The Muslim Brotherhood Democracy of Disenfranchisement

The term gerrymandering was coined out of the undemocratic actions of a governor of my home state; Governor Gerry of Massachusetts. Governor Gerry redrew the electoral district boundaries in a manner that helped his party win the largest possible number of seats. The resulting map of the districts was so absurd, resembling the imaginary salamander and hence the term was invented. Over the years, gerrymandering has continued in many American states, where the party dominating the state legislators could redraw maps to serve their own purposes. Gerrymandering is a fundamentally undemocratic concept; one can look at it as disenfranchisement of those voters, who are being removed from a district where their votes would make a difference to another where their votes are unlikely to affect the outcome of a race. A good example is the carving out of a majority African American area out of a district, where the democratic leaning African Americans are likely to tip the balance of a close race, and adding it to a geographically illogical district that has a large and safe majority of republicans. So instead of the African American votes helping the democratic candidate win, they are wasted. This is dirty politics, no one defends as democratic and some states in the US have made it illegal.

Yet gerrymandering is a relatively benign compared to Ikhwanmandering. This method of disenfranchisement was used in Egypt’s so called parliamentary elections in late 2011 and the early part of 2012. Before we get into what happened in Egypt, let’s just remember what many would know about different election systems; I offer this as not as a political science specialist, but merely as an interested observer.

First Past The Post, Run-offs and Proportional Representation:

Nations have addressed methods of achieving representative democracy in different ways in their constitutions and laws. In the UK and the USA, the First Past The Post is the norm for electing legislators; so whichever candidate gets the most votes in any particular district gets elected; an imperfect system in many ways, but very simple and clear. The French attempted to improve this by creating a system of run-offs or second rounds; whereas the top two vote getters, would have a run off, and whoever gets the most votes is elected. Other nations such as Germany, Italy and Israel adopt a system of Proportional Representation or PR. Different varieties of PR exist, some where voters would vote for a single list, others where voters would rank first, second and third choice off of party lists or candidates. The basic concept of PR is to allow smaller parties to attain representation. We see countries with First Past The Post essentially limited in their choice between Republican and Democrats or Labour and Conservatives whereas with PR, we see far more fragmentation, as in Germany with Social Democrats, Greens, Left, Christian Democrats and Liberals and similar examples of fragmentation in Italy, Israel and other countries.

In Egypt, there is a good argument for PR, where Coptic Christians, who virtually never actually get elected, may be able to have members of parliament, elected by the people and not appointed by a president. Similarly the many different strands, emerging in Egyptian political life could be represented. There is also an argument for the Run-Off system to allow strong parties to emerge. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan worked with then governing Junta SCAF to concoct an amazingly complex system for the parliamentary elections. Their cooperation was possible through, what many assume, an implicit pact designed to marginalize and limit the influence of the original proponents of the January 25 Revolution of 2011. While many legal experts opined that some elements of this system would prove to be unconstitutional, the Ikhwan insisted on this system and were able to intimidate SCAF sufficiently into accepting it. Let’s now review the absurdly complex system that was used in Egypt:

Combo system: The Ikhwanmandering system combines all three systems discussed above together; so we have the PR system and a direct candidate system as well as a run-off. This basically results in enlarging the electoral districts sufficiently to make it harder for those candidates without sufficient organization to compete. The run-offs makes the campaigns more expensive and difficult and afford the better established forces a second chance to bring their national organization power into a district. Sadly, the PR districts while larger than the individual districts, they are not national and therefore still fail to offer representation for minority currents, be it Copts, socialists or other voices. Egypt has no local or regionally elected provincial, regional or locally elected bodies, so it was truly absurd to have PR on a district level, not the country as a whole. 

The Quote System: Another tactics of Ikhwanmandering is to further enlarge the districts by introducing a system of dedicated quota for laborers and peasants. With the definition being loosened enough to allow for wealthy self employed people to run for laborer and peasant seats. So an individual in any big Egyptian City casted votes for an individual candidate, a laborer candidate and a list in his or her own large districts. The quota system served to make it more difficult for emerging political forces to compete against the established Ikhwan or NDP or Mubarak's disbanded party. Oftentimes people simply voted against the NDP in the second round, much as has occurred in the presidential elections. Again, absurdly, while the so called laborer and peasant quota was preserved, the quota for women was dropped.

The Six Week National Ballots: The parliamentary elections of 2011 were carried out over six weeks, with the country divided into three regions, first region had its elections over two days and two weeks later the run offs. The results were announced and then two weeks later, the next region's elections and run offs and results and finally the last region. This clearly was designed to allow for nationally organized forces to be able to support each region in order. While many also argue that it allowed for fraud, for the purpose of discussing Ikhwanmandering, I will not address this topic. The choice of which region goes first needs further research, but it was by no means random. We have seen Ikhwan typically gather their support or protest demonstrations in one or two areas, similarly with elections, it was the use of concentrated national resources to help defeat local candidates who were already spread thin over large districts and financially exhausted with runoffs. 

Shura Council Too: As if six weeks of elections were not enough, SCAF and Ikhwan agreed that there would be a vote for an upper house which would then require six further weeks. The upper house or Shura had virtually no assigned duties and the vote for it was held before any constitution was written and it was unclear if it would actually exist at all under a new constitution. Naturally less than 7% of those eligible to vote bothered to go to the Shura polls.

Many in the west would argue that there are democratic means to overcome gerrymandering; this is indeed true. But let’s not forget that all of these elections were not really for normal legislative bodies, they turned out to be, much to our surprise, the electorate, for the power to form a committeeto write the Constitution. The Supreme Court never had the chance to rule over the legitimacy of this, as the supporters of Ikhwan laid siege to the court for several weeks, before President Morsi declared himself above the Supreme Court and issued a Constitutional Declaration that the Constituent Assembly chosen by the Ikhwanmandered process would be immune from dissolution.  The Ikhwan and their Salafi allies proceeded at breakneck speed to force a Constitution that was mainly focused on the limitations of freedom, limiting religious freedoms to approved religions and limiting equality and citizenship rights to the whim of religious interpretations.

Some Muslim Brotherhood apologists would argue in defense of various aspects of Ikhwanmandering such as the staging of the elections in regions being required to comply with judicial oversight of the elections and no enough judges are available to supervise all the polling stations, yet most judges refused to oversee the referendum over the Ikhwan Constitution and that did not prevent the very same Ikhwan apologists from declaring that defective vote democratic.

The Muslim Brotherhood feared democracy and sought to immunize themselves against it. Their efforts were ultimately about disenfranchisement of their opponents and counter democratic. They had choices and at every juncture they opted disenfranchisement.

AA
July 27, 2013

The Obama Middle East Experiment

US President Mr. Barak Obama made a speech in Cairo University on June 4^th 2009 . In his, almost hour long speech, Mr. Obama outlined the United States future Middle East policy. As Mr. Obama starts his second term in office it becomes critical to examine, how did the actions of the Obama administration match the content of the Cairo speech; and possibly predict what lies ahead, specifically for my beloved birthplace and homeland, Egypt.  

Following extracts from Obama speech about democracy are particularly relevant:

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”

The Obama administration followed the premise of the Cairo speech above and, largely, stood by the side of the peaceful demonstrators against the longtime dictator and US ally Hosni Mubarak, which led to his fall and a transition period run by his top Generals. The transition period was marred by human rights violations that rivaled the Mubarak thirty-year era. As the transition period ended with the presidential elections between two undesirable candidates; the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mr. Mohammed Morsi vs. Mr. Ahmad Shafiq who was a Mubarak loyalist and his last prime minster. On June 24, 2012 the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won the elections by 51.7% of the vote, following agreeing but not guaranteeing a number of  concessions to the revolutionary opposition, who agreed to back Morsi. The revolutionary camp could not contemplate the idea of an ex-army general, with strong ties to the Mubarak regime, as president. Alleged back-room deals between the Muslim Brotherhood and the army generals paved the way for declaring Morsi winner.

 On November 22, 2012 Egypt entered another phase of political instability when Mr. Morsi issued a declaration designed to protect the work of the Constituent Assembly drafting the new constitution from judicial interference. This declaration, in effect,  immuned Mr. Morsi's actions from any legal challenge. The sweeping declaration had other articles designed to appease the masses such as retrials of those accused of killings peaceful protestors during the Mubarak era. Such articles added no real legal value, as they required new evidence to be presented to justify these retrials. Peaceful protests erupted immediately in Egypt demanding withdrawal of the declaration and formation of a new Constituent Assembly that is balanced and representative of all Egyptians instead of the current assembly that is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafi and other Islamist supporters. The Muslim Brotherhood armed militias dealt with these protests utilizing brutal force killing 6 protestors and wounding hundreds. Two Muslim Brotherhood supporters were killed in the ensuing clashes.

The Obama administration, at this critical moment, faces a critical test regarding its true intentions for Egypt's fledgling democracy. It is becoming apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood and their president advocated democracy when they were out of power; once in power they became ruthless in suppressing the very same democracy that got them into power, not unlike what Mr. Obama predicted in his Cairo speech. So far the Egyptian people are getting mixed signals from Washington, on the one hand, the Obama administration stood by Morsi as a pay back to the ceasefire he helped broker between Israel and Hamas, on the other hand the Obama administration started slowly to pull away from the Egyptian regime hoping to nudge the Muslim Brotherhood into negotiating with their opposition.  

There are few questions upon us at this point. Could the Obama administration have predicted the outcome in Egypt as it is today?  Yes! The US administration knew well the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood as a supremacist organization which has been aiming to gain control over Egypt for over eighty years and would use all possible legal and illegal means to achieve its goal.  It is also apparent to a student of history such as Mr. Obama, that the Muslim Brotherhood will stop at nothing to spread its reach over the Arab and Muslim worlds to re-establish the lost Islamic Caliphate.

Could the Obama administration have changed the outcome in Egypt? No! The Obama administration did not have much choice in the outcome thus far.  The Muslim Brotherhood was the only organized group when the Mubarak regime fell in February 2011 and was the only force willing to provide concessions and guarantees to both the US government and the Egyptian military.  Also the Obama administration stayed away from changing the outcome because it did not wish to repeat the past mistakes as in Iran when the US supported the brutal Shah regime to the bitter end and gained an unrelenting enemy, and in Algeria when the US government supported an army overthrow over elected Islamists resulting in a bloody, decade long, civil war with an estimated 200,000 casualties.

Does the Obama administration know if the Muslim Brotherhood is bound to fail in running Egypt as a country? Yes! I need to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in this and assume that the administration is fully aware of the limitations of the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization who operated underground for eighty years and recruited members, not based on talent or merit, but rather based on obedience to the internal hierarchy of the Brotherhood structure all the way to its supreme Guide Mr. Mohammed Badie and his more influential deputy Mr. Khairat El-Shater.  The Muslim Brotherhood organization has demonstrated thus far, its lack of vision, management and communication skills to solve Egypt's problems and will, likely, fail politically and economically. Currently, the Obama administration is attempting to change the outcome of  events by influencing the flow of aid and loans from the US, The European Union, the IMF and also from the rich Arab Gulf States and tying this flow of aid to ensure a more democratic transition. 

Even Qatar, a traditional supporter of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, contributed two Billion Dollars to the regime in the form of a certificate of deposit which can be withdrawn upon demand. The path to the Muslim Brotherhood demise is clear, however the price that the Egyptian people will pay will be very dear both in human and economic terms. The Brotherhood is  fighting a war of survival, they know well that if they lose this round, there would virtually be, no chance they will be able to recover because the Egyptian people will defeat their ideology. As for the Obama administration the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood will come at almost no cost and without US army involvement in the conflict. Obama also predicted the following in his speech when describing the path to democracy “There is no straight line to realize this promise”. Was he telling the Egyptian people your path from dictatorship to democracy is not straight and will unfortunately have a Muslim Brotherhood stop along the way? Only time and the Egyptian people will tell how this Obama experiment will end.

Michael Wahba

December 15, 2012

The Grey Zone

On this anniversary of the Holocaust remembrance, I recall a rather obscure, movie called The Grey Zone that I saw nearly ten years ago. The movie was based on the true story of an Hungarian doctor and on his life with the brigades of Jewish workers in Nazi concentration camps. Those Jewish slave workers cleaned the gas chambers and operated the cremation ovens. They were grey all over from the ashes, so hence The Grey Zone. Typically these workers were exterminated after few months, so for their effort they were given an extra three to four months of life and a modicum of concentration camp comforts such as better sleeping arrangements, more food and cigarettes.

While the much better known Stephen Spielberg’s Schindler'sList left me tearful, The Grey Zone left me in a state of deep and intense sadness; actually agony; but with remarkable clarity. The Grey Zone delivered all the shocking images that I could only guess at, but frankly dared not imagine. Here they were, right there before our eyes; hordes of people; entry into the gas chambers, the gas, the bodies piled up, the ovens, the ashes ...the whole thing. Not just the crowded trains, frightened faces and tired little hands clutching personal treasures , remnants of normal times, necklaces or photos of loved ones, but rather the full graphic details.

I am deeply saddened that that in my native Egypt, books of Holocaust deniers or those allocating much of the blame for the Holocaust to the Jews themselves, are increasingly widely accepted as the truth. It saddens me that movies like Schindler’s List have, to my knowledge, not been shown on Egyptian TV; while at the same time Egyptian State TV under Mubarak dictatorship serialized a drama based on the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I am also saddened that most Egyptians today are unaware of the very honorable role Egypt played receiving boatfuls of Jews escaping from Nazi controlled Europe at a time when Jews were still being turned away from the United States. Sadly, to my knowledge the honorable contribution of Egypt saving Jews escaping Nazi receives no mention in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem either or in other places commemorating the Holocaust. So as we remember the Holocaust today, I want more people to remember Alexandria as a willing safe haven for Jews and to honor Egypt’s role.

The Grey Zone left me with heightened clarity on some fundamental ideas. Humans are capable of great horrors; normally decent human beings, in the face of mortal danger, will resort to unspeakable acts to save their own skin, even for a short while! …and hate survives on the fear of its would be victims and on the silence of those who witness it.

As we remember I hope we look deep inside and attempt to cleanse ourselves from hate, prejudice and fear!

AA

January 27, 2012

Inconvenient History: tales of lesser discussed history of Egypt & Israel

As Egypt's relationship with Israel takes central stage for both countries, a look at some interesting little known historical facts may be beneficial for Egyptians and Israelis to explore. While I am in no position to offer ironclad guarantees of the accuracy of the various events and I lack the skill and knowledge necessary to offer various citations and references, I do however believe that the events cited here have indeed occurred largely as described. Oftentimes there are layers of fog surrounding events of the type covered here; less so with those here, most have just tended to get buried or be ignored, with the hope, that they fade away completely.


Egyptian popular mission representing the leading Muslim & Christian families traveled to Palestine to congratulate the Jews of Palestine following the Balfour declaration:

Contrary to the wide spread belief, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, was not, at the time, seen by most Egyptian intellectuals as a sentence against the Palestinians. Interestingly enough some Egyptian Muslim and Christian families held parties to celebrate the Declaration, the Muslim Governor of Alexandria sent a telegram of appreciation to Lord Balfour. A delegation of Egyptian Muslims and Christians led by another Egyptian Muslim, whose paper strongly advocated the then minority position of Arab Nationalism, traveled to congratulate the Jews of Palestine. Majority of Egyptians leaders didn't consider an Arab affiliation for Egypt at the time. The people who participated in that retrospectively misguided delegation were not received back as traitors or sellouts when they returned to Egypt. The majority of Egyptians who held more Egyptian nationalist views also saw the declaration as positive news. Perhaps those Egyptian intellectuals focused on the Decleration's guarantees of the rights of the native population of Palestine or saw certain positive aspects in Jewish nationalism the way Americans do today! This topic will be examined later.

As New York turned back Jews fleeing Nazi Europe, Alexandria welcomed them to Egypt, one of , just, four ports globally open to take in Jews escaping from Nazi atrocities

Sadly few highlight this historical fact. Yad Vashem, other memorials and Holocaust history in general offer no special recognition of the role that independent Egypt played saving Jewish lives. A disgusting byproduct of the recent rise of anti-Semitism in Egypt with the wide circulation of books of Holocaust deniers, few Egyptians are actually aware of this important generosity that Egypt and all Egyptians should be proud of.

Amazingly as large numbers of European Jews arrived in Egypt escaping Nazi Europe few wealthy Egyptian Sephardic Jews worried about backlash

While this was by no means wide spread, it is important to note the disproportionate attention certain Jew haters such as the marginal figure of Hussieni the Mufti of Jerusalem receives who some groups even absurdly suggest that his influence reached Egypt. Could a non Jew argue that the memory of the Holocaust should not be used for short term propaganda gains?

In reading about World War II and the horrors faced by the Jews at the hands of advancing Nazi armies, nationalist partisans be them Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian or just the local populations; it is amazing that Alexandria, the city with the largest Jewish population in Egypt, did not record attacks on Jewish property and lives when Hitler’s army was only 70 miles to the west.

As Alexandria’s western suburbs were being bombed, Alexandrians wanting to rid themselves of the British occupation attacked British soldiers but no real signs of hate or anger against Jews surfaced. The Jews of Alexandria worried about the advancing Nazi army but did not fear their Egyptian neighbors. This is strange when so much of the hate propaganda would have us believe that Egyptians and Jews are natural enemies.

While the then non peaceful Muslim Brotherhood had indeed started to attack Jews in graffiti around 1939 in certain cities, there appears to have been no such attacks at all during the time of impending entry of Hitler’s army into Alexandria.

Israeli Mossad Operation Susannah widely known as the Lavon affair: Six years after the establishment of the State of Israel, Egyptian Jews largely stayed put and minimal immigration to Israel occurred. Israeli Intelligence, in order to spur their immigration, as well as attempting to derail Egyptian American relationship, carried out a number of terrorist attacks in Cairo in 1954. The Mossad agents were caught, tried and imprisoned in Egypt. Following the defeat of Egypt in the 1967 war, the imprisoned Mossad agents were exchanged for Egyptian POWs and later, were treated to official welcomes by the Israeli Government and more honors as recent as 2005.

Many Egyptians would now be shocked to read the text of the speech of Zakriyah Mohieddean, Egypt's vice-president at the time talking of Egypt’s Jewish sons. The language of monkeys and pigs was hardly heard before the Mubarak era.

Various attempts to rewrite the history of the Lavon affair continued even into the twenty-first century. Israelis will at some point need to come to terms with the bloody history of their nation. Egyptians will need to learn that anti-Semitism plays to the hands of the Israel’s right wing which consistently advocates exclusivity as the only way to defend Jews from ever hateful enemies.

UK and France admitted conspiracy in 1956 Suez War, yet Israel continue to label it “war of self defense”. It is truly absurd that while the British and French have come clean about this trilateral aggression on Egypt and numerous books and archieves have now been made available for over two decades, Israel’s official version remains that the invasion of Egypt in 1956 was a war of self defense or just totally omitted from history.

This is probably one of the most blatant examples that show the need for Israel to come clean with its history. The Jewish and Israeli people will be more willing to make the concessions necessary for peace when they are more aware of facts. There are many disputed facts in the history of the various Israeli conflicts, perhaps the lies associated with the 1956 Suez war would allow more Israel supporters to look beyond state propaganda. We often hear of school books in Palestine and elsewhere teaching hate of Israel, this shows that history books need changing on all sides.

Not one Egyptian Jew lost his or her citizenship for being Jewish, yet many native Egyptian Jews left because of bigotry and distrust.

Egyptian citizenship laws were first introduced in 1929. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire residents had choices to make to become Egyptian, Turk or other nationality. Left over from the days of overt British & French domination following the invasion of Egypt in 1882, was a strange justice system that saw locals facing Egyptian Law, while foreign European minorities subject to their own laws and consular courts. Many of the affluent Jews living in Egypt for two or even three generations regarded themselves above the locals and pursued European citizenships; the Ladinos with more recent roots in Turkey or the Levant generally opted for Turkish or Egyptian citizenship. Following the Suez War citizens of France & UK were evicted from Egypt. Some Jewish families were divided as many held different European citizenships. The second wave of expulsions happened after the 1961 introduction of socialist nationalization laws which targeted foreign and Egyptian capitalists; its biggest exodus was actually for Greek and Italian Christians and included wealthy Egyptian Jewish, Christian and Muslim families.

Through the forties and fifties of the 20th century it appears that the Jews in Egypt who faced problems with the state were for reasons of communist affiliations, British or French nationality or anti capitalist laws. This would be entirely consistent with Nasser’s policies who viewed the exit of Egyptian Jews as a victory for Zionism and hence the earlier appeals for Egypt’s Jewish sons. It took few years after the Suez war for real animosity at the national level to start building up in the middle and late sixties.

Over the years I met many American Jews who told me of their Egyptian friends who were expelled from Egypt for being Jewish and it never failed that upon questioning it became clear that the friends in question never held the Egyptian nationality to start with, through their own choice, and had rejected the Egyptian citizenship for other opions and eventually left Egypt as part of a bigger story.

Yet for the ethnic Egyptian Jews, mostly “Karaite” whose mother tongue was Egyptian Arabic, were Egyptian citizens and were in all aspects part of the fabric of the “locals” ,rather than the world of the superior minorities. Egypt lost a great deal by losing its Greeks, Italians and its “foreign” Jews who were part of its cultural, industrial and merchant classes for generations. Yet Egypt's biggest loss will always be its native Jews who, those who trace their roots back thousands of years, those who wore the galabeya or tarboush, listened to Om Kalthoum music, ate mehshi and molokhiya. Ultimately it was bigotry, racism, mistrust of their fellow Egyptians that led to their gradual isolation and eventual sad departure from Egypt. Egypts’ Karaite Jews of Egypt left because of dwindling opportunity, increasing suspicion and obvious inducement for a better life. Sadly one hears of similar stories of discrimination and bigotry towards Coptic Christians nowadays.

Egyptians use Zionist as a non racist insult, Jews hear an offensive racist slur. This is not so much historical fact as an observation of current discourse, particularly post the January 25, 2011 Egyptian Revolution. The internet savvy Egyptians are trying to choose their words in Arabic and English carefully, they are forward thinking revolutionaries driven by values of freedom and justice. Egyptians use “Zionist” mostly to mean Jews who support the oppression of the people of Palestine. Yet many Egyptians proceed to use the common bigoted racist anti-Semitic slurs with the word Zionist, so we hear of Zionist monkeys and pigs and the like. The forward looking Egyptians are willing to live with Jews and make peace with Jews but not Zionists, the Salafi minority and their elk reject all other and worse of all Jews.

Yet to many Jews, Zionism is an identity, it is more about their pride as people, it has a lot to do with their affection for Israel but to most Jews and Israelis, Zionism does not equal oppression of Palestine or usurping their rights. So while some Egyptians want to use a non racist language, virtually most Jews and Israelis hear nothing but racist language. Some Egyptians have taken to hone their criticism against Israelis rather than Jews failing to note that often times, there is far more advocacy for Palestinian rights amongst Israeli Jews than non Israeli Jews.

The Mubarak era saw massive increase of media criticism of Israel and of all things Jewish including the shameful serialization of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Mubarak’s own State TV, the rise of anti-Semitism in Egypt was a product of the state encouragement as a sanctioned channel for venting and activism and it also served the purpose of showing the US and the west the crucial need for Mubarak and his regime for ongoing stability. Long gone were the Sadat days of actively seeking reconciliation, Mubarak’s was the cold peace at the people to people level.

But this, clearly, is not the whole story, at a time of shocking images of live round the clock news coverage and citizen journalism; Israel is seen to be seriously out of step with its continued suppression of the rights of the people of Palestine, massive reprisals and collective punishment on a population occupied for generations. Israelis cannot stay silent on what is being committed in their name, day in and day out, and expect not to be hated. The continued right wing supremacist policies of colonial settlements, house demolitions, road blocks and “facts on the ground” are eroding the possibilities of peace and with Israel being a “democracy” are coloring all of its people with one big ugly brush in the eyes of many Egyptians.

Most Egyptians today are unaware of the deep roots of Zionism in Egypt and how most Egyptian political leaders and intellectuals looked admirably on Zionism even into the early 1930’s. In 1925 ardent Egyptian Nationalist Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed represented Egypt in the opening ceremony of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Some of the leaders of the Wafed Party in 1919 Revolution were also well known leaders of Zionist Associations in Cairo & Alexandria. Back then Jews, indeed Zionist Jews and Egyptians never viewed one another as enemies but friends. The Wafed Governments did not tolerate what they termed “Palestinian propaganda” from the one lone anti Zionist paper warning against evictions of Palestinians, they shut it down, while several Zionist papers were published in Egypt. The word “Zionism” did not have the abhorrent connotation it conjures today in the mind of the average Egyptian. Yet to Jews it still has the same lofty values that colleagues of Saad Zaghloul and Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed advocated.

The current events offer hope for change for the better but also offer a huge amount of uncertainty and fear. Perhaps looking at history we can see that the natural order is friendship between Jews and Egyptians or at the very least absence of animosity, perhaps Egyptians can learn to criticize actions and situations rather than labels and Jews and Israelis can revisit the history to see why a people who supported and welcomed them for many years have become so hateful towards them.

Ayman Ashour
August 29, 2011


Recommended Readings and Sources


I received a number of requests for sources and some readers wanted to read more on the various topics.

For political history and general views of Egyptians intellectuals and political leaders, I relied on readings in Arabic and English including The Question of Palestine by Edward Said and several of his other works. Leila Ahmed's outstanding memoir Border Passage, more than any other work helped me clear my views on issues of Egyptian identity and the more recent Arab identification. Other works that stayed with me included the controversial Enemy in the Promised Land by Sanaa Hassan and works in Arabic by Abed el Rahman el Refa'ay and others. Material I have encountered along the way but think had less influence on me were works by Bernard Lewis in English, Redwa Ashour and several others in Arabic.

For the Jewish experience in Egypt, I relied on Cairo, City Victorious which extensively used rabbinical records from Egyptian synagogues. The excellent Andre Aciman's Out of Egypt touched me deeply and I have also read  few other stories of  Jewish exits from Egypt.

Joel Beinin outstanding Stanford University research titled: Egyptian Jewish identities: communitarianisms, nationalisms, nostalgias, offers a concise review of material covered in more detail elsewhere. The paper is available on the internet and I have read several critical reviews of it as well but honestly have not been moved by them, perhaps Beinin just said what I wanted to hear.

I have also, through nearly 10 years as a co-moderator of an Arab Jewish internet dialogue group, and as member of in-person dialogue group in Boston, have heard directly of Egyptian Jewish experiences and was refered to countless articles and materials. Egyptian Jewish groups on the Internet continue to offer fascinating insight too.


My attempts to understand what the Holocaust meant for Jews come primarily from accounts of children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors in dialogue; also readings of Primo Levy touched me deeply and on the use of the memory of Holocaust for political or monetary gains on The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelestin. I have suffered through several books in Arabic including those translated from French that deny the Holocaust or at least its full extent as well as theories on Jewish collusion with Nazi.


Reading on what I term “applied Zionism” or rather what actually happened on the ground in Palestine includes limited readings of Benny Morris and the amazing Hannah Arendt and closer to my own perspective was the outstanding work of Fay Afaf Kenafani: Nadia, Captive of hope and In Search of Fatima by Ghada Karami.

For the Lavon Affair I have primarily relied on Internet searches, one or two articles in Arabic and the also writings by Joel Beinin of Stanford referenced above. I have read minimal amounts of similar operations carried out in Iraq for the purpose of inducing fear in the Jewish communities to emigrate to Israel.

For the Suez 1956, I read few books by British politicians of the time including Descent to Suez and relied on the website of the Jewish Agency which until few years ago described the war as “campaign of self defense” but as of yesterday appear to have deleted all reference to it, or I may have looked it elsewhere.

I have reviewed  many of the books referenced above and the reviews are on " myAmazon reviews". 

Finally, I am neither a historian nor a researcher; I just happen to be an avid reader and also have a relatively good memory. The topics have been of great interest to me and I view the reconciliation between Egypt and Israel as critical for achieving peace in the whole region, I am also deeply moved by the historic and on-going suffering of both Jews and Palestinians.

Hosny Zeft is gone ..this is for you mother!

“Hosny Zeft” is how my mother always referred to the deposed president of Egypt. While linguistically inaccurate I would equate “zeft” to garbage or rubbish as used in Egyptian Arabic. So to my mother the President of Egypt was Hosny Rubbish, she never referred to him as just Hosny or “el riess” the president, or Mubarak, it was always Hosny Zeft, Hosny Garbage, so consistent she was in her use of this name that one would be forgiven to believe the man’s last name was indeed Garbage.

My mother was always an ardent Egyptian nationalist with tremendous interest in politics and world events; she was the first in the family to boycott the state controlled Al Ahram, the big daily of Egypt and to seek out weekly and eventually daily opposition papers. In the early days of her Alzheimer family members were treated to lengthy rants about Hosny Zeft and his various ministers repetitively. We would often plead with her to tone it down in public places but this would aggravate her more, so Hosny Zeft it was all the time.

My sheer happiness for the success of the Egyptian Revolution and the way this success was achieved are simply beyond words. After three weeks of terrible distraction and an emotional roller coaster of fear, worry, anxiety, anger and hope, the thug and his regime are gone, the Mubarak’s era is no more! Still, I remain overcome by emotions ranging from sadness for those who paid the ultimate price and those who have been tortured and maimed to deliver this salvation to joy and elation at a united progressive organized peaceful movement that defeated the torture and propaganda machines of Mubarak.

I wanted to much to be able to discuss the events of the last three weeks with my mother, I so longed to hear her cheer for the protestors, I imagined trying to dissuade this feisty 82 year old lady from going to Tahrir Square. I wanted to hear what she thought of Egypt finally finding its voice, revolting for dignity and ultimately the getting rid of Hosny Zeft. I speak to my mother on the phone daily and try to get the discussion to Hosny Zeft …over the 18 days of the revolution the name registered once with mammi, …. yes there is still Hosny Zeft deep inside below the thick fog of Alzheimer. In that one call, on the 17th day, she still remembered a Hosny Zeft that should be indeed be damned….but for now my mother wants ice cream and football on TV. Perhaps after this stressful ordeal she is right; we all need ice cream and soccer on TV!

Outrage in Egypt …why? What next?

I am completely outraged by what is happening in Egypt and to the courageous young men and women of Egypt who took to the streets peacefully and beautifully asking for their freedom, for liberty & democracy. My contribution is, rather than going into the horrors committed by the Mubarak regime, I will focus on some background and address the questions that seem to occupy the mind of many in the west.

Some have claimed that the January 25 peaceful demonstrations were mere copy cat events of those in Tunisia. Let’s first look at why Jan25, and Jan25 in particular, and how #jan25 became such a huge tag on Twitter. The 25th of January is the Egyptian National Police Day or “Eid El Shortah” . The Police & internal security forces of Egypt, numbering in the millions, are a major part of the grievances of the people of Egypt. The Egyptian police has become notorious for the humiliation, abuse, torture and brutal killings of whomever they get their hands on, be they peaceful geeky bloggers, news reporters or organized Islamist or Arabist opponents of the regime.



#KhaledSaid is another big tag on Twitter and Khaled Said Facebook page has hundreds of thousands of members, Khaled would have celebrated his twenty-ninth birthday on January 27, had he not been brutally tortured and killed by the Egyptian Police a few months ago. Khaled’s optimistic hopeful face is on the mind of many of the protestors, what was done to him is there for all to see on Facebook, he was brutalized.

While Egypt has lived under Emergency Laws for 30 years and the Police & other internal security forces have been nothing short of totally ruthless in their suppression of outspoken dissent, the Security Forces failed to protect Egypt against the New Year Eve massacre in Alexandria, this terrorist attack on a church during this last New Year’s Eve left 23 dead and scores maimed. This massacre put ordinary Egyptians Muslims and Christians on a State of Alert and caused a great deal of self reflection. Egyptian police failed to protect ordinary Egyptians despite the stated threat by Al Qaida against Egyptian churches and the response to the attack was equally dismal. Doubtless the success of their Tunisian neighbors helped in opening the eyes of the people of Egypt to their power against the oppressors but the Alexandria massacre delivered a clear message: The violence of the state does not serve any purpose except enriching some in the regime at the expense of the masses, public security is only security for the regime and ruling classes.

Is the Mubarak regime vital for Egypt’s peace with Israel? As a strong advocate for peace and co-existence with Israel the answer to me is a clear no. Mubarak failed to continue with the policy of normalization with Israel started by his predecessor President Sadat, instead Mubarak played a dangerous game of building a strong relationship with Israel on the state level while presiding over the creation of immense waves of anti Jewish hatred. Mubarak’s propaganda apparatus through state owned and controlled media fed the flame of hate. My recollection of my childhood in Egypt at the height of Egyptian Israeli wars was fear of Israeli bombings; the hatred of Israel and all things Jewish had never been at the levels of Mubarak’s Egypt, ground zero for today’s anti-Semitism. Mubarak can’t be good for peace between Egypt and Israel nor for stability. The stability offered by Mubarak is nothing but the most fertile conditions for malignant hate that undermines any lasting peace.

Similar is the myth that Mubarak is a critical ally for the west against Islamism. The Egyptian Islamist movements have had a strange love – hate relationship with Mubarak’s regime. On the one hand Mubarak has opposed the Muslim Brotherhood’s participation in politics, yet Islamists have had a free hand running mosques, schools and clinics. Egyptian society under Mubarak has been radicalized and the Salfi extremist strands of Islam, traditionally alien to Egypt, have spread; women in burqas were rarely seen on the streets of Cairo or Alexandria before Mubarak, now they are everywhere. Yet Mubarak brutally suppressed, imprisoned and forced into exile virtually all of his secular opponents and unleashed massive propaganda attacks against them; Ayman Nour and Saad Eddin Ibrahim are perfect examples for Mubarak’s heavy handedness against secular opponents. Mubarak wanted to be the only viable acceptable alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood, no room for others.

The Jan25 revolution, led by the youth, middle class and the educated classes of Egypt and eventually supported by the lame opposition parties and the Islamists, is good for Egypt, is good for the Middle East, good for peace and good for the West.


AA - Feb 2, 2011