Problems on hold : Beyond doubt of bias

Author:
Source: Watani
Date: 2009-04-27

In an Easter message to expatriate Copts, President Hosny Mubarak stressed that no-one can harm the unity of Egypt’s Muslims and Copts, both of whom constitute the common, tight-knit texture of the Egyptian community. Every member in that community, Mubarak said, enjoys full citizenship rights and believes that religion concerns God while the homeland belongs to all. The President said: “I tell you as president of all Egyptians that we will never allow attempts at conspiracy or vilification to cause division between the two wings of the nation. We will fight culprits by the force of law, and Egypt will remain a safe homeland for all its children without the least doubt of any bias or discrimination.”

Even though the President was addressing expatriate Copts, his message relayed by the media at the forefront of the news, reached Copts and Muslims in Egypt. It undoubtedly produced a general feeling of comfort, while at the same time raising a few questions that beg answers. That such a declaration has come from the head of the State implies that the State views itself as the entity which incorporates all Egyptians and secures their rights as full citizens with full equality, with no bias or discrimination. This in itself confirms that the citizenship clause which comes at the forefront of the Egyptian Constitution is the sole standard which governs rights, legislation, and laws. However, the realistic implementation of citizenship rights and the materialization of the President’s message from a mere congratulatory note into a fact on the ground, remains the focus of skepticism.

Copts know very well that President Mubarak is a moderate, and believe him when he says that Copts and Muslims may only be distinguished according to their faithfulness to the homeland, the Egyptian community, and their adherence to the law. But they also know that the tools to implement such notions are the laws, regulations, supervisory authorities, and mechanisms of accountability and questioning that are in place in the community. In Egypt these are obviously replete with flaws and deficiencies which interfere with the materialization of equality and non-discrimination.

It is impossible to boast of equality and non-discrimination while current legislation and procedures flagrantly discriminate between Muslims and Copts regarding the building of places of worship. The discrimination begins with the absolute ease with which Muslims are allowed to purchase or are allocated the best and most spacious plots of land to build mosques, as contrasted by the absolute difficulty with which Copts may be allocated land or allowed to purchase land to build a church. Permits required to build and equip mosques with all necessary utilities are swiftly made available, whereas the same permits are next to impossible to obtain in the case of churches. The same open discrimination is also displayed in renovation and restoration procedures; permitted so easily for mosques and so forbiddingly for churches. Over and above, while the building of mosques requires no security approval, that of a church pre-conditions such an approval which, besides being not guaranteed, is usually open ended where time is concerned.

It is no secret that a bill for a unified law for the building of places of worship has been lying in the offices of Parliament for some five years now. Even though the bill has wide support among MPs, it has not yet been placed on the agenda of any parliamentary round so far. The absence of an official explanation for such a move has naturally given rise to conjecture, with some claiming that President Mubarak has not given the bill the green light yet.

Justifications are frequently offered for the current discrimination in the building of places of worship, but these justifications are no more than lame excuses. It is sometimes claimed that there is no need for the law since the president has ceded his power of approving permits for renovations and restorations of churches to the governors, and now only retains the right to approve permits for new churches. This move, it is claimed, has facilitated church building. But any observer can obviously tell that nothing has been made easier as long as any permit pre-requires a security approval. President Mubarak has repeatedly boasted that he never rejected an application for a permit to build a new church, but this is besides the point since it concerns only the applications that were allowed to reach his office and says nothing of the countless others that never reached the President.

Regardless of the number of procedures required to build a church or mosque and their respective difficulty, the only measure of real equality will be the passage of a unified law that affords neither Muslims nor Christians any preferential treatment.

Worth noting, however, is that discrimination between Muslims and Copts is not merely confined to the building of places of worship, but involves other aspects which I plan to discuss at length in subsequent articles.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

Brotherhood won't risk confronting State

Author:
Source: The Egyptian Gazette
Date: 2009-04-25

EGYPT's Muslim Brotherhood, increasingly excluded from mainstream politics, says it will not risk open confrontation with the State by taking to the streets in large-scale protests. Mohamed Habib, deputy leader of Egypt's banned group, said the Brotherhood would not risk that path without more substantial popular support and clear objectives.Smaller opposition groups have often decried the apparent unwillingness of the Brotherhood, which seeks an Islamic state through democratic means, to use its resources to agitatemore aggressively for change in the most populous Arab country."

For the Brotherhood to go out alone, no," Habib told Reuters in an interview ."You're talking about anarchy and that is something no one accepts, in addition to the fact that it can be exploited by the mob to damage public and private property," Habib added. Habib said he saw promise in a bur- geoning social protest movement working on issues of poverty and social justice.The Brotherhood won roughly a fifth of the seats in the lower house of Parliament in 2005, but authorities have since obstructed its efforts to further its electoral gains in more recent votes for municipal councils or the upper and lower houses of Parliament."

The conviction must be born among the people that the issue of reform and change is dependent on them, more thanit is dependent on political and national forces," Habib said.He added that emerging social protest movements had the potential to snowball, fuelled by tensions caused by the massive rift between wealthy businessmen allied with the State and the vast majority of Egyptians who live in poverty."Social protest movements are strong and growing, and are full of simmering anger," he said of the movements, which focus on specific issues like rising prices or poor health services rather than on supporting openly political organisations."

If we can achieve some sort of coor- dination among the social protest move- ments... we will have laid our feet on the beginning of the path."The Brotherhood has said it prefers to focus on its extensive social service net- works and spreading their values rather than holding demonstrations of limited value.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

No Disagreements between Libya and Saudi Arabia- Libyan Aide

Author: Sawsan Abu-Husain
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-25

Ahmad Qadhaf al-Dam, general coordinator of Egyptian-Libyan relations, has underlined the importance of the appeal for Arab unity made by King Abdullah Bin-Abdulaziz, the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that "there are no disagreements between Libya and Saudi Arabia" and added that there was nothing preventing the exchange of visits between Riyadh and Tripoli and pointed out that Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi has sent live on the air an open invitation to exchange visits. He said the page of the past was closed in favor of joint Arab action during the next stage and added: "There is no disagreement between us and Saudi Arabia but there was a misunderstanding which is now over because the danger to the region does not differentiate between one country and another. Everyone is targeted and we must therefore return to our unity, as the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques had asserted, so that we can work together for the sake of the Arab nation's interest."

Qadhaf al-Dam urged the mobilization of forces to confront the real enemy and solve the Arab problems and to distance themselves from any conflicts or disputes that perpetuate the inter-Arab differences. Speaking at a meeting with the Egyptian and Arab media correspondents at the wheat harvest festival in 6,000 feddans that a Libyan company owns in Ismailia Governorate (100 km east of Cairo), he said: "Libya is against any Arab-Arab problems or disputes."

On holding the next Arab summit in Libya, he said: "We are aspiring for the Tripoli summit to be a qualitative stage in the Arab nation's history and that the Arabs will reach total agreement during it." He pointed out that the situation through which the Arab world is going at present requires the unity of their ranks.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

Hezbollah Planned Three Synchronized Attacks in Egypt

Author: Abdul Sittar Hatita
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-24

Sources close to the investigations into the Hezbollah cell in Egypt, which includes 49 suspects including Egyptian, Lebanese, and Sudanese nationals, revealed that the cell planned to carry out three major bombing operations in tourist areas of Egypt.

Egypt stated Thursday that it told ambassadors of Arab countries about the investigations taking place with regards to the Hezbollah in Egypt case. Informed legal sources said that this case will be referred to the tribunal next week and that the 24 suspects at large include three Sudanese working for Hezbollah intelligence to transfer weapons from the Sudan-Egypt borders to the Sinai region, where Egypt borders Israel.

Ahmed Ragheb, the lawyer representing a number of suspects involved in the case, stated that it is most likely that the case will be transferred within the next few days to the concerned tribunal.

Meanwhile, sources close to the investigations said that on Wednesday night Supreme State Security continued interrogating a number of suspects on the role played by Hezbollah intelligence figure Mohammed Qablan, who is at large, in the case of the Hezbollah cell that was discovered in Egypt in order to know when he visited Cairo and Giza and other areas in the Suez Canal and Sinai regions.

The investigations with the accused suspects revealed that Qablan, along with some of his Hezbollah aides that came with him to Egypt on a number of occasions using code names, was planning to carry out three major attacks using explosive belts and car bombs in the tourist area of Taba, close to the Israeli-Egyptian borders, which is frequently visited by large numbers of Israeli tourists.

Sources added that the price of one of the vehicles that Hezbollah wanted to use in an operation to be carried out in tourist hotspots in the Red Sea area was paid during a meeting attended by Qablan, Mohammed Yousuf Mansour (also known as Sami Shehab) who has been detained in Egypt, and a number of Egyptian suspects, who are 1948 Arabs, living in Sinai. The vehicle was a small second-hand van, the kind usually used by local citizens in areas of the Red Sea and Sinai.

However, security sources denied that the van was among the items that were seized along with the suspects. The sources told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The issue of the van is being investigated and we know who paid for it but we do not know whether this vehicle is in the possession of State Security or if they are still looking for it, especially as there are other suspected members of the cell at large, some of which are hiding in the rugged mountains of Sinai.”

The sources close to the investigations said that following interviews carried out by Supreme State Security apparatus with a number of suspects – and after the Egyptian suspects (of Palestinian origin) admitted that there was another person of Lebanese origin [involved in the case] apart from Mohammed Mansour Yousuf (Chehab) – the suspects were interrogated once again in order to find out the identity of this Lebanese figure. The suspects said that he was the head of the Hezbollah cell in Egypt. It became clear that the figure was Mohammed Qablan, a senior Hezbollah activist close to the party’s intelligence division.

Sources added that Nasser Abu Umra, the accused Egyptian national of Palestinian origin, stated during an interrogation session on Wednesday night that he met a Lebanese person who was part of the Hezbollah cell and was planning to carry out bombings in Taba and that when Mohammed Yousuf Mansour (Chehab) was brought to Abu Umra, Abu Umra stated that it was not him even though Chehab knew him and admitted to meeting him a number of times in Al-Arish. The sources added that investigators showed a number of suspects a recent picture of Qablan, and that Abu Umra and other suspects in the case knew who he was. Abu Umra also said that he had met Qablan more than once in various parts of Egypt including Cairo and Giza.

The Supreme State Security continued its investigations on Wednesday night under the supervision of Hisham Badawi, the first Attorney General of the Supreme State Security, and launched an investigation into Nissar Jibreel who said in his statements that he is a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in Al-Arish.

Jibreel admitted that he met Nasser Abu Umra at the beginning of 2005 and said that Nasser asked him to gradually distance himself from the Muslim Brotherhood so that he could join another group that aims to help the Palestinian nation, i.e. Hezbollah. He added that Abu Umra introduced him to Mohammed Youssef Mansour (Chehab). On Wednesday night, he added that Mohammed Youssef Mansour introduced himself as a Palestinian, and admitted that he was a member of Hezbollah, and said that he had taken part in a number of meetings with leading members of the party who were working towards setting up a cell inside Egypt.

The sources added that the accused members of the organization are facing a number of charges including spying for a foreign party (Hezbollah) intending to carry out terror attacks in Egypt, joining an unlawful group that uses terrorism as a means to achieve its goals, being in possession of explosives and forging official documents (passports).

Ahmed Ragheb, a lawyer from the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, who has been following the investigations with the suspects, expects that the case will be transferred next week. He said, “At present, investigations are being carried out…we are awaiting the decision to transfer the case to the tribunal and at the beginning of next week, the fate of these suspects will be clearer.”

Sources from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said Thursday that it had given Arab states all the information available on the case of the Hezbollah cell in Egypt. This took place during an open meeting held by Minister Abdel Rahman Salahaddin, Assistant Foreign Minister for Arab Affairs, with a number of Arab ambassadors based in Cairo.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

Neither Nasrallah nor Nabih

Author: Mshari Al-Zaydi
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-23

The battle over public opinion in Egypt this time is being steered in favor of the Egyptian state in the way that the Hezbollah in Egypt crisis has been depicted.

The signs of this victory can be seen in the Muslim Brotherhood’s reconsideration of its position in the ongoing battle between the Egyptian state and Hezbollah. Initially, the MB’s General Guide and some of his men said that they understood Egypt’s accusations against Hezbollah but that they would support Hezbollah in consideration of the sanctity of resistance and the Israeli enemy. The Muslim Brotherhood believed that the Egyptian authorities had betrayed the Palestinian resistance or, at best, had not offered it enough help.

Yet after the Secretary General’s televised speech in which he responded to Egypt’s accusations, and after he proudly acknowledged that the cell leader was a member of Hezbollah and that he had been assigned by the party to create a support group for the Palestinian resistance that would offer it arms and military supplies, the least that Nasrallah owned up to, there was a complete turnaround.

Many Egyptian intellects were angered by Hassan Nasrallah’s audacity to undermine the Egyptian state and the way that he dealt with Egyptian territories as if they were a natural extension of Hezbollah’s area of operation, whether this operation is of a military, logistic or intelligence nature. Even staunch Egyptian supporters of the Iranian Islamic state, Khomeinism and fundamentalist revolutionary parties, who are also defenders of the Egyptian opposition press, had no choice but to criticize Hezbollah for violating the sovereignty of the Egyptian state. The explanation for this that I have heard from several Egyptian intellectuals is that unlike the popular support Hezbollah enjoyed during the war on Gaza, the mood of the Egyptian masses has changed. The average Egyptian has been shocked by the audacity of Nasrallah in undermining the principle of sovereignty in Egypt. The writers close to Iran can only go along with the general atmosphere like any populist movement and if it becomes hostile, they would have to face the difficult situation of going along with that too.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the biggest support base for Hezbollah in Egypt, failed the divine party in this crucial battle with the Egyptian state and the Egyptian masses. It failed the Khomeinist party at a time when it most needed the oppositionist Brotherhood propaganda and anti-government campaigns of some revolutionary writers and media figures in Egypt. This time however, a counterattack was not possible. These revolutionaries had to make do with blaming Hezbollah for committing such a mistake and reproaching the Egyptian state for taking the accusations too far. The best among them would say, ‘Let us wait for the investigations, the final bill of indictment and then pass judgment and take a stand.’ This is the direct opposite of the media and political positions that were adopted by these Egyptian currents during the Gaza war. Back then, Nasrallah’s speech was one of war, instigation, revolution and rebellion in Egypt. Yet, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian-inclined writers were quick to offer Hezbollah their full support against the Egyptian state under the recurring pretext of the sanctity of resistance. It is the same pretext that Nasrallah used to justify planting the Shehab cell in Egypt. This time however, his allies in Egypt have not shown similar support. Has the resistance lost its sanctity this time?

The divine party had no one to resort to but its allies in Lebanon. So the problem-solver, the master of verbal rhetoric and the clean-shaven face of Hezbollah, Nabih Berri, stepped forth. He thought and thought and thought and in the end he said, “We want to eliminate ‘trouble-making.’” Let us take a closer look at the smart and creative expression used by the veteran politician. What he meant here is that such a dispute had been fabricated but he doesn’t tell us who by. Who put it together as a commodity for the public and the media? Egypt of course. It was Egypt that uncovered the cell, cast accusations and is now abandoning the divine party politically and with regards to the media. As for Hezbollah, it has been the victim of this fabrication.

Nabih Berri presented an even more creative theory; he said that what was happening between Egypt and Hezbollah was merely a case of difference in opinion. Al Alam website affiliated to the Iranian television channel of the same name quoted Berri as saying, “The resistance in Lebanon is devoted to the security and interests of the Arab nation and Egypt.” He called for closing the case and for dialogue to prevent such trouble-making. He also added: “The arrest of a Hezbollah cell in the Sinai Peninsula is a result of difference in points of views. One party views Gaza as a threat to the Egyptian regime, while the other party views Gaza as a base for resistance.” Therefore it is all about two different viewpoints and Egypt’s exaggeration was uncalled for.

Berri even went as far as giving his personal guarantee that Hezbollah would not violate Egyptian national security but he failed to tell us what he understands from the term ‘national security.’ Does he consider the smuggling of arms by a secret cell and the formation of intelligence and monitoring groups behind the government’s back a violation of national security?

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry, through Ahmed Aboul Gheit, closed the door in the face of Nabih Berri’s maneuvers as it stated: “The case of the group affiliated to Hezbollah is not subject to any political considerations or mediation attempts.”

Jamil al Sayyid, the imprisoned Major General detained over the murder of Rafik al Hariri wrote an article from his prison cell that was published in Assafir newspaper in which he shared his vision of the Hezbollah in Egypt case, which does not differ from that of Nabih Berri. It aims to console both parties; the Egyptian state and the divine party, as each have a logical point of view. The imprisoned Major General said that Egypt “has a right to be angry at its territories being used as a passage for providing military supplies to the Palestinian resistance in Gaza without permission. But on the other hand, we must acknowledge that Hezbollah also has a right to be angry for being defamed in such a manner. The leadership of this party sees that it only violated Egypt’s sovereignty for a much nobler cause; to lend a helping hand to the Palestinian resistance.”

What do we make of all this? It is merely requesting that Egypt gives it a rest and a warning to Hezbollah not to commit the same mistake again. What is really quite sad about all this is the absence of the Lebanese state from the entire issue, with the exception of a few very weak statements such as the statement that said that the Lebanese President Michel Suleiman ‘is interested in dealing with the issue.’

It is apparent in this crisis that all the efforts in support of Hezbollah have been focused in natural and local circles, namely Lebanon. The biggest support came from the Amal movement and the overtly bias Major General Jamil al Sayyid. Outside of Lebanon, Muqtada al Sadr was prompt in offering his fiery verbal support for Hezbollah. If Nasrallah’s men analyzed the situation well, they would have realized that the party was falling into the instinctive sectarian dungeon.

This brings us on to a critical point about some media agencies in Egypt and some official accusations leveled against Hezbollah. It was incorrect to accuse Hezbollah of attempting to spread the Shia doctrine in Egypt; this has negative sectarian undertones and will not help the situation. The harm lies in the targeting of an entire religious sect in the Islamic world rather than confining the battle to the currents supporting Iran and its nationalist, fundamentalist dreams. We ought to spare our region from adding fuel to the sectarian fire.

Moderate Lebanese Shia Minister Ibrahim Shams al-Din, who is anti-Hezbollah, was right to express his full support of Egyptian sovereignty and of Egypt’s right to uphold national security. However, he voiced his concern over the accusations of the attempts to turn Egypt into a Shia state because it is an accusation that is offensive to all Shia, and Hezbollah does not represent them all. Moreover, this accusation will not help in the war against Iran and its allies.

This remark had to be made so as to put the confrontation in its right context and to avoid jumping out of the Hezbollah frying pan and into the fire of counter-sectarian fanaticism.

As for Egyptian sovereignty, it will not be harmed as long as Egyptian political performance remains highly resolute and alert. Neither Hezbollah nor Nabih Berri will be able to harm the sovereignty of Egypt.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

The Case of the "Cell"

Author: Mohammad Salah
Source: Al-Hayat
Date: 2009-04-19

The case of the Hezbollah cell in Egypt has caught the attention of politicians, the media and the public in the Arab and Islamic worlds. It has been a leading news item and actually "caused pain" to the Arabs, whetting the appetite of their enemies for more disputes, contradictions and confrontations with Iran. Of course, it does not appear that any of the parties connected to the issue, directly or indirectly, has any intention of retreating, and thus apologizing. Many questions have been raised by this old-new crisis. What is the possible way out of this crisis, which exploded between Egypt and Hezbollah and Iran after the announcement that a Hezbollah cell had been discovered, and that its members were being investigated by Egypt's State Security? Analysts and experts, and perhaps people in the street, are asking the question, and coming up with their own answers. However, the question is the beginning of a long series of questions that are being tossed around, but the parties to the issue, whether directly or indirectly connected, have yet to agree on the various answers. The revelation of the cell's existence, the acknowledgment of this by Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and the Iranian reactions to the information coming from Cairo about the investigations reveal the extent of contradiction between the competing feelings, agendas and interests. Were relations normal to begin with among the three sides, before the cell was formed and arrested, or before the Egyptian authorities went public, or before Nasrallah admitted to its existence? The crisis began 30 years ago, when Ayatollah Khomeini announced that the Arabs had led Islamic action for centuries and that the Kurds and the Turks had either led or dominated Islam for years; thus, now was time for the Persians to lead Islam. Was the Egyptian response too much, or was it in line with the seriousness of the incident, which Cairo considered a crime against its national sovereignty?

Irrespective of any prior disputes, no self-respecting state can allow the penetration of its borders, or the concealing of secret cells and organizations that have ties with foreign powers, no matter how noble the cause is. Some people are asking: why does Cairo sometimes ignore certain acts that violate its sovereignty, if carried out by Israel, such as the killing of a Central Security soldier on the border, for example, or arrogant statements by an extremist Jewish religious figure or Israeli official about Egyptian sovereignty? These people hint or state that Cairo has taken advantage of the case to settle scores with Hezbollah, insult its leader, or influence the Iranian role in the region, especially after conciliatory signals by the US about Iran. However, others see no laxity by the Egyptian political or diplomatic authorities toward any party that harms Egypt, including Israel. The statement by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman is evidence of this, as are the sharp Egyptian reactions to the US administration during the Bush administration, when neoconservatives or leading administration figures made criticisms of the human rights or freedoms situation, or the slow pace of political reform in Egypt. This is especially the case since the Egyptian government has been aware that it will pay the price, and pay quickly, when the Americans gradually reduced their financial assistance to Egypt. Did Egyptian officials get angry about the rising popularity of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah among the Egyptian public and the sympathy of the street with the Lebanese resistance? Was it an opportunity to get back at Nasrallah? Some people are promoting these theories, while others, who believe that Nasrallah made a mistake in forming the cell, oppose these ideas, referring to the changes in Nasrallah's personality, as reflected in the famous speech in which he addressed the Egyptian army and people directly. He believed that the issue was nothing special, and would be accepted by the Egyptians, but his speech was not received well popularly. And a final question: what about the timing of the announcement of the cell and its relationship to Palestinian dialogue, or the upcoming Lebanese parliamentary elections? Some of the answers to this one ignore that Cairo did not select the timing; the statement by the state prosecutor followed statements to the media by Montasser Zayyat, the attorney for the accused Lebanese national, which revealed details of the case. This caused a huge commotion, and it became necessary for the investigating authorities to clear things up. Generally speaking, other questions will remain and the answers will be contradictory, since there are competing agendas at play. The supporters and opponents from each side will take their positions based on their interests or ideas, without taking into consideration, reason, the intellect, or… the law.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

When the Brotherhood Supports Iran

Author: Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-15


Adversaries in a country usually unite, no matter what their disagreements, on two occasions, in times of national disasters and when an external danger exists.
But what happened in Egypt was the opposite. The Muslim Brotherhood [MB] Group Guide Mahdi Akif attacked the Egyptian Government because it criticizes Iran and levels exaggerated accusations at Lebanese Hezbollah.
This is a strange stand at a time when his country faces a real and serious crisis. It can be interpreted only as a move to settle political scores between the opposition and the government. This stand would be understandable and justified in normal situations and in times of domestic disagreements, but what we currently see is a state of war against Egypt.
The Hezbollah secretary general acknowledged what happened when he admitted his party's connection to the primary detainee and 10 others. He previously called for a coup against the Egyptian regime.
Had the MB Group leaders supported their country in this case, they would have achieved a great regional influence and their position would have become important. Moreover, their national, political, and, naturally, moral standing would have been boosted among all parties and this would have embarrassed the Egyptian Government itself. However, their attack on their government weakened them as an MB Group and did not help Iran.
It is a cheap opportunistic stand. In this respect, I recall two cases that are suitable for comparison. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaiti opposition was in a severe dispute with the authorities while demonstrations and clashes with the police took place. Given this situation, Saddam thought that the Kuwaiti oppositionists would join his plan to remove the Kuwaiti regime. Therefore, he presented himself at the beginning of the occupation as a person who would save Kuwait from the rule of the Al-Sabah family.
However, the invader was surprised to see the Kuwaiti opposition publicly announce its rejection of the invasion and adhere to legitimacy, represented by the Kuwaiti regime. Even though the Kuwaiti leaders were removed by force, the opposition refused an offer to assume power and insisted on supporting the Kuwaiti regime in spite of its disagreement with it. The opposition did so because it held the view that there is no bargaining over loyalty, patriotism, and rejection of foreign intervention.
The second case involves the stands that were taken by the leaders of three Islamic organizations during the same crisis of the occupation of Kuwait. These organizations supported Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, believing that Kuwait was gone forever. They were not interested in adopting a principled and ethical stand against the occupation and did not care about supporting the rights of people whose country was occupied in an act of aggression.
The leaders of these three organizations went to see their enemy, Saddam, and supported his crime. The irony is that these opportunistic organizations originally depended on the sympathy and support of states, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and others. They turned against these countries in their ordeal and stood by the aggressor. In the end, however, Kuwait was taken back, and these organizations lost everything.
As an Egyptian organization, the MB Group members can say that the group's relationship with the government is bad and that it has a long list of grievances against the government. The MB Group may be right in many of these grievances as part of the struggle for power. Nevertheless, it is expected to stand by its country in its time of ordeal. Any observer can now read how the MB Group leaders support Iran against their country and justify Hezbollah's acts. By making these statements, they expose Egypt to a genuine danger.
Regardless of the MB Group leaders' view, principles and ethics require a respectable opposition everywhere to stand alongside its country during crises, instead of using the opportunity and revenging against its adversaries inside the country by supporting foreigners.
What makes this stand even stranger is the fact that the MB Group, as an extremist religious Sunni movement, should be more involved in dispute with the extremist Shiite Hezbollah and Tehran regime than the Egyptian Government, which has been known as a moderate Sunni regime that is tolerant toward sects and religions. But this is politics after all.


____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

A perilous situation

Author: Abdel-Moneim Said
Source: Al-Ahram Weekly
Date: 200-04-09

As Israel's new government rejects in advance all prospects of peace, it will be Cairo that pays the final cost....

Radical Arab dreams have all just crystallised in the new Israeli government, which has brought together every shade of Israeli extremist. It consists of those who reject peace, those who want to expel the remaining Arabs from Israel, and those who maintain that Israel's relationship with the Palestinians and Arabs is one of permanent warfare. If the Labour Party was rewarded for crawling on its belly at the last moment in the hope of winning a few portfolios and a little political sway, this was only because everyone knows it is on its last legs. Meanwhile, whatever had remained of the so-called peace camp in Israel breathed its last with the second Palestinian Intifada and suicide bombings. Only a paltry handful of left- wing writers and intellectuals remain to plead for peace, and theirs is indeed a cry in the wilderness.

Israel inaugurated its new government with the pronouncement of the death of the Annapolis agreement. Some Arabs had regarded this agreement as a major debacle and an Israeli victory that had to be reversed. Well, this dream also came to pass, as did the departure of its architect, George W Bush. With the end of Annapolis, it is no longer just the Palestinians on the far side of the Green Line who are in danger; Palestinians inside Israel itself face the threat of expulsion and joining the ranks of the millions of Palestine refugees that preceded them in earlier decades.

The situation could not be more perilous. Israel had already grown more belligerent before the formation of the new government. Now it appears that Gaza was only the beginning and that its teeth are bared against established Arab countries. The attack against Sudan was ostensibly intended to target weapons from Iran destined to Hamas in Gaza. Most likely, the agreement that was concluded between the US and Israel at the end of the Bush era was intended to provide the legal cover for plans Israel intended to carry out in any case.

Yet, in spite of this situation, the Arab summit had only one matter to discuss on this issue, which was whether to wave the threat of withdrawing the Arab peace initiative. The idea had been given more than its fair share of bandying about as of late. During the last Davos summit, Amr Moussa had personally asked Israeli President Shimon Peres to give his seal of approval for the initiative, which Israel has not yet done. So, by what logic is withdrawing the initiative supposed to be a threat when Israel had never accepted it to begin with, and when no party to the new government has ever been remotely keen on it?

Apart from this, little else happened in the Arab summit, which was more concerned with protecting President Omar Al-Bashir from facing the International Criminal Court than with the Israeli aerial assault on Sudan. About the latter, Khartoum remained silent for more than two months until news of it was leaked by Sudanese sources that had thought that the US was responsible, only to be contradicted by Pentagon spokespersons who revealed that, no, it was not Washington but rather Israel that had committed the deed. If that attack could have taken place under an Israeli government that believed that it was possible to make peace with the Arabs, and that subscribed to the solution of a Palestinian and an Israeli state living side by side in peace, what might we expect from a government like that just formed by Binyamin Netanyahu?

What seems painfully evident now is that the Arabs have nothing left. Also, now that the Arabs have said that the Arab peace initiative will not remain on the table for long, there will be precious little on the table, either to say or do. Netanyahu will rejoice because no one will be interested in the two-state solution any more. As long as this is the case -- just so we in Egypt are not taken by surprise -- the Arabs and the Arab League as well will turn to us and insist that we do the "right thing". The "right thing", according to them, will be to recall our ambassador and kick out theirs, sever relations and cancel the Qualified Industrial Zones and oil and gas agreements, and open the borders with Gaza so that arms can pour in above ground like they did below ground. But if there is one lesson to be learned from the last Gaza crisis it is that when the Arab world has no ability to act and no solutions to offer, it turns to Cairo to pay for policies that are bankrupt from the outset.

____________________________

Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews