad of Iran has been notorious for using ranting rhetoric. <br /><br />The situation in Lebanon has been disheartening and has cast a dark shadow over the future of security in the Middle East as well as any chance of establishing a Palestinian state. As the situation continues to exacerbate, more refined observations began to surface:<br /><br />1. The rhetoric exchanged between Israel and Hezbollah has proven that a ceasefire can only take place if a mutual agreement is to be arranged (i.e. exchange the soldiers for prisoners)<br />2. Sectarianism has become more prominent among Lebanese political factions with a formidable size of the population supporting Hezbollah’s retaliatory attacks against Israel<br />3. As per Moussa’s statement during the recent Arab League meeting, any chances of peace in the Middle East have been curtailed and possibly rendered merely a fantasy<br />4. Arabs across the Middle East are frustrated of their respective government’s apathy and nonchalance towards Israeli aggression. Regardless of the peace treaties, Egyptian and Jordanian citizens (for example) express agony and anger towards the Israelis yet their governments cannot take hard-lined decisions towards the situation (vis-à-vis Iran which saw Ayatollah Khomeini praise Hezbollah’s resistance). <br />5. Pan-Arabism has failed in 1960s and the current situation has revealed its absolute fantasy – it will never work.<br /><br />What should an Egyptian/Palestinian/Jordanian think of this situation? These are some of the sentiments:<br /><br />1. Anger towards Israeli aggression<br />2. Anger towards Hezbollah’s hastiness and irresponsibility<br />3. Anger towards the destruction of Lebanon <br />4. Anger towards Arab reaction<br />5. Disappointment of Arab response<br />6. Anger towards historical negligence of the Palestinians by the Arabs<br />7. Anger towards viewing the Palestinians as a liability among certain Arab governments<br />8. Anger towards Islamic extremism, fanaticism and fascism<br />9. Approval of general European government opinion (i.e. France, Russia and EU) towards Israeli aggression<br />10. Disgust towards the US’ laissez-faire attitude with a disregard to Lebanon’s destruction<br />11. Approval of the G8’s stance on the situation<br /><br />A ceasefire HAS to take in to effect to give both sides ample time to think and resort to the negotiating table. Prisoners must be returned from both sides and Israel needs to halt its aggressive and unilateral approach to the problem as it has so far achieved absolutely nothing.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1152825105708742102006-07-13T14:06:00.000-07:002006-07-17T11:31:21.780-07:00Lebanon In Turmoil Déjà vu?<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/mideast/index.html">Lebanon is currently under attack.</a><br /><br />After Hezbollah abducted Ehud Goldvasser, 31, from Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, from the Haifa suburb of Kiryat Motzkin, Israel decided to take more serious measures – targeting Lebanon and the Lebanese government.<br /><br />Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International Airport was forced to close after Israeli fighter jets hit all three of its runways, leaving huge craters that rendered them completely unusable. All flights had been diverted (mostly to Cyprus) and all other scheduled flights have been grounded trapping swarms of tourists vacationing in Lebanon for the summer. <br /><br />Hezbollah retaliated (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178058.stm">although they deny their involvement</a>) and fired rockets against the Israeli port city of Haifa which is only 30 km (18 miles) away from the Lebanese border suggesting that Hezbollah potentially possesses rockets which have a much further range than previously thought. Israel responded only an hour ago by hitting fuel tanks in the airport causing them to explode like fireballs. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is certain that the Haifa rockets came from Lebanon and from Hezbollah specifically and they place the blame on the escalation of violence on the guerillas who attacked inside Israel yesterday killing 8 soldiers and capturing Goldvasser and Regev. So far, 50 Lebanese civilians have died during the Israeli raids and most of them were citizens. <br /><br />In the eyes of the Israelis, since Hezbollah has political leverage in the country and the Lebanese government, this implies that the government is to blame as well. However, Lebanese Information Minister Ghazi Aridi denounced the attacks and called for a cease-fire stating that the Lebanese government has nothing to do with Hezbollah’s attacks. <br /><br />My previous two posts have in essence foreshadowed the current events and thus this is not surprising. However Israel’s retaliation on Beirut and on its airport is grief striking, moreover Israel have also blockaded Lebanese ports and have shelled other Lebanese towns. Israeli jets have also bombed Lebanese army air bases at Rayak and Baalbek TV transmitter in the Bekaa Valley. <br /><br />The region is on the brink of full-fledged war.<br /><br />Lebanese citizens are immediately reminded of the civil war in the 1980s and Israel’s occupation in 1982, they are stocking up on food supplies and heading to their other residences in the mountains – away from Beirut. Israel has been dropping Arabic leaflets in Beirut warning citizens to evacuate the southern suburbs of Beirut (essentially the areas concentrated with Hezbollah’s operations/bases). <br /><br />The following are several observations made:<br /><br />1) The situation could escalate very quickly despite efforts from Hezbollah to de-escalate. This could further incite Hamas to be involved from the Gazan side and create a ‘real’ two-front war.<br /><br />2) Rhetoric of violence will continue to originate from Iran and Ahmadinejad. Iran, a Shiite Muslim state helped create Hezbollah under Ayatollah Khomenini. Such rhetroic will certainly incite further antagonism.<br /> <br />3) It will be much easier for Israel to place the blame on Syria and Iran for their military involvement with Lebanon and in planning the organized abduction of the two Israeli soldiers.<br /><br />4) Israel has acted completely irrationally which the governments of France, Russia and members of the EU highly condemning the attacks and stating that the response was disproportionate. <br /><br />5) Israeli soldiers have been killed/captured during clashes between Hezbollah, Hamas and the IDF in the past and yet Israeli retaliation has never been this severe. <br /><br />6) The US might use current events as an excuse to further pressure Iran and Syria and possibly use coercion (military or economic sanctions) against both of them. <br /><br />7) Israel has the Joker in its playing deck and is the only one capable of de-escalating and halting all the tit-for-tat. If they used the abduction of soldiers in Gaza and southern Lebanon as sparks to ignite the region then the controls are on one side of the playing field (i.e. if they eventually decided to light the cigarette, they should be the ones to extinguish it). <br /><br />8) Hezbollah will not negotiate with Israel and will only agree to release the soldiers for a prisoner exchange. <br /><br />9) Lebanese citizens are at the mercy of the Israelis and the stubbornness of Hezbollah. Syrian appointed President Emile Lahoud is a strong Hezbollah supporter and will not allow the Lebanese Army (who are weaker than Hezbollah) to stop the group’s activities. <br /><br />Hezbollah has acted irresponsibly and Israel responded irrationally and in an erratic manner. The situation is extremely delicate and can reverse years of Lebanese rebuilding and any wounds which might have healed from the civil war.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1152743951786303862006-07-12T15:34:00.000-07:002006-07-12T23:32:54.236-07:00Back to Tit-For-Tat and Quid Pro Quo: A Regional Intifada?Just weeks after Palestinian militants captured Israeli Cpl Gilad Shalit on June 25, Hezbollah (a shia Lebanese resistance group considered a source of terrorism by the United States and Israel) captured two more Israeli soldiers. In the process three Israeli soldiers were killed in crossfire as well as two Lebanese civilians during Israel’s retaliation. <a href=" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5173078.stm ">(The fighting is ongoing at this time)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-intifada.html">In my previous post</a>, I asked whether the Palestinians were inciting a third intifada. One can argue that the second intifada had not ended per se. However there is no doubt that a regional intifida has officially commenced, yet remains in its nascent stages.<br /><br />This has been Israel’s first incursion in to Lebanon since 2000. While the major offensive is taking place in Gaza, Israel continues to push in to Southern Lebanon at the same time facing a two front resistance. Hezbollah sought to capture the soldiers so that they could bargain their exchange for Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails. <br /><br />Tantalizing with Israeli borders and their posts has been a strategy used by all anti-Israeli resistances including Hezbollah and Hamas (as well as the PLO during the 1970s and 1980s launching attacks from Jordan and Lebanon). Since the Palestinians and their supporters have a much larger damage-infliction threshold than their Israeli counterparts, they have managed to obtain hefty concessions in the past. For example, Hezbollah captured three Israeli soldiers in 2000 and in exchange for their dead bodies (since the soldiers died during Hezbollah’s mission), Israel released 430 Palestinians and Lebanese held in Israel jails – quite a bargain. <br /><br />Israel is certainly making a statement with its recent incursions, it would do anything in its power (legal or illegal) to secure its borders and keep its population safe. The resistance (Hamas and Hezbollah) will continue to proceed with their missions regardless of international pressure as well as any retaliation from Israel – in fact the latter would probably incite the groups further (i.e. after the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004, Hamas gained even more momentum and power as opposed to losing its ground and becoming incapacitated). In essence, decapitation attacks against Palestinian militants and their supporters simply do not work – they backfire completely. Moreover, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has placed the blame on Beirut and the Lebanese government for Hezbollah’s actions since the group has political influence in the country. This has given Israel the right to proceed with its incursion since it is an invasion of its sovereignty by another nation-state (Lebanon). <br /><br />Hezbollah is concerned primarily with the security of Southern Lebanon and secondly with the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation. Hamas is concerned with the latter. The dilemma Palestinians face in Gaza and the West Bank is where to draw the line between moving on with their already damaged lives and continuing to resist Israeli occupation and liberating Palestine. Hamas and to an extent Hezbollah have already solved such a dilemma for them regardless of their wishes – continue to fight Israel. <br /><br />Olmert’s government should understand that using full fledged force in retaliation is futile on a wider perspective since Hamas and Hezbollah will simply come back stronger and more determined. Ideally, negotiations with Hamas would be ideal however last month’s capture of the Israeli soldier has exacerbated (or rather rendered improbable) that possibility since Hamas does not recognize Israel and sees that regaining back Palestine is impossible through negotiations. <br /><br />Both organizations will continue to blackmail Israel and use tit-for-tat and quid pro quo strategies to free their people from Israeli jails. Israel is not battling a simply weaker military adversary, it is battling an ideology far more powerful than anybody can perceive – it should find another solution to its problem. Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah stated that he does not intend to turn the region in to a full fledged war zone however if Israel desires so then that will take effect. Moreover, Israel has been using violent rhetoric which could very well blow the situation in to much larger proportions. Similar to the Gaza situation, a small incident could ignite the region (again a la WWI). <br /><br />Thus decisions and actions from both should be very calculated and careful, if not the region as the Israelis stated ‘would be turned back 20 years.’The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1152314773847698042006-07-07T16:20:00.000-07:002006-07-12T10:48:04.373-07:00The New Intifada?Palestinian-Israeli tensions have greatly exacerbated in recent weeks. After Palestinian militants captured Cpl Gilad Shalit on June 25, Israel launched its largest ground offensive in the Gaza strip. <br /><br />Israel’s reaction reveals some interesting observations. <br /><br />The US has used human rights abuses as excuses to intervene in conflicts around the world while at the same time satiating their ulterior self-interests. The US has done that exceptionally well in Iraq, claiming to remove a tyrannical regime while it accumulates petrodollars and oil supplies in the process. It appears that the US places a valuable premium on human life yet as argued in my previous post <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/06/iraq-no-chance-of-perpetual-peace.html">“Iraq: No Chance of Perpetual Peace?”</a> a double standard surfaces once Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Guantanamo are mentioned. <br /><br />A similar case goes for Israel. Israelis place a very high premium on human life (since the population of <a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html">6.2 million </a> is only slowing growing at a 1.18% population growth rate with approximately 20% of the population being Arab and 16% being Muslim – these figures exclude Gaza and the West Bank – and thus the country cannot afford to lose its citizens) and would make headlines for a single soldier captured. <br /><br />Or would they?<br /><br />In the past, there have been Israeli prisoners of war held by Palestinians for longer and under worse conditions yet Israel has not reacted the same way. It seems that the capturing of Shalit was merely a symbol of action, a spark (a la Franz Ferdinand’s assassination in June 1914 which sparked WWI) and an excuse for Israel to drive back in to Gaza. <br /><br />A major problem when discussing who’s to blame in this case rests on several factors:<br /><br />1) Where does the story start? Should one go back and assess Israel’s inhumane treatment of Palestinian women and children as well as those held in captivity or is it merely that Palestinians are savages and that the world needs to sympathize with the captured Israeli soldier and place the blame on the Palestinian Authority? Should one take the ‘easier’ way out and merely blame Hamas since they do not want to recognize Israel and continue to encourage militant attacks? Or should one step back and think why Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and try to dig deeper in to the reasons?<br /><br />2) Should one view the conflict in a quid pro quo manner? In other words, should an observer equate the Palestinian perpetrators to those of Israel and vice versa? How should standards be set? <br /><br />Israel has certainly gained incredible media attention for the captivity of the soldier. Despite the fact that acts of terror against Palestinians gain media attention, they are not of the same intensity as their Israeli counterparts. This is in part due to the general bias of the Western media towards Israel as well as Israel’s much lower damage-infliction threshold (i.e. they won’t tolerate large losses of their citizens and large infliction of damage on their society). <br /><br />On the other hand, Palestinians (with a 'nothing-to-lose-mentality') have a much larger damage-infliction threshold indicating that they will continue to fight Israel and lose thousands of their citizens (as martyrs) in order to establish a state and gain back the land which was rightfully theirs. <br /><br />The escalating events could very well trigger a third intifada, Israel needs to be very careful of their responses and Hamas should take up the offer of a roundtable discussion. Until then, the situation will continue to exacerbate and any progression made will be rendered entirely futile.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1150845973394210492006-06-20T16:16:00.000-07:002006-07-06T13:49:40.783-07:00Iraq: No Chance Of Perpetual Peace?In 1795, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peace">Immanuel Kant</a> wrote an essay with a ‘charter’ detailing the steps that should be taken for perpetual peace: <br /><br />1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War" <br />2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation" <br />3. "Standing Armies (fulltime professional soldiers) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished" <br />4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States" <br />5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State" <br />6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State" <br /><br />Three Definitive Articles would provide not merely a cessation of hostilities, but a foundation on which to build a peace.<br />1. "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican" <br />2. "The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States" <br />3. "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality" <br /><br />Kant’s general idea holds a close resemblance to modern democratic theory. In essence, his articles seem simple in theory yet they are certainly difficult to implement. <br /><br />The case of Iraq, an alleged attempt by the US to proliferate democratic ideals within a dictatorial ridden society has probably invalidated every step of Kant’s charter to perpetual peace. <br /><br />Steps 2, 3 and 6 of the aforementioned steps are relevant to the case of Iraq. All three have certainly been violated. Iraq is far from any chance of perpetual peace at this point. The recent events in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5098634.stm">Haditha</a> have yet again brought the US in the ‘wrong’ spotlight. Along with the Abu Ghraib incident, the US should start to be careful with its seemingly endless effort to ‘eradicate’ human rights abuses around the world when the country itself has been a perpetrator itself. <br /><br />The US administration is certainly not using Kant’s charter to perpetual peace as its guidance in Iraq. How long will it be? Does the US have a threshold? How will the international community react when the US continues to use its double standards in Iraq? In light of Abu Ghraib and Haditha, does the US really value human life the way they portray in the eyes of the public?The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1149283789385948152006-06-02T14:14:00.000-07:002006-06-14T09:41:09.913-07:00The ‘True’ Power Of OilThe world has shown its citizens the phenomena of ‘equilibrium’ and its alter ego ‘disequilibrium.’ Scientists have argued that nature is in equilibrium and mathematically in balance. In essence, nature strives to achieve equilibrium with what is naked to the human eye as well as what can actually be seen. <br /><br />On the other hand however man-made creations are not ‘in balance.’ Societies, institutions, governments and socio-political systems are far from being well poised, transparent and efficiently functioning. Whatever has been created by a mortal has failed to attain nature’s impeccable perfection. <br /><br />This is the certainly philosophical and in order to fully convey its essence, a pragmatic approach must be taken and an example illustrated. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/power-politics?method=22 ">‘Power politics’</a> (a man-made creation) refers to the military or economic threat used by nation-states to further their own interests. History has shown an abundance of examples, most notably the Cold War. <br /><br />Nevertheless, the irony of power politics is that contrary to the semantics of its name, there is an ‘implicit’ balance between the major powers of the world. The US has the world’s largest and strongest army and economy par none however its feebleness has recently came to the public sphere through its incredible reliance on a non-renewable energy source:<br /><br />Oil. <br /><br />The world’s economy relies heavily on oil however the US has (more than other country) revealed that it would take massive strides to secure a sufficient supply for its own health. The oxymoron in ‘power politics’ is that the US might not be as powerful after all. If one closely examines the list of the top oil producers in the world, an obvious yet nonetheless peculiar observation is made. <br /><br />The following are the top world oil producers in <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html">2004</a> (<a href="http://www.opec.org/aboutus/history/history.htm"> OPEC </a> members are in italic):<br /><br /><em>1) Saudi Arabia </em><br />2) Russia<br />3) United States<br /><em>4) Iran </em><br />5) Mexico<br />6) China <br />7) Norway<br />8) Canada<br /><em> 9) Venezuela </em><br /><em> 10) United Arab Emirates </em> <br />11) Kuwait<br /><em> 12) Nigeria </em> <br />13) United Kingdom<br /><em> 14) Iraq </em> <br /><br />The following are the world’s top oil net exporters in 2004:<br /><br /><em>1) Saudi Arabia </em><br />2) Russia<br /> 3) Norway<br /><em> 4) Iran </em><br /><em> 5) Venezuela </em><br /><em> 6) United Arab Emirates </em> <br />7) Kuwait<br /><em> 8) Nigeria </em> <br />9) Mexico<br /><em> 10) Nigeria </em><br /><em> 11) Iraq </em> <br /><em> 12) Libya </em><br />13) Kazakhstan<br />14) Qatar<br /><br />The countries aforementioned are all in the ‘watch-eye’ of the United States because of their oil producing and exporting capabilities. Here is a quick and succinct summary of their relationship with the US:<br /><br /><strong> Saudi Arabia:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Russia:</strong> US ally <em>with reservations and differences </em><br /><strong> Iran: </strong> US enemy and member of the ‘Axis of Evil’<br /><strong> Mexico:</strong> US ally <br /><strong> China:</strong> US <em> pseudo-ally with reservations and differences </em> <br /><strong> Norway:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Canada:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Venezuela:</strong> US enemy<br /><strong> United Arab Emirates:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Kuwait:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Nigeria:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> UK:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Iraq:</strong> Occupied by the US, unclassified<br /><strong> Algeria:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Libya:</strong> <em> Recent </em> US ally<br /><strong> Kazakhstan:</strong> US ally<br /><strong> Qatar:</strong> US ally<br /><br />Here is a more detailed alliance analysis with a categorical numerical value (1 = staunch ally and 8 = staunch enemy).<br /><br /><strong> Category 1:</strong> The UK, Norway and Canada can be categorized as staunch US allies. They are developed countries with economic and social systems similar to that of the US.<br /><br /><strong> Category 2:</strong> Mexico can be categorized as a close ally. President Vicente Fox and President Bush have had their differences especially regarding the recent illegal immigration debacle and Mexico’s role in illegal cross-border immigration in California. <br /><br /><strong> Category 3:</strong> Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Nigeria and Kazakhstan can be categorized as allies. As much as Saudi Arabia has aided the US in the first and second Gulf wars, the majority of the 9/11 perpetrators were of Saudi origin. The extreme doctrine of Wahabism has bred Muslim militant extremists. Moreover, there have been numerous attacks on US property within Saudi borders and there continues to be extreme misunderstanding of both countries’ respective cultures. The Arab countries are in essence mini US strongholds in the Gulf. The US has struck business deals with all four countries and has troops stationed in all of them. <br /><br /><strong> Category 4:</strong> Russia can be categorized as an ally on paper. A recent US News article about the G8 summit has revealed the many differences which continue to exist between both countries. Russia supports Hamas and has had diplomatic talks with Iran. In fact, Russia has offered to enrich uranium for Iran so that it could avoid any tensions and confrontations with the US. President Vladimir Putin is pro-democracy and anti-communist yet as Yuri Levada (Russia’s preeminent pollster) said, “we have democracy on paper. We hold elections and have a parliament, but there is no debate.”<br /><br /><strong> Category 5:</strong> China is in civil and diplomatic relations with the US. China remains communist, the antithesis of democracy and of the principles of the US government. There exists an abundance of differences between the two countries and with the ever-growing Chinese population and burgeoning economy China is certainly more of a threat to the US than it is a friend. <br /><br /><strong> Category 6:</strong> Libya and Algeria can be categorized as marginal allies. The US recently <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/15/libya/index.html"> restored </a> relations with Libya however the relationship is in its nascent stages. This was a strategic move by the US as the markets responded positively and oil prices decreased amid mediocre economic and inflation forecasts once Libya was removed off of the terrorist list. <br /><br /><strong> Category 7:</strong> Venezuela can be placed as an outright US enemy. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has gone on numerous rants against the US and the US deeply criticizes his dictatorial methods of ruling his country. There continues to be tension but the US has not threatened to use force against the country however has placed numerous sanctions in the past. <br /><br /><strong> Category 8:</strong> Iran is the prime US enemy at this point. Iran is a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’ (along with Iraq and North Korea) and continues to be a threat to the US because of its enrichment of uranium and its ‘alleged’ aspirations to develop nuclear weapons. <br /><br /><strong> Category 9:</strong> Iraq will remain unclassified for now. The new government is obviously pro-US (since it has been approved and backed by the US) however it has been completely incompetent in dealing with the ever rising sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Moreover, the country is in complete social and political anarchy that it is too early to decide its ultimate outcome – i.e. its perspective on its US and its position. <br /><br />Categories 3-9 are problematic in varying degrees. The implicit balance in power politics (and irony for that matter) is that over 90% of the top oil exporting countries in the world are either/and/or:<br /><br />1) Developing/ nascent economies<br /><br />2) Socialist/pseudo-dictatorial<br /><br />3) Political enemies of the US<br /><br />4) Arab (along with all the negative connotations it entails)<br /><br />5) Corrupt <br /><br />6) Represent the anti-Christ of democracy, civil liberties and freedom of rights<br /><br />7) Harbor terrorists, terrorist cells and religious extremism<br /><br />8) Large human rights perpetrators<br /><br />The US has attempted to deal with one country so far: Iraq. So far it has failed miserably. Are all these other countries under its nose? What is the US cooking for Venezuela? Will the US continue to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s repressive regime and the incredible record of human rights abuses? How will it face Chinese opposition in the future? <br /><br />How hypocritical is US foreign policy?<br /><br />It seems that the word ‘Oil’ trumps everything.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1149792664247956272006-06-08T11:45:00.000-07:002006-06-13T20:29:50.320-07:00A Diligent Decapitation Duty Destructively DoneAbu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s insurgency leader in Iraq has been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html">killed</a> by US airstrikes. <br /><br />Tips from Iraqi citizens coupled with a persistent effort from the US army have eventually led to his demise. Al-Zarqawi was responsible for a plethora of inhumane acts such as beheading American hostages and Iraqi citizens. He was also behind the horrific orchestrated attacks in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Amman_bombings">Amman’s hotels</a> last November. <br /><br />The US army and Iraqi citizens should certainly rejoice as his elimination marks a new turning point in the formation of the Iraqi state and modern Iraqi history. His elusions have finally ceased to exist. Al-Zarqawi, a Sunni himself encouraged attacks against the Shia majority and was the culprit in instigating further sectarian violence which brought Iraq on the brink of civil war. <br /><br />The consequences of al-Zarqawi’s death need to be carefully assessed.<br /><br />His termination immediately alleviated pressures off of the US economy and <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/30190F60-31B2-4DEC-B91C-A770496A1AD4.htm">drove oil prices down </a>. This further indicates how dependent the US economy has become on political events in the Middle East. As I’ve argued in my previous post <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/06/true-power-of-oil.html">‘The ‘True’ Power of Oil’</a> the US will take distant strides to secure sources of non-renewable energy and to continue to beef up its behemoth, consumer-hungry economy.<br /><br />Al-Zarqawi’s death might spur an internal internecine struggle within al-Qaeda’s ranks. Osama Bin Laden and other top figures will need to carefully select an eligible candidate to replace him as the new leader of the insurgency in Iraq. According to American and Iraqi officials and experts, an internal struggle is a likelihood which will continue to bring more bloodshed within the country’s borders. Al-Zarqawi has done an incredible job at maintaining the stamina of the insurgency and his followers have a seemingly infinite concessionary threshold. <br /><br />This threshold will prevail. According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-assess.html?hp&ex=1149825600&en=a0ab2f5a8156d92d&ei=5094&partner=homepage">Bruce Hoffman</a>, a terrorist expert at the Rand Corporation in Washington: <br /><br /><blockquote>“al-Zarqawi may be gone, but the conflagration that he set alight continues to burn. That is the reality. He has already set in motion powerful forces that won't necessarily stop just because he is dead.”</blockquote><br />The US’ experience with decapitation attacks has not had a successful history. On numerous occasions during the start of the war in March 2003, the US attempted to use decapitation airstrikes to target important Iraqi figure heads and had failed. Even after the capture of Saddam Hussein, the situation exacerbated. For a moment, the world including some Iraqi citizens contemplated whether Saddam’s brutal, dictatorial and draconic methods keep the country ‘stable.’ Such a contemplation was vis-à-vis the current situation which had paved the way for the insurgency and had rendered the country’s internal and external borders porous. <br /><br />Similar to the case of Saddam, the capture/decapitation of al-Zarqawi will (unfortunately) serve as an ephemeral symbol of success. The insurgency will retaliate in utter wrath and will seek to maintain their impetus. The insurgency’s decentralized nature has flabbergasted the US army within Iraq’s borders. As I argued in my recent post <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/06/enter-somalia.html">‘Enter Somalia’</a> al-Qaeda has been tantalizing America’s Achilles’ heel, carefully learning from the US’ gross failures in the past (such as Vietnam) and targeting their weaknesses with utter precision.<br /><br />Iraqi authorities should take a pro-active measure in ensuring that the insurgency’s activities are not blown out of proportion. Moreover, both Iraqi and American authorities should cautiously observe the struggle for his replacement and locate holes which might lead them to cripple the insurgency further. Time is of the essence at this point.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1148593638561901722006-05-25T14:45:00.000-07:002006-06-12T07:30:59.116-07:00Paradise Now? Eventually? Never?‘What should I do?’ ‘What should I do about the Israeli occupiers who took away everything from me?’ ‘Will blowing myself up persuade them to leave?’ ‘Is there another way – forcefully or by reconciliation – which would bring back what is rightfully mine?’<br /><br />Said and Khaled are two young Palestinian men in their late 20s/early 30s. They are also the protagonists of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445620/">Paradise Now</a>, the first Palestinian film to be nominated for an academy award. Subsistence living gets them through their quotidian life in whichever way possible. They live during a time of occupation, a time which has infringed upon their rights as human beings, a time which has destroyed their dignity and a time which has stolen their souls. <br /><br />Palestinians do not have many choices. Hearing the experiences of many people in Gaza and the West Bank as well as those of candid observers is utterly disheartening. Said and Khaled are the sine qua non of Palestinian youth, bitter yet smiling, apprehensive yet human at heart, revenge-greedy yet seeking a solution. They symbolize the Palestinian struggle and its seemingly never-ending fate. The schizophrenic dichotomies aforementioned are portrayed with immense precision in the film. Without doubt, the Palestinian people are classified as Third World (if not lower) and share characteristics similar to that of many poverty-stricken African countries. Moreover, they have incredibly high birth rates and death rates which has attributed to the progressive decrease in the average age of the population. Thus, the future of the Palestinian people falls directly in the hands of its youth, in the fate of those like Khaled and Said.<br /><br />In light of the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5015892.stm">recent tensions</a> between the militant factions of Fatah and Hamas, writing a reflection on the movie at this point is pertaining since it represents both struggles: that between the Israelis and Palestinians and that between different niches (on a political and social level) among Palestinian society.<br /><br />The film did an incredible job at discussing the morality behind undertaking suicide missions. If I blow myself up, will Angels really come down and take me straight to heaven? Will I die a martyr in the eyes of God? What will really happen? These are questions which were touched upon in the movie, forcing the audience to contemplate just like both Said and Khaled did. Director Hany Abu-Assad was very successful in transposing the clashes, the reluctance as well as the religious zeal which occurred in both Khaled and Said’s minds. These polarities were primarily depicted via the conduit of the movie’s screenplay. However, the normality of the numerous poignant conversations as well as the contemplations portrayed through the protagonists’ body language also served the same purpose.<br /><br />My criticism of the movie falls on the one significant facet of the plot. Towards the end of the film, Khaled decided to undertake the mission while Said opted out believing that there was another way to ultimately solve the problem. At the start of the film, it was vice versa, Khaled was initially reluctant to commit ‘martyrdom’ but his opinions were morphed once he started to remember how his father betrayed his people and collaborated with the Israelis. Although Abu-Assad wanted to integrate the internal struggles which plagued the minds of young Palestinians, it seemed that Khaled’s decision to follow through with the mission was purely for rectification purposes. He wanted to undo what his father had done, he sought to remove any vendettas and grudges which might have been held against him (since he is his father’s son). In essence, this completely detracted away from his preliminary reason of undertaking the mission; out of desperation, lack of choice and helplessness. These reasons are the quintessential ‘thought rationale’ which the Western world (especially the Israelis) need to comprehend. <br /><br />In my opinion, Paradise Now addressed many questions for non-Muslims viewers with regards to the specificities of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Nonetheless, there remains a continued brewing of debate among Muslims as to whether the suicide missions in Palestine are ‘eligible’ for martyrdom in the eyes of God. It was certainly not the scope of the movie to ‘solve’ or provide interpretations on that issue. Regardless, the crux of the film is about humanity and morality – two fundamental factors which governments/persons of influence and heads of state have started to overlook in many struggles around the world.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1148401980508692342006-05-23T09:30:00.000-07:002006-06-05T19:55:15.593-07:00The Power Of Rhetoric: Mubarak’s Wake Up CallGamal Mubarak, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s son made a covert trip to the White House on May 12th. The intent of the secretive trip was not initially understood and the talks with President Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice seemed to be quite strategic given the US’ criticisms of recent Egyptian actions against protestors in the streets of Cairo. <br /><br />Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif described Gamal’s visit as an attempt to sooth relationships between the two countries in light of recent events in Cairo. Nazif’s statement certainly makes sense however the ulterior motive of the visit was for Gamal to establish personal relationships with key members of the current administration and to further ‘groom’ himself for Egyptian presidency. <br /><br />However, Hosni Mubarak had a change of heart.<br /><br />On Saturday May 20th, Mubarak opened the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/world_forum;_ylt=AhHrUijMBsPuDV9ji9P8l_cLewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--">World Economic Forum</a> held in Sharm El Sheikh with a shocking tough speech informing the US that its relationship with Egypt has started to slowly wither and deteriorate. The foundations which Anwar Sadat had laid and which Mubarak had inherited have been shaken. Such a speech is unlike Mubarak who has been appeasing and acquiescing to the US ever since peace with Israel had been made and an agreement to provide aid was signed. <br /><br />What happened?<br /><br />The situation requires a careful and in-depth analysis.<br /><br />Here are several scenarios:<br /><br />1) Hosni Mubarak was not pleased with what his son reported back after his meeting with the White House a week before the inauguration of the forum. On a speculative basis, Gamal probably reported that 1) the US was not happy with the way in which the government was handling its protesters and 2) that the government was not trying hard enough to establish a democratic pro-Western style liberal system. Thus, it seems that it was Gamal’s meeting which triggered a taste of bitterness in Mubarak senior’s mouth. Moreover, the US might have not liked the idea of allowing nepotism to further cloud Egypt’s attempts at openness and ‘free’ party elections in its truest sense. In other words, they might have not liked the idea that Gamal was being groomed for presidency and that the NDP would do anything in their power to ensure his succession. In light of Mubarak’s speech which implied that the US was running a foreign policy that promoted double standards, this makes sense. <br /><br />On the one hand, the US remains ambivalent on their stance towards the MB. As discussed before, their rise to power might prove problematic and a case which requires tacit tactics and careful diplomacy. However, on the other hand the US (in blatant irony) is promoting free party elections which might end up leading to the MB’s rise to power – a blow to the status quo and a new (yet uncertain) phase of US-Egyptian relationships.<br /><br />Mubarak has become utterly flabbergasted at the US’ pressure to promote democracy alongside their ranting against Islamist groups for harboring terrorism and promoting violence (i.e. Hamas). This situation is incredibly oxymoronic and hypocritical since the US would be inclined to do the same if the MB rises to power i.e. boycott and criticize them (the MB recently provided funds to Hamas claiming that they share the same brotherhood and objectives). <br /><br />If the above is truly genuine, then Egypt has certainly entered a unique phase with the US. Mubarak has finally decided to speak up and refrain from being a puppeteer and an acquiescent. <br /><br />The conclusions from this scenario are optimistic and pseudo-idealistic. Given Mubarak’s track record with the US, there might be another facet to this story.<br /><br />2) The recent protests, arrests and violence in the streets of Cairo have revealed to Mubarak that regardless of the US’ influence on Egyptian politics, there still remains a cap on what they 1) seek to do and 2) what they really can do. As argued in my previous posts, the US has gone soft on Egypt over the protests. They certainly condemned the state police’s methods as brutal and asked for a toleration of freedom of speech. Also, Congress discussed a potential reallocation of its <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000935.html">aid </a> to Egypt and a much more viable return to their investment. However, the US did not really intervene per se. <br /><br />In essence, Mubarak realized that the <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/05/dictatorial-legislation-history-and.html">draconian Emergency Law </a> which has recently been extended to another two years will continue to prevail and so will his privileged position with the US and the administration’s desire to keep him. He has kept Egypt out of war with Israel and has maintained diplomatic ties with the former adversary and has even gone far to establish a trade agreement (as my recent posts show, the US has been supporting the Israeli Lobby immensely). <br /><br />In other words, his rant is merely talk to appease the Arabs as well as send a message to the US. His quid pro quo response is as rhetorical as the US’ response to the protests. Mubarak realized that the US will provide him with some leeway, after all, Egypt is one of the most powerful Arab countries and their administration needs to show sympathy towards issues affecting neighboring countries. <br /><br />However one interprets the speech, it is quite bold and assertive. There is no doubt that Mubarak meant for a world that “fosters multilateralism, abides by international legitimacy and steers away from unilateral actions” (criticizing the US’ unilateral invasion in to Iraq) and that “democratic reforms in the Middle East should "emanate from within the region” (instead of being forced). There is also no doubt that he meant to elaborate on “a double standard in the U.S. nuclear policy, under which Washington maintains a resolute silence about the nuclear arsenal Israel is believed to possess while it conducts a campaign to curb.” These statements are genuine but their timing and rationale need to be carefully assessed.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1149550068114527362006-06-05T16:22:00.000-07:002006-06-05T16:27:48.130-07:00Enter SomaliaOn Monday June 5th 2006, an Islamic militia stated that it had <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060500199.html?nav=ft_world">seized Somalia’s capital Mogadishu</a> after weeks of bloody fighting and 15 years of anarchy. <br /><br />The anarchy has not ceased to exist, in fact the Islamic militants will aid in its renaissance. This has worried Western governments as Somalia could very well be the new breeding ground for al-Qaeda extremists. <br /><br />The United States has supported the leaders of an opposing Somali secular alliance in the past and has in fact helped them flee the country. Moreover, the US had a solid reason to support the secularists since they claim that the militants have links to al-Qaeda.<br /><br />If this is really the case, what is al-Qaeda trying to do?<br /><br />Al-Qaeda’s forte centers on its intricate, clandestine and decentralized structure. It would seem counter-intuitive for the organization to centralize and run its own government in Mogadishu. Thus, Al-Qaeda will certainly seek to maintain their non-state actor status since it makes it harder for the US and its allies to ‘decapitate’ them. <br /><br />Al-Qaeda is further spreading its power and influence. In the past, Somalia had been a potential safe-haven for Osama Bin Laden and it should come to no surprise that his organization has ties to Islamic militant group. Moreover, Bin Laden was responsible for the 1992/93 massacre of 18 US marines in Mogadishu who were merely offering humanitarian aid to the brutal famine in Somalia. <br /><br />Bin Laden is strategically trying to spread thin the US’ military resources. Under the Bush Administration, the military’s focal point has been Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently, Syria and Iran have also been under the prying eyes of the US. In other words, the US military has been 'actively' confined to the Middle East and the Asian subcontinent. <br /><br />Historically, fighting a conventional war on two fronts has proven to be very difficult (i.e. Germany in WWII), let alone fighting a non-conventional war on multiple fronts. Al-Qaeda is spreading its virus to Mogadishu hoping to erect a Somali Taliban. This could potentially harm the US’ role in the war against terrorism as it seeks to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and cripple his organization. This is a strategic tactic since infiltrating other rogue countries and parasitically latching on to them will only further agitate the US.<br /><br />The US has several Achilles heels, most notably their high dependence on oil to continue fueling their behemoth economy (see <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/06/true-power-of-oil.html">'The ‘True’ Power Of Oil'</a>) Moreover, their track-record of battling insurgents has been appalling as was clearly seen during the 1970’s Vietnam war. This has not changed. President Bush was overly-confident that the US army would be able to fight any insurgency which would arise as a result of the US Iraqi occupation, he was proven wrong. The insurgency - under the leadership of al-Qaeda member Abu Masab al-Zarqawi - has done an incredible job of frustrating the Americans and causing formidable US and Shia causalities. If a similar structure is put in place in Somalia, the situation would not be any different. <br /><br />The US has yet another obstacle in its fight against terrorism. The situation is exacerbating at an unprecedented speed on both a state-actor level (i.e. Iran and Syria) and on a non-state actor level (i.e. al-Qaeda and its insurgency in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Somalia). The US’ Achilles’ heel has been exposed and al-Qaeda has been targeting it precisely.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1149117441214762322006-05-31T16:15:00.000-07:002006-05-31T23:35:28.496-07:00Synonymity Of ‘Islam’ And ‘Arab’: More Than Just A Labeling CaveatA common, naïve Western mistake is to assume that the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Arab’ are directly interchangeable. This logic is completely false. Quite surprising to many is the fact that Indonesia is the <a href=" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia#Languages">world’s most populous Muslim-majority country</a>. Indonesians are not Arab yet share the same faith of those in the Middle East: Islam. Moreover, geographically Indonesia is certainly not located in close proximity to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or even Afghanistan. This gives rise to an interesting subject of discussion. <br /><br />How has categorical perception distorted the correct image of Muslims, Arabs, Central Asians and non-Westerns in general? How have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to this issue? <br /><br />The media (especially in the United States) has been the prime conduit; the protagonist and the ‘binoculars’ in offering the Western world a lens of which they could view the East. The Middle East and the Asian sub-continent have been the subject of much attention in recent years for a variety of reasons (i.e. 9/11, oil, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban etc.). Unfortunately, the extensive coverage which broadcasting channels have undertaken (i.e. CNN, BBC, Fox News and many others) has provided viewers with a parochial account of ‘non-Western’ events. Such a parochial perspective has brought in to light many caveats which provide the majority of viewers a ‘misinformed’ idea of what the Muslim world offers.<br /><br />1) Not all Muslims are Arab and not all Arabs are Muslim. (i.e. Indonesia is not Arab yet Muslim, Egypt has Coptic Christians, Lebanon has a variety of Christian sects). <br /><br />2) Arabic is the language of the Koran however not all Muslim countries speak Arabic yet their citizens learn it in order to pray and recite verses. (i.e. Indonesia speaks Indonesian while Pakistan speaks Urdu). <br /><br />3) The Middle East is not all barren desert – indicating anarchy, lack of civilization and backwardness. (i.e. Cairo is one of the world’s largest metropolis with an unofficial population of 20 million). <br /><br />4) Arab countries in Middle East all speak Arabic yet in variant versions, however modern written Arabic is the same. (i.e. the Egyptian dialect is different from Bahraini which is different from Kuwaiti etc.). <br /><br />These are quite common misinterpretations or assumptions which happen to have been relayed by biased sources. These issues have further been exacerbated by the way in which Islam is represented in the Western world. My recent post, <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/05/911-middle-ages-islam-and-pogonophobia.html">‘9/11 ‘Middle Ages Islam’ and Pogonophobia,’</a> discusses the repercussions of the media’s portrayal of al-Qaeda which happens to provide a distorted image of Islam. The media – in all its forms; cinema, television and newspapers – has been the culprit in the ever-growing cleavages between the West and the East (especially countries of Muslim majority). The media rarely, if ever, reports positive news about the Middle East or in any other Muslim countries and unfortunately if it does, it is always shadowed by the war in Iraq, the Iran-US nuclear antagonism or the war in Afghanistan.<br /><br />As superficial as it might seem, perception plays a crucial role in current contemporary relations between the West and the Muslim world. Misrepresentation has caused further tensions and misunderstandings and in essence it is crucial that liberal Muslims and those of positions of power take a more pro-active role in alleviating and eliminating the tensions. There needs to be a more open, transparent dialogue which would bring in to the light a better understanding of the cultural differences and most importantly what Islam represents as a religion and as a faith.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1148683826015689882006-05-26T15:44:00.000-07:002006-05-26T15:50:26.030-07:00The Judiciary, The State and The People: Egypt’s Ongoing SagaMay 25th marked the anniversary of ‘Black Wednesday,’ the name given to May 25th 2005 when plainclothes government agents beat protestors and watched as pro-Mubarak supporters punched other demonstrators marring a referendum on whether to permit multiple parties to run during the presidential elections later that year. A year later and <a href="http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1664">the saga continues</a> , now back with even more vengeance. <br /><br />This has been the fourth consecutive week of protesting despite statements from the Ministry of Interior that these demonstrations are ‘illegal’ and will not be tolerated. This has not halted the zealous Kefaya, Ghad and Muslim Brotherhood members which have sprawled to the streets along with about 300 pro-reform judges to fuel their anger over:<br /><br />1) The state’s refusal to release hundreds of innocent demonstrators who have been taken in to custody over the last few weeks.<br /><br />2) The state’s refusal to release Ayman Nour or at least reconsider his case. Nour has been sentenced to five years in prison for allegedly ‘forging’ documents to establish his Ghad party.<br /><br />3) The NDP’s refusal to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501085.html ">separate the judiciary</a> from the state and granting it its own independence.<br /><br />4) The NDP’s hindering efforts for reform, their inhuman methods of protecting themselves from anything that would jeopardize their power and disallowing ‘true’ democratic principles to start fueling society as well as any freedom of speech. <br /><br />5) Hosni Mubarak; who (in their eyes) has betrayed the country, fooled the people and brought Egypt backward both economically and socially. <br /><br />The Egyptian pro-reform judges stood in front of the Supreme Court house during the anti-government protest chanting anti-government slogans such as “release our detained brothers!” Score of protestors also wore Kifaya (‘Enough’) stickers as well as others reading “Long live justice!”<br /><br />Living the events vicariously through news reports as well as other bloggers’ accounts, it seems that there is a continued socio-political upheaval gaining momentum in Egypt. Protestors are obviously not stopping as they have seen the international media attention they’ve gained as well as the criticism the NDP party has received from Western governments. At this point, the movements are not large enough to offer a ‘coup d’etat’ since these new movements have not yet been able to mobilize the masses. As I’ve argued in my previous post, <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/05/habeas-corpus-ad-subjiciendum-nour-el.html">“<em>Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum</em>: Nour, El-Bastawisi and Mekki,”</a> a la the 1950s, the country needs a revolution which would introduce a completely new beginning to Egyptian society replete with new democratic reforms and new secular government.<br /><br />This is merely in theory as a revolution will not come to fruition unless change is also buttressed from above. The apathy of the upper class and those of power has only regressed any chances of metamorphosis. Moreover, Egypt is a country which has witnessed change progressively and should continue to witness change in such a manner. Any abrupt efforts in attempting to change will backfire immediately. The MB might gain further leverage and attempt to hastily exploit the religiosity among the people and introduce a non-secular, religious, oppressive and a ‘strict Sharia-based’ social arena which would further regress the future of the country. <br /><br />As of now, it is a sad reality that Egyptian citizens are seeking Western support as well as the West’s condemnation of the NDP in order to instigate change within their own borders. Unfortunately as I’ve argued before, America is not Egypt’s savior as (like many of its other alliances) it has its own agenda and its targets and holding hands with Egypt along the way is not in its interest per se (refer to the previous posts and comments). <br /><br />There is no doubt of the delicacy of the situation. If the NDP seeks to avoid any further trouble, they need to start listening to their own citizens and slowly implement changes which should be (in their eyes) purely altruistic for the country and for the proceeding governments to inherit – unfortunately this seems completely out of reach at this point.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1148068208652122272006-05-19T12:44:00.000-07:002006-05-22T21:58:33.896-07:00Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum: Nour, El-Bastawisi and MekkiYesterday, the Egyptian government’s show of force again found its way in to the streets of Cairo. Plainclothes police arrested demonstrators outside the High Court, where the fate of Ayman Nour and the two judges Hesham El-Bastawisi and Mahmoud Mekki were to be decided.<br /><br />These demonstrations were primarily in support of the judges who were accused of speaking ill about the Egyptian government and about how the elections were rigged last September. Nour, who came at a distant second during last September’s elections, was accused of forging documents to establish his Ghad party. The pro-government thugs and Egyptian security forces used inhumane techniques to ‘control’ the crowd and arrested about 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) including Essam Eryan and Mohammad Mursi, two prominent ‘head’ figures – a seemingly strategic ‘top-down’ move from the government itself. <br /><br />The court decided to reprimand El-Bastawisi, clear Mekki and sentence Nour to a five year imprisonment <br /><br />The demonstrations have come to symbolize a <em>nouveaux</em> pro-reform movement in Egypt representing a search for independence of the judiciary and a simple request of freedom of speech. Simple, it might seem in the eyes of Western observers, the tenets of democracy rest on choice, freedom and civility. <br /><br />Unfortunately, it is not simple in Egypt.<br /><br />Such ideals will not permeate Egyptian society overnight and will not be allowed if they weaken the National Democratic Party’s (NDP) control over the country. The oxymoron in the NDP’s name is quite amusing given that they claim to bring democratic reforms to the country yet prove to the world (through the phenomenal conduit of the media) that they do the exact opposite. In fact, the constant clash between demonstrators and Egyptian police only reveals the weakness of the administration and its fear of losing power and instigating change. Hosni Mubarak will not last forever and nor will his NDP party (the way it is run right now, even if his son Gamal Mubarak will eventually take over), however they are attempting to cling to every last inch of power they could. <br /><br />Egypt has been facing peculiar changes over the last few years. The upper echelons of society have become more Americanized and secular while the lower echelons have become anti-Western (especially anti-American), more religious and spiritually oriented. This has constantly increased the cleavages between the two <em>niveau</em>. While there is political apathy from the rich, there is incredible political zeal for change from the poor. Naturally, those with money and connections have political power yet they care less about living in an oppressive regime since they are not touched. So who should help Egypt reform, modernize and progress? <br /><br />The United States? <br /><br />As argued in my previous posts, the United States has taken a soft approach towards Egypt. While the $2.3 billion annual package (since the 1970s) was meant to modernize, democratize and augment Egypt’s military and economy, it seems that it has done quite the opposite. <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17296931.htm">Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen</a>, a Florida Republican recently stated that “the time has come to seek greater returns from our investment in Egypt.” The United States has its own ulterior agenda in Egypt and it cannot be fully relied on to help instigate change in the country. In fact, the US is seeing that it is in their benefit to keep Egypt at a certain level of backwardness. <br /><br />This might seem counter to what the US initially sought to do. However, their agenda has changed recently with a realization that democracy (i.e. open elections and freedom of speech) can lead to disastrous consequences – for example the election of Hamas (an organization the US considers a harbor and instigator of terrorism). As it is still quite controversial how the potential rise of the MB in Egypt would affect the country, the US is cautiously weighing the pros and cons – on the one hand having a buffer against al-Qaeda or potentially having an extremist, anti-secular society prone to fanaticism. <br /><br />In essence, I realized quite some time ago that the US is not Egypt’s savior and in light of the recent events, my recent arguments and postings and the interesting discussions I’ve had about the role of Western influence in Egypt, change needs to come from within. <br /><br />Demonstrators need to continue to demonstrate, protesters need to continue to protest and a country-wide realization requesting change needs to occur. Mobilizing the masses will be Egypt’s only chance for a revolutionary metamorphosis. Until then the sporadic clashes between the police and the protestors will gain Western attention and they will continue to spill out their rhetoric in retaliation, however there will be no further action.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1147884319120179762006-05-17T09:42:00.000-07:002006-05-21T15:36:19.843-07:00Welcome Aboard United 93“Powerful, very powerful…,” were my immediate thoughts as the hijacked plane plunged in to Shanksville, Pennsylvania during the last seconds of the feature film. That moment of silence at the end of the movie before the credits and epilogue gave me an eerie shiver. I could feel it run down my spine, I could feel it take control of my body, it made me vicariously live the events of that tragedy and of that morning of September 11th 2001.<br /><br />The movie took on a pseudo-documentary style as in fact many of the characters were themselves. It attempted to bring to the screens director Paul Greengrass’ depiction of what he thought happened based on the evidence and facts available to the public. I walked away from the theatre thinking to myself, “the movie was incredibly accurate, in fact it was ‘dangerously accurate.’” <br /><br />Obviously, the audience (including myself) had a <em>tabula rasa</em> with regards to United 93 and the unfolding of its events per se. All that the majority of people could remember of 9/11 were CNN’s live video capture of the hijacked planes crashing in to the World Trade Center Towers. But still, something was telling me that the movie was surrealistically real and these were the ‘exact actual events.’<br /><br />As I had mentioned above, this is dangerous.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Nobody truly knows the exact events of United 93 or any of the other hijacked flights and based on the available evidence (i.e. control tower recordings and communication, blackbox etc.), many people have attempted to reconstruct a chronological, logical set of occurrences including Greengrass. In essence, the majority of such attempts were meant to counterfactually examine ‘what would have happened?’ ‘what went wrong?’ ‘how could we have prevented XYZ or ABC?’<br /><br />This is the two-fold danger:<br /><br />1) There is no doubt in any person’s rational mind that the events of 9/11 were heinous and a complete emotional catastrophe to humanity. The calamity of the event and its worldwide repercussions had to be revisited. The perpetrators, Muslim extremists from al-Qaeda were fully responsible for the loss of almost 3,000 innocent lives – no doubt. However, human nature points to stereotyping and categorical perception as powerful tools in analyzing and forming one’s opinions. If alive, the perpetrators would deserve the most just yet harshest sentence possible (as seen with Zacarias Moussaoui’s recent trial), however the uninformed audience needs to read between the lines and realize that it is foolish and irresponsible to pigeon hole Islam as violent and evil. However, it is important to realize that extremism (whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim) produces outcasts and complete heretics; here the perpetrators represent the antithesis of Islam – that of peace, love, piousness and respect.<br /><br />Naturally, the movie fuels hatred towards Muslims as it depicts the lowest, most vile breed of what Islam has offered the world. The movie is profuse with Koranic verse recitals juxtaposed (with incredible cinematography) with violence, terrorism and absolute animosity. This is where the danger falls. <br /><br />2) Hollywood has proven to the world that it has an impeccable political and manipulating power over its viewers. There is no doubt that citizens of the world should revisit the events of 9/11, grieve and share the pain and suffering of those who lost their loved ones’ lives however ENSURE that they hold an objective, unbiased opinion of Islam. It is absolutely imperative that they understand that what is portrayed is a dark facet of Islam which misrepresents the religion. <br /><br />United 93 is a <em>chef d’oeuvre</em>, an emotionally packed, thriller-full movie which will keep viewers in the edge of their seats. It is absolutely disheartening to see the last moments of many peoples’ lives and saddening to see how extremists have completely misrepresented Islam and destroyed its true essence. Viewers should watch the movie with an open heart and an open mind, grieve the victims and channel their anger but also understand that fanaticism breeds extremism which could be breed terrorism – in any religion – this is an important caveat viewers should be aware of.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1147584810598505932006-05-13T22:32:00.000-07:002006-05-17T19:44:58.946-07:00A Reassessment of the Egyptian-American RapportThe recent events in Cairo brought me back in time during my years at the University of Chicago. My senior thesis in Political Science attempted to re-simulate history and introduce a unique counterfactual experiment on the Political Economy of Egypt. <br /><br />The paper was written under the auspices of Associate Professor Lisa Wedeen and my econometric modeling was reviewed by several professors at the Economics department. The paper landed me an honors degree and provided new insight in to the existing literature.<br /><br />My recent post, <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/05/us-takes-soft-yet-calculated-approach.html ">“US Takes Soft Yet ‘Calculated’ Approach With Egypt”</a> touches on the current American-Egyptian relationship. The post and the recent events encouraged me to bring back in to light the arguments posed in my thesis. I was brought back in time because I closely examined the history of the Egyptian-American relationship on both an economic and political stance. Here is a quick summary:<br /><br />1) I argue ceterus paribus using a counterfactual analytical framework that Egypt’s economic growth rate would have been higher today had Nasser’s independence from Western influence, his aspirations to self-manage the Egyptian political economy, his centralized government and his controlled efforts at liberalization (starting in 1967) been continued after his death.<br /><br />2) I argue that Anwar Sadat’s rapid liberalization efforts starting in the 1970s failed. I rank the accumulation of debt as the number one chronic problem affecting the economy. Debt became a massive problem once the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) mission entered in to the Egyptian economy in 1975. The analysis focuses on the impact of the aid on GDP growth rate, the expenditures on consumption as well as income inequality (measured by the Gini). <br /><br />3) I argue that it was Sadat’s proclivity to allow the US to intervene in Egyptian affairs which brought in the USAID mission whereas on the other hand, it was Nasser’s nationalistic policies which minimized foreign direct intervention (vis-à-vis Sadat). The focus of this argument is on the difference between both leaders’ relationships with the US. <br /><br />4) I argue that it was Nasser’s centralized government which promoted its growth in size and expenditure. Furthermore, I argue that Nasser’s increases in government expenditure led to the phenomenal annual increases in GDP growth. This argument assesses the significance of Egypt’s three main wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 in order to compare both leaders’ government expenditure – focusing on the military component <br /><br />There is a casual relationship between Egypt’s economic indicators and the USAID military and economic aid packages. An increase in both the USAID military and economic aid packages respectively affects GDP growth rate and consumption expenditure negatively. With its bias towards multinational US firms and with over 50% of the aid-funds spent in the US, it is hard to see how the aid has been beneficial to the country. The aid has slowed down internal growth, decreased the rate of consumption expenditure and accumulated debt. In addition, the aid package has also not contributed to Egypt’s internal development whatsoever. For example, Egypt’s Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality) on five year increments starting in 1975 has a 0.42 positive correlation with USAID military aid, implying that income inequality within the country and military aid increase simultaneously.<br /><br />From 1975-1989, 58% or $8.7 billion of all US economic assistance was spent directly in the US rather than on development projects in Egypt, in fact most of this American aid represents money paid by Egypt to America. Moreover, the remaining 42% of the US economic aid package ($6.3 billion) was allocated for development projects within the country but none of the money was transferred directly to Egypt. It was the American contractors in Egypt such as General Electric, Westinghouse and Overseas Bechtel who were the beneficiaries in fact almost every penny of the $15 billion budget during 1975-1989 was allocated to them. <br /><br />The Egyptian-American relationship is not as mutual and not as transparent as one might perceive. Last September, an Egyptian delegation attempted to persuade the American government to halt the military aid which Egypt has not been benefiting from (in time of peace), however, the Americans responded negatively by arguing that Egypt needs to maintain its military power and continue to spend numerous amounts of money on US military equipment. <br /><br />A close reassessment of the relationship reveals that the US has a hidden agenda with regards to its strategic alliance with Egypt. Its constant fueling of economic and military aid has made Egypt more dependent on the US and made it harder for the country to forgive the aid package. One should think carefully about further allowing the US to meddle in Egyptian affairs, more than it has at this point.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1144879575790710102006-04-12T15:03:00.000-07:002006-05-17T09:15:06.636-07:00Why Is the US and Israel Jumping In To Bed Together?The three word answer to the question posed by the article is simply “The Israeli Lobby.”<br /><br />John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University recently published a paper titled “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” The controversial paper was published in the <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html">London Review</a> in an abridged version. <br /><br />The paper clearly shows the puissance of the Israeli Lobby in the US and how they have managed to promote Israel in a variety of spheres ranging from Congress to Academia. Mearsheimer and Walt define the Israeli Lobby as “…a [compromise] of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.” <br /><br />Their arguments are very solid and have already stirred up controversy. In fact, the opinions expressed in the paper have had Walt announce his resignation as Chair of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. In essence, if there was any doubt that the arguments made in the paper were ‘right on’, this <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/29648">response</a> in the New York Sun removes it. <br /><br />In a nutshell these are the arguments made:<br /><br />1) Israel is in fact a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.<br /><br />2) Israel’s past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.<br /><br />3) American backing of Israel is justified by the claim that Israel is a fellow democracy however the US has previously overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when it was their in self-interest.<br /><br />4) The moral argument for Israel as a compensation for past crimes (i.e. the Holocaust) is fallible since the creation of Israel led to incredible crimes committed against a third innocent party – the Palestinians.<br /><br />5) The Israeli Lobby’s power comes from within US ranks, members in Congress as well as pressure from Israelis.<br /><br />6) The Lobby has two strategies for success:<br /><br />a. It wields significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the Executive branch to support Israel down the line.<br /><br />b. It strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by publicizing Israel’s side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S. Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a different policy. <br /><br />7) The Israeli Lobby influences Congress, the US Executive Branch, the Media, Think Tanks and Academia. <br /><br />The paper essentially portrays a very vivid image of how difficult it would be for Israel to ‘have its way’ without the aid of the US. The US, the world’s greatest power has a plethora of countries depending on its aid, its political and economic systems as well as its soft and hard power. Thus, if the US is a friend of Israel then many countries will also be friends of Israel. <br /><br />Without the Israeli Lobby, Israel would be struggling to deal with neighboring regimes that the country views as dangerous: Iraq, Iran and Syria. The US has been constantly pressured from Israel to do something about Saddam’s tyrannical regime since Sharon’s argument was that Iraq poses a common terrorist threat to both Israel and the US. <br /><br />The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken its toll and the situation has been progressively exacerbating. In order for a potential peace agreement to take place, the power of the Israeli Lobby needs to be curtailed. The US needs to consider the region very carefully and refrain from making grave military mistakes (such as Iraq) or support Israel unanimously to the extent that its support instigates moreThe Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1147470977969833782006-05-12T14:53:00.000-07:002006-05-16T19:40:27.943-07:00US Takes Soft Yet ‘Calculated’ Approach With EgyptIn lieu of recent events in Cairo, the Bush Administration offered Egypt <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_egypt_protests;_ylt=Apfe.q7G9HAR4csCN9g.4cCyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--">‘friendly’</a> advice asking Mubarak to relieve some pressure off of the protesters. This is certainly not uncommon, in the past the United States has been putting immense pressure under the Egyptian government to pave the way for democratic reforms. <br /><br />State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has reinforced the typical rhetoric which the White House produces, “Egypt is a good friend, Egypt is a good ally…,” and has further stated that the US stands hand in hand with Egypt in a common pool of interests and objectives.<br /><br />Again, nothing about this is novel. Ever since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, the US has been a very close ally of Egypt and has offered $2.3 billion in economic and military aid annually. However, the US’ reaction to the incidents has been carefully calculated.<br /><br />In retrospect, the US realized that it is NOT in the interest of the Egyptians to fully democratize at this point. These are the following reasons:<br /><br />1) The allowance of free elections in Palestine has proved to the US that their pro-democracy efforts have backfired with the election of Hamas, a group the US government considers a harbor for terrorism. Thus, allowing free elections in the region as well as Egypt will ultimately lead to pan-Islamism (retaining fanaticism and the implementation of a ‘strict’ version of the Sharia Law – wholly undemocratic). <br /><br />2) Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to gain power in Egypt can be both in the interest or disadvantage to the Americans. One the one hand, it can be argued that given the nature of the MB, the group will act as a buffer against extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda. However, on the other hand, the potential election of the MB could regress Egyptian society in to a more dictatorial, backward and undemocratic position. This is a pure cost-benefit analysis and it remains esoteric as to whether the US is leaning to one side or the other. <br /><br />3) The US realized that (learning from Iraqi model) they cannot simply leave a can of unopened worms. It is one thing using rhetoric such as that of McCormack and it is another thing to use force (such as in Iraq) to spread democracy. In the case of Egypt, the US prefers the former without doubt, it is better to maintain Egypt’s status quo and let Mubarak deal with any internal issues plaguing the country. The US feels it is doing its part by simply fueling $2.3 billion of aid per year however (as I will show in my forthcoming post) this aid has in fact retarded the economy instead of promoting its growth and potential. <br /><br />Change in Egypt needs to be gradual and progressive, thus any abrupt US intervention will cause an absolute calamity in the country. Given the abundance of anti-American sentiment among many of Egypt’s proletariat, the prospect of allowing the US to ‘take care’ of things is absolutely out of the question. However, the current administration needs to act quickly before the Egyptian population starts to believe that their savior is the US which is completely false (as seen from the Iraq case).<br /><br />Recent events have proven the delicacy of the situation. Many Egyptians are faced with the decision to follow the lesser of two evils (i.e. NDP or MB), some are clearly pro-NDP (since they benefit financially and politically) and others are pro-MB but others are just not sure what to think. On the one hand, the US does not like the undemocratic methods of NDP but at the same time, they don’t think the MB will do a better job. However, the MB might be a good buffer against al-Qaeda, a priority which trumps the political situation in Egypt – i.e. the fight against terrorism.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1147364521916103332006-05-11T09:12:00.000-07:002006-05-12T00:05:23.410-07:00Egypt Is Far From DemocracyRecent events in Egypt revealed to the world, Arabs, Egyptian citizens as well as the United States that democracy does not exist. More importantly it is not ready to exist. <br /><br />Mahmoud Mekky and Hesham Bastawisi, two Egyptian judges were faced with charges of violating judiciary rules by talking about the abuses in last September’s elections. In retaliation, thousands of demonstrators marched to the streets of Cairo chanting, <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73D0E080-B6DB-4D0C-BB63-4BD64E433A78.htm">“Judges, judges, save us from the tyrants.”</a> <br /><br />The <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4760487.stm">protest</a> was a conglomeration of an array of different political party members in Egypt. A one of a kind demonstration hosted by individuals from the <em>Kefaya party</em>, the Muslim Brotherhood as well as other leftist organizations, the event signified a new, progressive phase in Egyptian society. <br /><br />People want their voices heard. <br /><br />However, as has been <em>a priori</em>, there is no such thing as free speech in Egypt <em>per se.</em> Plainclothes police officers and the Egyptian police have historically used brutal methods to break up demonstrations as well as detain protestors. Moreover, the confiscation of cameras, cameramen and any broadcasting on-sight is crucial in preventing a wide announcement of their undemocratic and inhumane methods. <br /><br />As I’ve argued in a previous post, <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/02/democracy-does-it-and-will-it-work-in.html ">“Democracy: Does It and Will It Work In the Middle East?”</a> the region remains in a primitive and archaic stage unready to willingly accept liberal democratic norms and ideals. However, the recent demonstrations and the response of the government have also proven that change from the top needs to take place. <br /><br />Fear from a Muslim Brotherhood takeover, Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) will continue to use methods of acquiescence and detainment in order to jump hurdles and pave through obstacles. These methods have perpetrated basic human rights and have kept Egyptians living in the ‘dark.’ <br /><br />Last week, 48 people were detained (including <a href="http://www.manalaa.net">Alaa Abdel Fatah</a>, an Egyptian democratic activist and power blogger) during a solidarity movement supporting the independence of the judiciary in Egypt. They have been arrested for 15 days “pending investigation.” Men and women detainees were sent to the Torah and Qanatir prisons respectively where brutality, sexual molestation and abuse are rampant. <br /><br />Déjà vu? <br /><br />These events are not uncommon in today’s Egypt – unfortunately. It has been a common recurrence and certain legislation (which I will discuss in a later post) has allowed an incredible state control over its citizens.<br /><br />Is there a solution?<br /><br />The detainees from these protests will be eventually released – no doubt. There has been massive pressure from within Egypt’s borders as well as outside to free the arrested. Many people have turned to the United States for help, a country which has constantly put pressure on Hosni Mubarak to inject ideals of democracy in to the corrupt-ridden, archaic socio-political system of Egypt. <br /><br />However, listening to the United States is a multi-faceted dilemma.<br /><br />Last year, Mubarak allowed other parties to run against his presidency (such as <em>Kefaya</em> and <em>Ghad</em>) and even allowed ‘independent members’ of the Muslim Brotherhood to run for parliament. This came after incredible scrutiny from the United States to democratize, modernize and find compatible ways of fusing Islam and progressiveness in to one. However, this in fact backfired for Mubarak. He realized that there is much more hatred against his party and its members than his administration initially thought. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood managed to secure a substantial amount of seats in parliament and this led to even further fear.<br /><br />In retrospect, Mubarak is thinking twice about following American advice and allowing their involvement. The United States carries its own political agenda and one can argue that a takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is in fact in the Americans’ interest (since the MB is a moderate Islamist faction and will act as a buffer against Al Qaeda). Reading the story with such skepticism from the NDP’s perspective has re-encouraged them to use their old methods of acquiescence and suppression. <br /><br />This story is certainly <em>ben trovato</em> and the NDP will continue to believe that they should do anything in their capacity to retain their current position of power. <br /><br />Democracy activists and protagonists should be weary of allowing the United States to take control of the situation. Mubarak is already a pseudo-American puppet and Egypt receives $2.3 billion of aid per year, this could further allow more American control of domestic issues. There are many caveats of fully allowing the Americans to meddle with Egyptian affairs and so cautiousness and care needs to take place. The US’ democratic trials have backfired in Palestine after Hamas was elected and Iraq is in the brink of civil war, Egypt should NOT turn out to be the same.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1147385268439816862006-05-11T15:05:00.000-07:002006-05-11T15:07:48.463-07:00Dictatorial Legislation: History And Future Of Egypt’s Emergency LawEgypt’s Emergency Law (Law No. 162 of 1958) was first implemented in 1967 after the Arab-Israeli conflict. The law was suspended for an 18 month period in 1980. It was reemployed immediately after the assassination of former President Anwar Sadat in October 1981. Under the law, state police powers’ umbrella is greatly extended, constitutional rights suspended and censorship legalized. In essence, the law is the epitome of anti-democracy as well as an antithesis to democracy itself. <br /><br />As of April 30th the law had been <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/25A02D3B-DF30-4746-B3FE-E8B338463F7C.htm">extended</a> for two more years. The rationale behind the implementation of the law is that it ‘apparently’ helps security forces in Egypt detain would-be terrorists, break-up terrorist cells and preempt any anarchical behavior among the country’s citizens. In any democratic country, the law is supposed to protect its citizens, unfortunately in Egypt, the Emergency Law has done the complete opposite.<br /><br />The law delineates and sharply demarcates any non-governmental political activity, street demonstrations as well as non-approved political organizations. As I discussed in my recent post <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/05/egypt-is-far-from-democracy.html">“Egypt Is Far From Democracy,”</a> the recent protests arguing for an independent judiciary and the removal of charges against two judges who ‘spoke’ about the corruption during last September’s elections fell victim to the Emergency Law. Many people were detained and held in custody without further notice. Today, there are approximately 10,000 people in custody without charge. <br /> <br /><br />Mubarak promised to replace the Emergency Law with a new anti-terrorism legislation however that has not come fruition. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the greatest opposing force to the National Democratic Party (NDP) has argued that there is no justification for extending the law. Their members have become regular victims of the law and have realized that it has become a great tool for the NDP to suppress their power and presence in Egyptian politics. Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif has stated that the law will only be used to protect the citizen as well as fight terrorism and moreover the parliament decided to extend the law in order to leave ample time to draft a new anti-terrorism law. A large chunk (25%) of the 378 Parliamentary members in attendance opposed the extension, most of them MB members – however that was obviously insufficient to cancel the law.<br /><br />Observing the situation objectively, the Emergency Law only reveals the weakness, lack of cohesion as well as backwardness of the current administration. It shows that the government is unable to implement regular, democratic legislation to control vice, chaos and notoriety among society. What do they do? Simply detain as many people as possible to ‘clean’ the streets and stop any further social mishaps or demonstrations.<br /><br />This has the complete opposite effect.<br /><br />The proletariat and bourgeoisie in Egypt (and especially the political activists among them) have been furious about the way they have been treated when they seek to voice their opinions and concerns. They can easily place the blame on the law as they are aware that political activists from the upper-middle as well as upper class can buy their way out of any legislation – but unfortunately they cannot afford to. <br /><br />The presence of nepotism and cronyism has given a handful of individuals and their families immunity from the law. The general public is aware of this as and especially the police force themselves. Thus, this has furthered exacerbated the remaining population’s anger. Not only is it a ridiculously unfair law, it does not apply to certain economically and politically powerful individuals. <br /><br />As I’ve argued in many of my posts, Egypt is far from any democratic transformation but one thing is certain: democracy cannot go hand in hand with the Emergency Law, it needs to be abolished before any reforms take place.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1147220561506231942006-05-09T17:17:00.000-07:002006-05-09T17:22:41.523-07:00CASE: The Microcosm of Egyptian Society<a href="http://www.egyptse.com/index.asp">The Egyptian stock exchange</a> labeled CASE (Cairo and Alexandria Stock Exchange) is ‘unique’ to say the least. Over the last few years, Egyptians and Arabs have found the equity market a road to fast cash, prosperity and a way to satiate their materialistic desires. In a way, the stock market is ‘in’ among Egyptian contemporary society as well as Egypt’s youthful bourgeoisie. However, the recent 30% decline in the market’s volume (in one day) has shown the vulnerability, volatility as well as unreliability of third-world based trading.<br /><br />Last year, <a href="http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060114/2006011414.html">the Economist</a> reported that the Egyptian stock market performed better than other major markets around the world with a whopping 125% profit increase. In retrospect, this seems to be quite peculiar given the recent 30% daily crash. <br /><br />Those who have the necessary capital have a number of methods which allow them to achieve large portfolio appreciations and quick cash. These methods have primarily revolved around ‘strategic’ investments in ‘key’ corporations.<br /><br />The word ‘strategic’ should not be confused with the strategies Western investors implement in their respective equity markets. The uniqueness of equity trading on the CASE is that it is a microcosm of Egyptian society, a <em>sine qua non</em> of Egyptian social behavior and a representation of the clash between Western and Eastern ideals. The word ‘key’ is also important in this case because the Egyptian and Arab investors’ choices are made based on critical and pseudo-confidential information. <br /><br />How is a stock market able to exemplify such sophisticated cultural nuances and Egyptian-society-embedded idiosyncrasies? <br /><br />By nature, Egyptians like to gossip and spread rumors, conversations and report news. Common social arenas in Egypt include (but are not limited to): 1) shisha (argilah, nargilah, hookah etc.) cafes, 2) barber shops, 3) coiffure salons, 4) restaurants and (less likely) 5) bars. These places have become the perfect venues to eavesdrop on ‘vital’ and seemingly ‘critical’ information on whether to buy or sell stocks. In order to conceive of the consequence, one should imagine such a phenomenon on a city-wide scale; in this case Cairo and Alexandria. <br /><br />Since there has been an upsurge of interest in investing in the stock market, Egyptians have found it convenient to spread gossip about companies’ earnings, performance as well as upcoming sell-offs, buy-outs etc. The interesting facet of this phenomenon is that it is gossip and rumor-like by nature. THUS, the information is NOT necessarily accurate nor is it guaranteed to make the parties involved wealthy whatsoever. <br /><br />Also by nature, many Egyptians find interesting methods to beat the system. Beating the system should involve the least amount of effort, yet the highest return possible. Therefore the majority of cases involve unethical, illegal and corrupt ways of fooling the system to one’s advantage. This ranges from bribing police officers to trump any efforts of revoking one’s driver’s license to fabricating birth certificates to obtain certain perks (such as enrolling one’s child one academic year above what he/she should be at). As Egyptian society has become progressively more corrupt, bureaucratic and politically opaque, there has been a corresponding increase in peoples’ distorted perception of ethics. <br /><br />This has become a cause of much concern. From a religious perspective, a large chunk of Egyptian Muslims have deviated away from what Islam labels as ethical, honest and proper. These can be certainly seen in the stock market.<br /><br />The following hypothetical scenario should paint a clearer picture:<br /><br />1) Individual A has 100,000 LE (approximately $15,000 USD) he would like to invest in the market. Individual A has no prior knowledge of the market nor does he have any specific information. Based on candid advice from a brokerage Individual A decides to invest all his/her money in company X. <br /><br />2) One day, Individual A overhears two people discussing an alleged ‘rumor’ that company X is going bankrupt after a scandal which occurred in their accounting department. Individual A becomes very frantic and calls and messages all his/her other friends which have also invested in that company telling them of the news he heard.<br /><br />3) Regardless of how reliant the source was, Individual A as well as his/her friends call their respective brokers near simultaneously ordering to sell all their shares of company X. The brokers realize that throughout the day, there has been a systematic request to sell ALL shares of company X and notice that something fishy is going on.<br /><br />4) Given how an equity market operates, those seeking to sell their shares require a respective buyer which a market maker would locate in order to set-up the transaction for execution. However given the rumor’s widespread influence, a vast majority of stock owners are requesting to sell while barely any individuals seek to buy.<br /><br />5) The overflowing request to sell the shares has caused the stock to plummet the following day based on completely false allegations! The company was never in bankruptcy nor was it in any sort of scandal. In addition, many of the sell orders were unable to be fulfilled and Individual A lost 50% of his/her equity.<br /><br />6) Weeks later, it turns out that there had been a coordinated scheme by a number of individuals to spread lies and rumors that company X was facing bankruptcy. These individuals shorted the stock and made gains when the stock plummeted. They were able to beat the system, make large gains and never faced any persecution for spreading falsified information or pseudo-insider trading. If shareholders sought to sue them, they would have no case because no one OBLIGED people to believe the story or make investment decisions based on haphazard gossip heard ‘literally’ on the street. <br /><br />The example above only shows one of a few ‘strategies’ that have been implemented on Egypt’s stock exchange. There has been incredible corruption, insider trading as well as unethical (and also un-Islamic) ways of making money. What is worse is that strong, influential political figures have been using their positions to ‘fool’ the market and make consequent gains. The recent market crash surrounded the selling of EFG Hermes’ (an Egyptian Investment Bank) stock by three major shareholders simultaneously which forced the stock to plummet and bring in huge losses for other investors. <br /><br />The stock market is about behavior and in Egypt it is clearly the case. Unfortunately the general poverty levels in Egypt have altered peoples’ perception of ethics, they would do anything possible to become wealthier and seek a better life. This of course has incredible negative socio-economic consequences.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1146608465084073972006-05-02T15:16:00.000-07:002006-05-06T07:16:34.230-07:009/11, ‘Middle-Ages Islam’ and PogonophobiaSeptember 11th 2001 has swept the world with its repercussions. Some consequences were blatantly obvious and some others were not. <br /><br />There is no doubt that the global economy was hurt, that stock markets fluctuated and (after an eventual retaliation by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq) that oil prices soared to record highs. <br /><br />There is no doubt that casualties were high, that families were destroyed and innocent people were heinously murdered. <br /><br />It is safe to assume that the citizens of New York have been (to say the least) gravely and in essence permanently affected by the events. <br /><br />The list goes on, the repercussions have affected the US’ foreign policy and placed its allies ‘on guard’ against Muslim extremism. This extremism continued to manifest itself by similar (but less dramatic) events such as the Madrid bombings of March 2004, the London bombings of July 2005 or those which have recently targeted Red Sea resorts in Egypt over the last 18 months.<br /><br />9/11 was the magnum opus of Al Qaeda – par none. The organization’s devious schemes and master-mindful orchestrations have managed to send potent messages across the world – ‘Muslims are in a jihad (a misconstrued Holy War since the world jihad in Arabic literally means ‘struggle’) against the West.’ Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri’s occasional audio and video messages sent through the Al-Jazeera network continue to ‘assure’ Western governments that threats remain imminent.<br /><br />9/11 has also caused inconceivable damage to the Muslim world’s reputation. Prior to 9/11, those who had no image of Islam to paint are now able to convey a clear picture. One thinks of Islam, one thinks of violence, terror and backwardness. The phenomenon of the media and internet has contributed immensely to such a stereotype. Images of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other areas of the region are convincing viewers that Islam still resides in the Middle Ages. <br /><br />A common image televised or posted on the internet constitutes of a male wearing a turban, a long ghalabeya (white dress), holding a Kalashnikov and most importantly wearing a large beard – this is Militant Islam. Other images include all the above minus the Kalashnikov, alluding to non-violent Islam. <br /><br />Such stereotypical images have pigeon-holed Muslims in to distorted and completely unrepresentative symbolism. However the more these images are portrayed, the more the stereotypes are reinforced. <br /> <br />What is peculiar is that 9/11 has exacerbated the interesting social phenomenon of Pogonophobia, the odd but existing fear of beards. As one’s mind associates his/her perception of individuals based on stereotypes (i.e. try thinking of a Mexican, an African-American, a Southerner or an Asian and write down the first connotations which pop in your mind), seeing males with large beards and conspicuous, suspicious and malice looking faces implies that they are Muslims extremists, possibly terrorists and violent. <br /><br />The majority of Al Qaeda members (which have been the unfortunate façade of Islam) appear constantly in the media. In fact today, Pakistani authorities captured <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/pakistan.arrest.ap/index.html">Mustafa Setmarian Nasar</a>, a Syrian Al Qaeda fugitive who has been wanted for his involvement in the Madrid bombings as well as other terrorist acts during the 1980s in Spain. Not surprisingly, based on the image on the website, Mustafa wears a large beard and a turban – again reinforcing the image which has started to permanently etch in the minds of viewers. <br /><br />Since Al Qaeda is an extremist Muslim group, they idolize the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) destructively. Growing one’s beard in Islam is a <em>sunna</em> and not a <em>fard.</em> In other words, it is NOT obligatory however it is a habit the Prophet used to maintain. A pragmatic explanation would be that the Prophet (PBUH) used to grow his beard because it was a hassle to trim/cut/shave it during his time (likened to the Middle Ages) – in fact it is probably as simple as that! Unfortunately, extremists have taken it upon themselves to abuse such a simple trait and somehow convert in to a social fear (so destructive) that it has led non-Muslims (as well as many liberal Muslims) to stereotype. <br /><br />The exacerbation of Pogonophobia is certainly an interesting and subtle consequence of the horrific events of 9/11. As I’ve mentioned in a variety of my other posts, Islam needs a new face if it seeks to survive and mold in to the modern world. Individuals should be free to do whatever they please with their images (as well as grow their beards) however given this current social phenomenon, liberal Muslims should be careful with the rampant stereotypes floating around the non-Muslim and Western world.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576375.post-1146253406377774062006-04-28T12:32:00.000-07:002006-04-29T15:44:02.493-07:00The Showdown: Dershowitz vs. Walt and MearsheimerMy recent post on <a href="http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-is-us-and-israel-jumping-in-to-bed.html">“Why Is The US And Israel Jumping In To Bed Together?” </a> discusses the controversial paper released by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively. The paper came under great scrutiny from the academic community which criticized the paper as ‘unacademic’ and based on fallacious myths and opinions from anti-Israelis such as David Duke and Noam Chomsky. <a href="http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf ">Adam Dershowitz</a>, a professor of law at Harvard as well as an adamant Israeli supporter and Jew took the dais in debunking their arguments. <br /><br />What is peculiar to his rebuttal was that he was gravely concerned with the professors’ motive behind their publication of a ‘sub-standard’ piece of work. Dershowitz stated that neither professor have so far had the courage to refute this rebuttal or engage in a live debate.<br /><br />So what is really their motive?<br /><br />On behalf of Walt and Mearsheimer, their motive (in my opinion) was to open a can of worms for a subject which seeks to take a historical position similar to that of the Holocaust. In today’s societies, it is absurd to deny the Holocaust and for those who do (such as <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4757506.stm">British Historian David Irving</a>) end up being persecuted, tried and jailed. <br /><br />The legitimacy of the Israeli State as well as the way in which it was formed continues to be a matter of heated discussion. Similar to the historiography of the Holocaust, contemporary ardent Israeli supporters would very well wish to have a majority consensus (from Americans, Europeans, Asians and possibly even Arabs) that the country has a right to exist; that it was ‘correct’ to force the Palestinians from their homes and it was ‘correct’ to strike a collusive deal to partition the land. <br /><br />A paper like that of Mearsheimer and Walt is completely counterproductive to such a goal. In essence, it encourages readers to critically ‘question’ the right of the existence of Israel and ultimately sway their opinions. Thus, to have readers question the existence of Israel, it was necessary for Mearsheimer and Walt to present hard-line arguments since (naturally) those would be the ones to instigate a debate as well as stir thoughts. <br /><br />Based on purely personal experience (no surveys), there seems to be a strong sense of public animosity against the US and Israel. These experiences are based on travels in Europe, South America, Central America, Africa and Asia. In fact, many individuals especially Arabs tend to equate Israel and the US. The Israeli Lobby explains this very phenomenon. I recall during the 2000 Gore vs. Bush elections, many Arabs hoped for Bush’s victory because Gore opted for Joseph Liebermann (an Orthodox Jew) as Vice President. Ironically, their hope for Bush’s election (in retrospect) did not matter since Bush has infringed upon Arab sovereignty and meddled too much in their affairs. <br />Dershowitz’s paper raises 'seemingly' valid rebuttals which Walt and Mearsheimer need to tackle convincingly to prove him wrong and increase the credibility of their paper. However, Dershowitz’s diatribe-style rebuttal contains many bold and audacious statements (similar to those of Walt-Mearsheimer). For example he says that: <br /><blockquote>“Keep in mind too, that it was the Palestinians and surrounding Arab armies that initiated the war. There would be no refugees if, as Israel did, the Arabs had been willing to accept Partition, leading to full Palestinian state alongside a Jewish homeland.”</blockquote><br />How would one expect a Palestinian kicked out of his home in 1948 to EVEN CONSIDER accepting a Partition? Who said the Jews had the right to live in Palestinian lands? Also the war was initiated with the occupation itself not with the counter-attack which occurred the following day (the event Dershowitz is alluding to). <br /><br />This post would be too long to bring side to side the arguments posed by the authors. However, the controversial academic discussion has alluded to several important conclusions:<br /><br />1) There continues to be a grand debate on the historiography of the region, the war, the cause of mass exodus as well as the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. Outside of academics, this has been an incredible hindrance to any sort of peace agreement or compromise on either side. For example, Hamas believes Israel does not have the right to exist and will not concede to any Israeli demands – this is due in part to their interpretation of the historiography of the land: Jews simply walked over Palestinian land and decided that this is their new permanent home. <br /><br />2) Neither side genuinely seeks peace. Until the Israelis acknowledge that Zionism and the idea of a pure Jewish state is not compatible with peace, there will be no peaceful compromises. Similarly, Arabs need to understand this and focus their efforts with that as a baseline. <br /><br />3) Regardless of what the ‘real’ puissance of the Israeli Lobby is, the US needs to be careful with its foreign policy actions in the Middle East. The Bush administration has done a great job at spreading American animosity around the world which will eventually lead to the American peoples’ own demise abroad. Israel is certainly the US’ conduit in the Middle East and the US has been using it to justify many of its actions in the region (either outspokenly or on a more private level). However the Bush administration needs to make sure that global consensus understands that the US and Israel ARE NOT ONE per se. This message needs to reach Arabs especially, however given that Iran might be on the US’ next target list, this message will not be sent anytime soon.The Egyptian Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581617883589921885noreply@blogger.com5