WaPo op-ed on Kareem

The ‘crime’ of blogging in Egypt:

Egyptian authorities have made a mistake in prosecuting Soliman. It is Egypt that will be hurt if he is convicted and sent to prison. That’s why sincere friends of Egypt call on the government to drop the charges against him. It is the right thing to do, and it is the best thing for Egypt’s standing in the modern world.

Unfortunately, Kareem is unlikely to get off without being sentenced. He will be lucky to get less than 2-3 years. We’ll see tomorrow — I hope I’m wrong.

Policeman strikes against guarding Israeli embassy

I don’t have a link for this (Update: Here is the story on the MB website), but thought it was worth posting — it’s telling of the anger at the regime for its support of Israel these days:

An Egyptian policeman has been referred to a military court because he refused to guard the Israeli embassy in Cairo .

Major general Adel Al Helali, a senior aid of the Interior Minister and Giza security manager, ordered policeman Mohamed Khalaf Hassan Ibrahim who is serving in the force guarding the Israeli embassy in Anas Bin Malek st. in Giza to appear before a military prosecution to investigate with him over the incident of a sit-in and hunger strike that he staged in protest at transferring him from Bab Sharq police station, Alexandria, to Giza security department, in the force entrusted with guarding the building of the Israeli embassy .

The policeman filed several complaints to the presidency, calling for returning him back to his work in Alexandria because he refuses to guard the headquarters of the Israeli embassy in Cairo due to the crimes Israel is committing in the Middle East , in addition being unable to afford the expenses of traveling and living away from his family .

The military prosecution jailed him for 15 days pending trial, and was sent to Um Al-Misriyeen hospital to receive treatment and artificial feeding after he insisted on maintaining the hunger strike till his demands are met .

The regime is rather trigger happy on military tribunals these days…

Mustafa-Norton and secularists

I was reading this op-ed by Hala Mustafa and A.R. Norton and was struck by several things. First, this assertion:

One of the dirty little secrets of Egyptian politics is that government squashes secular opponents while allowing Islamist opposition (and leftist groups) freer rein, including privileged access to the media and more scope to campaign for political office when there are carefully controlled national elections.

This may have been true in the 1970s during Sadat’s purges against leftists and Nasserists, when he empowered some Islamists and even, according to Egyptian leftist lore, pretty much created the Gamaa Islamiya from scratch. But it’s a rather hard statement to pull off now, after the most wide-ranging crackdown on Islamist since the Nasser era. It’s also rather disingenuous to claim that Islamists are given preferential treatment in the media when they are not allowed a party, a newspaper, and several of their publications have been shut down. In fact, aside from non-fiction publishing, I don’t see how political Islamists are dominant.

Moreover, liberal and leftists have for decades been given platforms of their own in the media. There is a fairly vibrant, if rather shrill, opposition and independent press in Egypt. State newspapers frequently run op-eds by self-described leftists and liberals. State TV, I would suspect, gives more space to liberals, leftists, Arab nationalists, and various other sundry groups (excluding the far left) than Islamists. It is only a recent phenomenon that members of the Muslim Brotherhood have appeared on state TV, for instance.

The real problem with secularists being under-represened in the political arena has to do with something Dr. Mustafa should be all too aware of: a good number of secularists, notably liberals, are quite happy supporting the NDP or staying in loyal opposition parties like the Wafd. She is in case in point: despite being a vocal critic of the NDP, she has remained a member of its Policies Council. Presumably her hope is to gain influence over policy-making in this way; but then again she has complained (to me and in newspaper columns) that the Policies Council is dominated by a few personalities who don’t listen to the considerable number of mostly secular-liberal experts who are on it. That was the reason Osama al-Ghazali Harb allegedly left.

Let’s face it: the NDP, for all its many flaws, has attracted the cream of secularist, “liberal” Egyptian personalities. It’s not until those NDP members who are not just opportunists (for it is a party of opportunists rather than ideologues) decide to make a fuss, leave and start something new that you will really be able to say there is a politically viable independent liberal-democratic movement in Egypt. Until then, the NDP is the liberal-secularist party by default — the party of liberal autocracy.

More on other aspects of this paper later.

Op-eds on Egypt suck, Part LXVIII

I go to the wrong cafés and don’t spend enough time in bazaars. Or perhaps my hearing is just not what it was:

The question whispered in the bazaars and cafes of Cairo these days is who will be the successor to President Hosni Mubarak.

Strange, though, that I see this issue being discussed out loud in newspapers and on TV. Wonder why everyone is whispering in the café. Maybe they only pretend to like me and then talk behind my back about succession.

But then again, perhaps a little Orientalist cliché is nothing compared to implying the Muslim Brotherhood of being linked to the Gamaa Islamiya, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda:

The challenge to the Mubarak succession comes from the infamous Muslim Brotherhood which holds roughly 20 percent of the seats in Parliament. Although technically illegal, the Brotherhood continues to attract supporters with its goal of establishing a fundamentalist Muslim state ruled by Islamic law.

The U.S. approach has been “democracy, yes; theocracy, no.” But the Egyptian paradox is that the former will surely beget the latter. The military arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has a record of horrific violence. Hosni Mubarak became president in 1975 after Islamic militants assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat. In 1995, Sudanese government sponsored Islamic militants unsuccessfully attempted to take the life of Mr. Mubarak while he was on a state visit to Ethiopia. Four of the 19 hijackers of September 11, 2001, including the ringleader, were Egyptian.

He even got the year Mubarak became president wrong. And this man is on the Council of Foreign Relations. What standards does the CFR have, exactly? My conspiracy theorist friends tell me it runs the world along with the Bilderberg Group and the freemasons. Not very impressive.

PETA vs. KFC in Cairo

One of the weirder sides of globalization:

Egypt-animal-protest
Giant chicken loses head outside Cairo KFC

CAIRO, Feb 17, 2007 (AFP) – A man dressed in a bright yellow chicken suit protesting cruelty to animals outside a fried chicken outlet in downtown Cairo Saturday was knocked down and had his chicken head yanked off by restaurant employees before being hustled away by police, witnesses said.
Jason Baker, a United States citizen, was part of a protest being staged by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) against Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) for the way its suppliers allegedly treat the animals.
PETA claims KFC suppliers engage in unnecessary cruelty, including drugging and breeding the chickens so that they grow overlarge and become crippled.
As photographers and bystanders crowded around Baker and another PETA activist, Nadia Montasser, a scuffle broke out and Baker was knocked over by KFC employees yelling, “he is not Egyptian,” which they subsequently proved by removing his chicken head.
Montasser and Baker were taken away by police but released soon afterwards.
“They have just proved our point,” Montasser said on being freed. “If this is how they treat humans imagine how they treat chickens?”
She acknowledged, however, that PETA could not say for sure if chickens were being mishandled by KFC Egypt but that was not the point of the protest.
“We are not targeting KFC Egypt, it is a worldwide campaign aginst KFC,” she said, adding that the movement wanted the company to implement specific policies to ensure there was no cruelty.
“We have no relations with the company outside,” said the manager of the branch on Tahrir Square, in the heart of Cairo. “We are an Egyptian company with all Egyptian employees, supplied by Egyptian farmers.”
According to Tariq Tawfiq, vice president of the chamber of food industries, fast food chains in Egypt use state of the art slaughterhouses that try to ensure the birds are as calm as possible when they are killed.
“The way you treat chicken has a great impact on the quality of the taste, if you treat the chicken right, and keep them calm then their meat is much more tender,” he said.
Last May, Baker dressed up as a giant sheep and presented flowers to the Australian embassy in Cairo after it recommended suspending sheep exports to Egypt because of the conditions of the abattoirs.

Click here more shots on Flickr or on the pics for a larger size.

Amr003-150249-Pih Amr002-150136-Pim

Photos by Amro Maraghi for AFP.

[Thanks, Paul]

Omar Sharif, bully

Omar Sharif, the man who famously bullied Edward Said when they were at school together, has done it again:

Omar.H1BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – Omar Sharif pleaded no contest Tuesday to misdemeanor battery and was ordered to take an anger management course for punching a parking valet who refused to accept his European currency.

The Egyptian-born actor, known for his roles in “Doctor Zhivago” and “Lawrence of Arabia,” wasn’t required to be in court and the plea was entered on his behalf by attorney Harland Braun. Sharif, 74, was in Egypt on Tuesday.

. . .

According to the lawsuit, Sharif was belligerent and intoxicated and called Anderson, a Guatemalan immigrant, a “stupid Mexican” when he refused to accept a 20 euro note.

Anderson alleged Sharif then punched him.

Braun said Sharif decided to plead no contest because it would cost too much to fly to Los Angeles and testify.

New Saudi succession rules: there’s a regime that has it together

As my friend Hugh Miles notes in this Telegraph piece, something of a landmark constitutional change has taken place in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia has significantly reduced the powers of its absolute monarchy by quietly removing the king’s authority to choose his own successor.

This landmark constitutional reform, enacted by royal order last October but only disclosed this week, fundamentally changes the way the desert kingdom – which controls 25 per cent of the world’s oil – is governed.

Until now, the king alone has selected his successor, known as the crown prince, from among the sons and grandsons of King Abdul-Aziz, the founding leader of Saudi Arabia, better known as Ibn Saud.

In future, a committee consisting of senior members of the royal family, called the Bay’ah Council, will vote for the crown prince from three candidates named by the king.

The council is empowered to reject the king’s choice and can even impose a crown prince against the monarch’s will. It can also declare the king or crown prince incapable of ruling.

The nitty gritty of the changes can be found here and an explanation by Prince Turki al-Faisal was delivered at St. Antony’s College last week.

What’s interesting about this is that there now seems a clear succession mechanism — one of course that is still extremely restricted and undemocratic, but that has the advantage of being clear. Contrast that with the utter confusion over Egypt’s own succession system — the refusal of President Mubarak to appoint a vice-president in 25 years and the uncertainty about whether Gamal Mubarak, Omar Suleiman, or someone else altogether will succeed Mubarak.

I usually hate to praise the Saudis, but here as in so many other respects, they’re doing things a lot more professionally than the Egyptians. Just consider how Saudi Arabia has completely eclipsed Egypt as a regional mediator, and how it actually seems to have a foreign policy of its own. There’s been much grumbling about this in the Egyptian press lately. Salama Ahmed Salama, one of the most respected establishment columnists, recently noted in a column on Iran that:

During the Cold War, the Arabs were not the sheep blindly following US policy that they have become. They developed independent foreign policies that were based on Arab interests. Today, the Arabs’ problems are growing and reveal an total inability to manage their internal problems. The Arabs are in such an impasse that they are accusing Iran of having expansionist ambitions.

. . .

Arab policies, notably the foreign policy of Egypt, seems to be magnetically attracted to the US. This is evident from the confusion of Egyptian diplomacy. [Egypt] accused Iran of being behind the murder of its ambassador, Ehab al-Sherif, in Baghdad. Then, it denied that it had made these accusations only to later withdraw that denial — even though it is obvious that it was Sunni followers of al-Zarqawi who were behind the assassination.

The rest of the column (from about a week ago) went on to suggest that closer Arab relations with Iran would be positive, if only to shake off the “vicious circle of American hegemony over the region.” But even if there were criticism of Arab states, it was really aimed at Egypt. One only needs to take at the recent Saudi initiatives to deal directly with the Iranians to see that Saudi policy is a lot more independent. The conclusion: Saudi may be a pretty twisted country, but its regime has its act together. You can’t really say that about Egypt.

I was talking about this phenomenon with an Egyptian friend a couple of nights ago and he despaired: before the 1952 Free Officers’ coup, he said, Egypt was a country with money and clout. By 1969 Nasser had spent it all. We’ve been beggars ever since.

Yediot gaffe on MB(?)

Update: See comments, there is some confusion as to which MPs people are referring to here.
Update 2: Haaretz picks up an AP story that has the same confusion about the names.

The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot’s website, Ynetnews.com, had a piece today accusing two NDP members of calling for the development of a nuclear bomb as a deterrent against, or to get rid of, Israel. But the people they quote, I believe, are both members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohammed al-Katatny, in fact, is the head of the MB’s parliamentary bloc. Amer I am not so sure about — there is a Mohammed Amer among the MB MPs, but it’s a common enough name. Khalifa is not MB.

“That cursed Israel is trying to destroy al-Aqsa mosque…Nothing will work with Israel except for a nuclear bomb that wipes it out of existence.” Mohamed el-Katatny of President Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) told the Egyptian Parliament.

During the special parliamentary meeting, which was convened to discuss controversial renovations near the Mugrabi Gate in East Jerusalem, other members of el-Katatny’s party called to revoke Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

“The war with Israel is still ongoing whether we like it or not,” NDP legislator Khalifa Radwan said.

Mohamed Amer, another ruling party member, said: “What this (Israeli) gang is doing makes me demand that we trample over all the agreements we signed.”

The parliament has little say in national security issues or foreign policy, ultimately dictated by Mubarak who has rejected similar calls in the past.

That gaffe aside, of course such comments don’t necessarily mean that much. Israeli ministers have threatened to nuke the Aswan Dam in the past. But — if these quotes are accurate, and I won’t assume they necessarily are — should the MB pursue a more careful line between nationalist sentiment and having a discourse that is acceptable to the international community? Like on most important issues, the MB is ambiguous about its attitude towards Israel. On the one hand it has said that, if it were governing Egypt, it would not violate the terms of Camp David. On the other, when there such crises as what’s happening at al-Aqsa right now (the millionth evidence that Israelis are provocateurs with zero interest in peace), it’s only normal that they push for a correction in Egyptian foreign policy that could include, eventually, dropping Camp David and pursuing a nuclear deterrent. But Katatni’s call to wipe Israel off the map isn’t exactly, as they say in Washington, helpful — for Egypt or for the MB.