al-Hodaiby answers Tahawy

Muslim Brother Ibrahim al-Houdaiby has responded to Mona al-Tahawy’s critical column in the Forward on the group. In this pieces he distances himself from Supreme Guide Mahdi Akef’s remark that she appeared “naked” because she was unveiled — not the first time I hear Ibrahim condemn al-Houdaiby in favor of the person many see as the MB’s real strongman, Khairat al-Shater. He also makes the argument that while the MB has not been successful at convincing the world (more importantly, I wold add many Egyptians) of its commitment to democracy, it is serious about establishing a dialogue with other political currents.

The Muslim Brotherhood Will Stand Up for All Egyptians:

Reading Mona Eltahawy’s September 21 opinion article, I felt more than ever that all Egyptians — regardless of their ideological orientation, gender or age — have a lot in common (“I Will Stand Up for the Muslim Brotherhood”). Eltahawy and I differ on much, yet we share a common objective and we struggle for the same cause of bringing real democracy, justice and freedom to Egypt.

Eltahawy is critical of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political orientation and stances on a number of issues, yet she stands with us in solidarity against the Egyptian government’s crackdowns. It is important that Egyptians of different political views defend each others’ political rights, as Eltahawy has done — and as several Muslim Brotherhood members, myself included, have previously done on behalf of opposition leaders Ayman Nour and Talaat El Sadaat and bloggers Kareem Amer and Sandmonkey.

Nor is that the only point on which we agree.

In her opinion article, Eltahawy criticizes the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, for calling her “naked” because she was wearing a short-sleeved T-shirt and pants. I could not agree more with her.

Not wearing the hijab, or headscarf, makes a woman unveiled, not naked. I realize how offensive it is to call someone “naked” for not wearing a headscarf, and I find Akef’s comment unjustifiable.

[…]

I agree with Eltahawy when she writes that the Muslim Brotherhood is “the last man standing in Egypt.” I sincerely believe this puts an additional responsibility on the group, as it must shoulder the burden of helping others to stand.

As declared several times by leaders including Deputy Chairman Khayrat El Shatir (who is currently being tried by a military tribunal), the Muslim Brotherhood realizes that no single party or group will be able to solve Egypt’s economic, political and social problems. It is for this specific reason that Muslim Brotherhood members need to hear constructive criticism and advice from their political rivals, so we can all help each other move forward in pushing for genuine reform in Egypt.

Frankly, I find that neither Tahawy nor al-Hudaiby make a particular convincing case, and I find it odd that they are having this argument in America’s premier Yiddish community magazine.

Eissa to be tried in State Security Emergency Court

I cannot believe that Ibrahim Eissa, fresh from a conviction earlier this month, will now face trial in a State Security Emergency Court:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – An outspoken Egyptian editor whose newspaper questioned the president’s health has been referred to a court notorious for handing down swift convictions of spies and Islamists, in a move condemned by rights activists Wednesday.

The referral of al-Dustour editor Ibrahim Eissa to State Security Emergency Court, whose verdict cannot be appealed, is the latest event in an unprecedented crackdown on the press that has seen the convictions against five newspaper editors and two journalists in the last few weeks.

“This is scary,” said Nasser Amin, Eissa’s lawyer and a legal rights activist said. “It’s one of the most dangerous courts for civil liberties in Egypt after the military tribunal.” Two weeks ago, Eissa was brought in for seven hours of questioning by a state security prosecutor on charges of disturbing the peace and harming national economic interests because of articles that ran in his newspaper repeating rumors that the president was seriously ill.

He was referred to trial for Oct. 1, but it wasn’t clear until late on Tuesday in which court he would be tried.

If convicted, Eissa would face sentences ranging from 24 hours to three years in prison, as well as a fine, said Amin. Only the president has the power to overturn the court’s sentence.

Once again — State Security Emergency Courts (which in years of reporting I’ve never seen hand down an acquittal) offer no possibility of appeal, only a presidential pardon.

Update: It now seems that prominent commentator and Kifaya signatory Muhammad Sayyed Said, who recently launched the newspaper al-Badil (The Alternative), is being sued by a lawyer (presumably from the NDP, like the others who have filed suits lately) over the presidential health rumors issue.

An update on the Marcel Khalife affair

Richard Silverstein got through to the Kroc Theater run by the Salvation Army that had refused to host a Marcel Khalife concert. The explanation he got from them was that they could not rent the venue to the Palestinian organization al-Awda, which aims for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees.

It’s good that Richard got this independently checked, although I strongly disagree with him that the Salvation Army’s decision is understandable. I very much doubt it would have made the same decision if the organization trying to book the venue was the Zionist Association of America, Hillel, or one of the countless groups that supports Israel. I would guess that the Salvation Army’s decision very much has to do with the well-known intimidation campaigns against pro-Palestinian organizations and individuals by Zionist groups, and that it chose to avoid the controversy and problems that would probably come with hosting an al-Awda event. The recent cancellations of appearances of public intellectuals like Tony Judt or Stephen Walt comes to mind.

Saudi Religious Police Attacked by Girls

Saudi Religious Police Attacked by Girls:

Dammam, Asharq Al-Awsat – Members of Khobar’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice were the victims of an attack by two Saudi females, Asharq Al-Awsat can reveal.
According to the head of the commission in Khobar, two girls pepper sprayed members of the commission after they had tried to offer them advice.

Head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in the Eastern province Dr. Mohamed bin Marshood al-Marshood, told Asharq Al Awsat that two of the Commission’s employees were verbally insulted and attacked by two inappropriately-dressed females, in the old market in Prince Bandar street, an area usually crowded with shoppers during the month of Ramadan.

According to Dr. Al-Marshood, the two commission members approached the girls in order to “politely” advise and guide them regarding their inappropriate clothing.

Consequently, the two girls started verbally abusing the commission members, which then lead to one of the girls pepper-spraying them in the face as the other girl filmed the incident on her mobile phone, while continuing to hurl insults at them.

The Eastern Province’s head of the commission also revealed that with the help of the police his two employees were able to control the situation.

The two females were then escorted to the police station where they apologized for the attack, were cautioned and then released.

Fantastic.

On the importance of leadership, warts and all

Two posts I put up recently featuring opposition figures — Iran’s Akbar Ganji and Syria’s Maamoun al-Homsi — generated an interesting response: attacks on these activists as being cowardly, formerly close to the regime, or having some other negative side. It could be that these criticisms are fair — I really don’t know that much about Ganji, although his credentials seem impeccable, and even less about al-Homsi (but am fully aware the journalist who interviewed him, an acquaintance, is a Lebanese with clear political biases who works for the pro-Hariri newspaper al-Mustaqal, although he is mostly a cultural journalist and a poet).

The tendency to nitpick at the credentials of opposition figures — which is fair enough considering there are plenty of self-serving opportunists out there and the world is still reeling from Ahmed Chalabi‘s manipulations — is something that increasingly bothers me about political discourse in this region. I was guilty of it myself in 2005 regarding Ayman Nour, a politician whose career I was familiar with long before he became the poster boy for the “Cairo Spring.” I’d always recognized that Nour was a talented populist but saw him as ultimately second-rate and unlikely to appeal to Egypt’s elite. Looking back, I regret not giving him more credit and that especially the Arabic media (not just the state-controlled part) did not give him more of a chance. He may have been far from perfect, but he had the courage of his convictions (or maybe ambitions, but does it matter?) and I look back and believe he achieved something quite unique: he campaigned against a practically all-powerful president and tried to challenge him as an equal. In essence, he called the bluff of Mubarak’s pretense to open up the political scene and presidential race, and put all his effort in it. The 7% score he got in the elections, while perhaps apparently small, was actually quite an achievement. I think the regime knows this, hence the five-year sentence and horrible treatment he is receiving in prison.

The Middle East will not be able to have credible alternatives to the existing regimes unless we start putting some faith — some suspension of disbelief — in the leaders who try to emerge against them. If we go along with the press attacks on these figures, the campaigns of disinformation, and wait for a knight on a shining armor — well, we might be waiting for a long time.

Rosen on Iraq’s refugees

Boston Review – No Going Back:

The American occupation has been more disastrous than the Mongols’ sack of Baghdad in the 13th century. Iraq’s human capital has fled, its intellectuals and professionals, the educated, the moneyed classes, the political elite. They will not return. And the government is nonexistent at best. After finally succumbing to Iraqi pressure, the Americans submitted to elections but deliberately emasculated the central government and the office of the prime minister. Now Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is the scapegoat for American failure in Iraq, and there are calls to remove him or overthrow him. But talk of a coup to replace Maliki fails to understand that he is irrelevant. Gone are the days when Baghdad was the only major city in Iraq, and whoever controlled Baghdad controlled the country. The continued focus on the theater in the Green Zone ignores the reality that events there have never determined what happens outside of it. Iraq is a collection of city states such as Baghdad, Mosul, Basra, Ramadi, Erbil, and others, each controlled by various warlords with their own militias. And the villages are entirely unprotected. Maliki will be the last prime minister of Iraq. When he is run out there will be no new elections, since they can’t be run safely and fairly anymore, and the pretense of an Iraqi state will be over.

A few more details on the Souha Arafat affair

From Tunisian magazine L’Audace:

Souha Arafat n’a cessé de se plaindre ces derniers mois d’avoir été trompée par Leïla en opérant divers placements à la Bourse de Tunis qui se sont avérés infructueux. De son côté, Leïla reprochait à sa partenaire en affaires de lui avoir mal conseillé certains placements à l’étranger. Leur idylle avait pourtant bien commencé par l’acquisition de 20% dans Tunisiana (téléphonie mobile), filiale d’Orascom qui est la propriété d’un copte égyptien. Pour cela, elles ont dû compter sur le coup de pouce de Mme Jihane Sadate, veuve du Raïs égyptien qui avait su convaincre l’homme d’affaires et intercéder en leur faveur.

Après l’union avortée entre Belhassen, frère de Leïla et chef de gang des Trabelsi, et Souha Arafat, rien n’allait plus entre Leïla et sa protégée. C’est que l’épouse du chef de l’Etat tunisien est d’une cupidité légendaire et fort connue pour ses talents dans l’escroquerie.

En effet, en décidant de la fermeture d’un lyçée français ayant pignon sur rue, le lyçée privé Louis Pasteur, appartenant au couple Bouebdelli, il était question pour les deux femmes “d’affaires” d’investir quelques 8 millions d’euros pour l’ouverture d’un autre lyçée privé dont elles seraient les propriétaires (d’ailleurs les travaux sont avancés, nous a-t-on précisé). Souha Arafat s’acquitta de sa part, environ 2,5 millions d’euros. Quant à Leïla, elle se défila à l’heure du versement arguant du fait que les démarches administratives accomplies combleraient ses 50% de parts dans le projet. Ce fut la goutte qui a fait déborder le vase.

More on this pathetic story after the jump.
Continue reading A few more details on the Souha Arafat affair

Packer: Ajami is Shia supremacist

From George Packer’s blog in The New Yorker, an odd theory about why Professor Fouad Ajami is so upbeat about Iraq:

It would be wrong to see in Ajami’s version of Iraq the same delusional thinking as in George W. Bush’s. The difference between them is the difference between a strategy and a fantasy. The President’s speech to the nation last Thursday, following the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, was perhaps the worst of his Presidency, misleading or outright false from beginning to end. But, as always with Bush, one felt that he believed every word of it: Iraq is a brave little country lighting the way to freedom in the Middle East, and freedom-loving people everywhere should rally to its side.

With Ajami, something else is at work. Of Lebanese Shiite origin, he has a deep knowledge of Middle Eastern politics (see his very good book “The Dream Palace of the Arabs”). According to Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial,” before the war Ajami was part of a group recruited on behalf of Paul Wolfowitz that provided an intellectual framework for the overthrow of Saddam. The group’s memo, which influenced the top figures in the Administration, declared that a transformation of the stagnant and malign Middle East should begin with war in Iraq—by now a familiar neoconservative idea but in 2001 quite audacious, even radical. Ajami repeated the argument in an article in Foreign Affairs just before the invasion, and nothing that has happened since has undermined his confidence in it. From the heights of his historical vision, a few hundred thousand corpses and a few million refugees barely register.

This isn’t a case of the normal heartlessness of abstract thought. The Journal piece, along with his recent work in The New Republic, make it clear that Ajami has taken sides in Iraq, and that his pleasure comes from his sense that his side is winning. His prewar writings and advice might have led the President to believe that the transformation of the Middle East would be a democratic one—and perhaps, a generation or two from now, it will be. But Ajami is already declaring victory, because it turns out that he has a different idea altogether: Shiite Arab power.