On Hate Crimes, War Crimes and Terrorism

Words and classifications help us understand the many events before us. In the Middle East especially, words are of extreme importance and people often get stuck on words as we attempt to make sense of a the chaos that has become the norm the region is living through. The word terrorist is used to describe violence, that many times people identify with its perceived causes. The Palestinian struggle for freedom and dignity, along with the underlying hate for Israel and racist hate of Jews often expressed as hate for Zionism but not Jews, are primary examples where millions of people find the label terrorist applied to acts they either understand,  justify or actively support.

Many of these people look at the brutal bombing of Gaza or the Iraq war of 2003 and subsequent killing of innocent people and cry out "this is terrorism, Israel is terrorist, USA is terrorist" they can't understand why this ugly painful label is applied one way but not the other. 

I would never actually label a state as a terrorist, it may sponsor terrorism or provide material aid to terrorism but a state can't actually in my view be a "terrorist". What escapes many people in the Middle East is that War Crimes, is actually a more serious accusation than terrorism, for war crimes such as the disproportionate use of lethal destructive force by Israel on Gaza is a more serious charge than terrorism. Israel is a state, that has a representative government and an organized army. Clearly the responsibility, it must carry must be far more than a lone terrorist or a mere terrorist gang, even one as powerful as Hamas. For in the case of Gaza, it's Israel that has the obligation to protect the civilians under its occupation. Israel has refused to recognize an independent Palestine State and it no longer disputes any land in Gaza, so under International Law, Gaza is occupied, therefor the civilian population of Gaza must be protected by Israel. The war crimes here are very serious indeed. This is well beyond terrorism, this is war crime!

Come to tragedy of the execution style killing of three young Muslim Americans in Chapel Hill, NC and again people in the MidEast want to see it called terrorism, for this has become the ugliest word one must use. Many voices from the racist right wing in the USA have started crying out, this is just a dispute between neighbors over parking, while millions of others, like me, see it as an abhorrent and blatant hate crime of the type born out of the bigotry and racism espoused by the likes of Ann Coulter and her friends. Hate Crime or a dispute over parking is the battle that is going on in the US social media; for a simple parking dispute would wash the blood off of the hands of the heroes of Islamophobia from across the USA political spectrum from the Bill Mahers to the Coulters and fanatical white supremacists and Christian nation types. Hate crime is a serious charge against the savage killer personally and the discourse created by the likes of Bill O'Riley and Fox News and its  principal owner Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

Was the Chapel Hill tragedy terrorism? Linguistically speaking because it frightens people, for it is terrifying indeed to see people getting killed, so in a way we can see the link to the word terror. Yes it aimed to terrify the Muslim and Arab American community of course, so there can be an argument for application of the terrorist label. However, I see the label Hate Crime, here, carrying far more weight than terrorism, for in terrorism the choice of victims is often arbitrary, accidental where, the very deliberate nature of this heinous crime was no accident. An hate crime, the deliberate selection of three beautiful young people at the prime of their lives, this is hate, in its worst and ugliest form, perpetrated by a human being whose heart and brain were blinded with bigotry. The ugly killer did not aim to change government policy, nor did he have an obvious political goal, he simply aimed to exterminate those he hated. This is a hate crime and to call it anything else would lessen its ugliness.

I wish there is a way the kind of work I've witnessed first hand, and played a small part in, by the Massachusetts Governor Task Force Against Hate is adopted elsewhere and possibly by the Federal Government. The discourse of Fox News, whose hands now are soaked in blood, must be challenged as an urgent national priority and effective US style campaigns against hate must be extended to cover all hate. It must no longer be acceptable for the likes of Bill Maher and Ann Coulter to go spreading hate and bigotry with no financial accountability, for had they espoused their same venom towards other racial or religious groups, they and their sponsors would have been in financial ruins.

Ayman S. Ashour

Egypt’s Duck Problem

I love the American saying “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck it’s got to be a duck” for those that don’t get it, perhaps a briefing on the duck test may help. The Egyptian Government and many Egyptians continue to be baffled as to why most of the world outside continues to view the dismissal of Mohamed Morsi from his role as the president of Egypt on July 3, 2013 as a military coup.

Morsi did not want to leave office, he was adamant on staying on as president of Egypt, against the will of the masses and his obvious loss of any mandate. The Egyptian Military gave Morsi a week’s notice and then another 48-hour last chance, but Morsi wouldn’t willingly step down, or call an early election, or a referendum on his remaining in office. Finally, Egypt top generals informed Morsi that he was no longer president and that he was to be taken by the military for safekeeping. It is very hard for any objective person to name the manner of deposing Morsi as anything other than a military coup.

The Egyptian Military and the virtually all Egyptian politicians argued that deposing Morsi should not be considered a coup, because the military only acted to prevent a civil war and that unprecedented numbers of Egyptians were rising against Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood. There was considerable debate over how many millions of Egyptians actually hit the streets on June 30, 2013 to call for the removal of Morsi from power. Estimates of the size of demonstrations ranged from six millions to over thirty million Egyptians on the streets demanding Morsi’s ouster. Many argued that the mass Cairo demonstration exceeded the previously largest known gathering of protest in human history, the demonstrations in Rome on February 15, 2003 against the Italian participation in the Iraq War.

To western liberal ears, the size of the demonstrations is largely immaterial, in a democracy, the masses get a chance to vote and turf out their leaders. Indeed those mass demonstrations in Rome failed to halt Italy’s participation in George W Bush’s Coalition of The Willing! So while Egyptians kept on saying, it is not a military coup and we have massive support to remove Morsi from power, devout democrats kept hearing military coup to remove an democratically elected president, anger and recriminations ensued. The western liberals accused the Egyptian liberals of being no democrats, sore losers, who are fundamentally ignorant of democracy. On the other hand, most Egyptians defaulted into conspiracy theories and played the jingoistic card to suggest alignment of interests between The West and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As a supporter of the June 30 protest and a participant in the Tamrrod campaign to impeach Morsi, I am baffled by this inability of the Egyptian Government and Egypt’s liberals to communicate their case more effectively. Yes, I do support the military coup that removed Morsi from power! And yes, I do call it a military coup! The removal of Morsi was ultimately a result of his own coup on legitimacy and assuming dictatorial powers to force an Islamist Constitution down the throat of the Egyptian people. The mass protests started against Morsi following his dictatorial and illegal assumption of judicial and legislative powers in November 2012, Morsi had many months to fulfill his promise of compromise and amending the constitution, but failed to do so, failed to commence any serious dialogue and was proceeding deeper down a path of gaining more control of various institutions of the state. Despairing of Morsi moving to return to legitimacy and reversing his own coup, we Egyptians had no choice but to stage our own coup to return the country to democracy. Did the military and various institutions of the state facilitate and aid the campaign against Morsi? Yes, but they only did so, after sensing the deep anger and hatred we, ordinary Egyptians, who had earlier looked at Morsi with hope, ultimately turned against him. 

There is serious risk that the militant struggle between Islamist forces and the state would help usher in a new military dictatorship and Egypt’s War on Terror would wind up being the excuse to suppress freedoms, in the name of security. The anti Morsi coalition that took to the streets on June 30, 2013 encompassed a broad spectrum of views, from those who long to the return to the Mubarak era, to true and genuine advocates of democracy, equality and justice. It helps to call things by their true names to minimize chances of entering an 1984 like era, and hence let’s start out by saying why we support our military coup. Let's all say, I know it's a only coup but I like it! 

AA

August 23, 2013

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

1984 on the Mediterranean - Book Review of In the Country of Men by Hesham Matter

I heard about this book from an interview of Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air with the author Hisham Mater. In the interview Mater talked of his own life experience as a boy watching interrogations on Libyan TV and the eventual detention of his father and the exile of the family first to Egypt then England. The author came across as a very thoughtful and articulate, his description of his experience as a child coming so close to the horrors of torture clearly left its mark on him.

In the Country of Men, belongs to the semi fiction genre, it is based on real events witnessed first hand by the author but clearly the author let his very creative talents take over and weave a number of other interesting patterns on the same basic setting of Libyan social and political life in the Seventies.

Hot Mediterranean summer days, lots of white sand and the beautiful blue Mediterranean, a nine year only child living with a mother suffering from depression and alcoholism trying to make the most of a bad marriage. A father, who is somewhat remote and a bit caricature like is a businessman turned activist obsessed with making Libya a better place. Libya is very much right out of 1984 with much of the horrors, brain washing and denials and a great "Guide" too.

Mater's developed his own child character and that of his mother's superbly into complete multi dimensional human beings. The cruelty and contradictions in the child were masterfully portrayed. Also his sense of place and time is remarkable, Mater makes you virtually taste the beautiful delicious mulberries or sense the heat burning your feet from walking in the hot afternoons to the Tripoli beach.

The disappointing parts of the book were just two aspects; the limited development of the character of the father who was clearly central to the story. While it may have been Mater's intention to paint a picture from the eyes of a 9 year old and as a result a sketchy picture of the father may have been appropriate, this somehow jarred with me as the narrative was that of a more mature adult reflecting back on childhood days. This maturity came across in many ways but fell short when discussing the father. The second disappointing aspect of the book was the relationship with Karim, the childhood friend. Mater was brilliant in the way he dealt with the Karim relationship throughout the book but somehow appear to have felt compelled to tidy things up for a semi happy ending.

The interview with Terry Gross, revealed the true experience of Mater's life and the real life ending was far worse than the one he offered. Perhaps this would explain Mater's need to retain a distance from his father, even in a work of semi fiction and the relatively rushed ending of the book.

I strongly recommend this book as another beautifully written work in English with a strong Arab Mediterranean sensibility.

Informed and Perceptive View of Iraq - Book Review of Night Draws Near by Anthony Shadid

This is easily the best book I can recommend to anyone on the Iraq war. Anthony Shadid, a third generation Arab American, who speaks fluent Arabic was on the ground before the Iraq war and lived through its phases all the way to the full blown insurgency.

Shadid demonstrates an excellent understanding of the people and the culture, this understanding makes his analysis very valuable indeed. A very important point that Shadid makes is the desire of the people for justice over democracy.

Shadid's understanding of Iraqi society makes his analysis on the insurgency, its roots and its nature very convincing. The analysis of the power structure with the Shiite religious leadership and the diverging loyalties as well as the Iranian versus Arab orientation of the leadership is very well explained. It is remarkable how ill informed much of the media in the US referring to the Mahdi Army, the Sader militia, as Iranian influenced when Shadid explains clearly their roots being as populist & nationalist counter movement to the Iranian dominated Shiite religion leadership.

Through countless daily interactions with Iraqis from all classes, all sects and all political views Shedid offers tremendous insight on the factors that shaped the views of the Iraqis and how these changed over time as the country sunk deeper into a depressing war. Shedid equally well covered the American troops, their perception of their role and of the Iraqis around them.

Can't say enough about this book except I wish it becomes mandatory reading for political and military readers. Shadid's Pulitzer Prize for his reporting of the war is very well deserved!

The Lord Cromer and President Bush Connection: Touting Freedom Abroad While Suppressing Them at Home

At the turn of the Twentieth Century when Great Britain was the undisputed global power, with vast colonies stretching across the whole world, Britain saw itself as a force for good. British colonialism was relatively unabashed about the economic benefits of its empire and often justified its ruling of other people as a way of protecting its economic interests from other colonial powers, specially France. Britain feared for its trade routes into India and on these grounds justified its occupation of Egypt, an occupation that lasted from 1882 to 1954. Yet Great Britain also viewed its colonial activities as civilizing missions.

Lord Cromer was perhaps the most famed British colonial ruler of both Egypt and India. While Egypt was nominally an independent country loosely affiliated with the Ottoman Empire, India was an outright colony of Great Britain. Lord Cromer's role in each country was similar—he was the central authority, the supreme leader.

Lord Cromer viewed Britain's control of its various possessions with an almost missionary zeal: yes trade was important and the supply of raw material for British factories had to be secured, but it was also his duty to "civilize" the natives, lift them from their centuries of social decay and laziness, and liberate their women.

Cromer generally looked down on his Egyptian subjects; he still viewed even those who were educated in England and France as inferior. Cromer was very articulate in his assessment of the failures of the natives and their culture and he often justified harsh tactics against Egyptians as the only means to be understood by a backward culture, a "cruel to be kind" justification. Cromer was very critical of the subservient status of women in Egypt and often invoked examples of abuse of women in Egypt to illustrate how Egypt needed Britain's firm guiding hand. Polygamy and veiling, along with other examples of women's subjugation, were cited by Cromer as evidence of the backwardness of Egyptian society.

A hundred years later, the West is, once again, engaged in the Middle East. Great Britain plays a supporting role in other occupations, now starring the USA. Unlike the primarily commerce driven colonial occupation of the previous centuries, the current American interest in the Middle East is driven more by claims of self defense and the need for social reform. Yet, many opponents of America's policy characterize its interest in the Middle East as primarily economic, focused on oil wealth. Indeed some supporters of America's role in the Middle East use security of oil supplies as a justification for intervention. While debate rages over the pros and cons of America's policy and the presence of American troops in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan, there is considerable backing across the political spectrum for the American efforts to liberate women from the shackles imposed on them by local customs and laws.

The interim governments in Afghanistan and Iraq included women; American media was full of stories of the near total subjugation of women under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. While in practice women's rights may have actually eroded in Iraq after the US invasion, most Americans believe that the American presence will result in an improved life for Iraqi women. This view is questionable, given the rise to power of Iraqi theologians as the ultimate guarantors of Iraq's stability following the eventual transfer of true sovereignty back to an Iraqi Government.

Lord Cromer justified British tactics in Egypt on the ground of backward culture that oppressed half of the society, a culture that needed modernization. However, following the British occupation, women's education in Egypt suffered and enrollment fell under the guidance of the West's liberating influence. Yet many liberal minded British people, unaware of the facts, supported Cromer and the British occupation because of the "good" that Britain could do for backward societies. A hundred years later, Americans searching for some positive aspects to the liberation and occupation of Iraq may disagree with the American intervention, but, as with Afghanistan, look for some "good" to come out of it for Iraqi women.

While Lord Cromer talked the language of social reform and justice in Egypt, his record at home was poor. He was a founding member of a leading British organization that opposed women's suffrage in Britain. Cromer worked on gaining the support of women's groups in Great Britain for the British colonial expedition in Egypt using their language of social justice, yet fought against the cause of social justice at home.

George Bush has recently launched the Greater Middle East Initiative, an initiative that focuses on social and economic reform in the Middle East. Many who oppose Bush's policies rally to his side when he talks of social justice in the Middle East, of the right of little girls to go to school and of the rights of women. While the vote for women in America has been achieved long ago, there remain parallels from a hundred years ago. President Bush's sense of social justice has propelled him to call for an amendment to the US Constitution to restrict gay equality and is determined to curb women's rights in other areas such as the choice to end pregnancy. Bush's effort to roll back civil liberties through the Patriot Act have been widely condemned by virtually all civil rights institutions, American and foreign alike! Somehow had President Bush shown more commitment to the issue of social justice and civil rights at home, his stance in the Middle East could be more plausible. Rather than seek to re-launch the Equal Rights Amendment for women in America, President Bush is actively rolling back human rights in at home and fighting diligently for unlimited detention and for new limits on privacy and individual choice.

President Bush is talking the language of democracy and social justice in the Middle East, but much like Lord Cromer, back home he is actively working on limiting both by all available means, from legal maneuvering to the Patriot Act and now a new discriminatory Constitutional Amendment. Lord Cromer would have been proud of President George W. Bush; he could well have been a co-founder of the Society Against Women Suffrage and would have been great fun to chat with in the beautiful gardens of British Embassy on the banks of the Nile in Cairo, the capital of the sovereign, yet occupied, Egypt over one hundred years ago.

AA, Nov 1, 2004

Reciprocal Silence: Egypt’s Christians and America’s Muslims

"God who told the first killer, Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.”…To His justice, the blood of twenty Copts, which flowed on the soil of El-Kosheh, upper Egypt, cries out. … If it doesn’t receive justice on earth, it seeks justice in God alone, He is the source of all justice. The verdict that was issued in the El-Kosheh case was a source of disappointment to all Copts. It left a deep wound in their souls and a scar in their memory that time will not erase. Thus, they turn to God who has never forgotten Abel’s blood. For He establishes justice and provides comfort."

I read these words in utter amazement. The Egyptian Christian Coptic Pope Shenouda III turns to God for justice. While the rest of the world has managed to escape the Y2k bug unscathed, the operating software for the Southern Egyptian brain ran into a massive glitch on December 31, 1999. The uneasy existence, officially know as harmonious, between Egyptian Muslims and Christians erupted into an orgy of killing in the little town of El Kosheh. Some small dispute between a seller and buyer left many people dead and houses of God burnt.

The south of Egypt has had a history of feudal violence and revenge killings. During one of the years of the Al Capone era, Chicago could only be rivaled by El Menia in terms of homicides statistics. The late Egyptian playwright and novelist Tawfiq Al Hakim mentioned this piece of trivia as he told of his years as district attorney in the Egyptian countryside. Al Hakim talked of Southern Egypt and Chicago as the two extremes of criminal violence, an advanced extreme motivated by money and a backward one motivated by tribal honor.

So homicides are nothing new to the south of Egypt. Worse, murders often went unpunished by the state as no witnesses could be found, cycles of revenge continued generation after another and the dead were not mourned until avenged for. So difficult and unruly the South, or more precisely the Middle South, of Egypt can be that it took the brutal Ottoman Sultan Salim I many years to conquer it after the fall of Cairo. Before him the ruling Mamluks employed the Arab tribes of the desert to raid the Egyptian villages to help them keep a grip on their holdings.

Tough place that middle south of Egypt--its people are renowned for their generosity, loyalty, warmth but above all, their stubbornness. Akhenaton and his beautiful wife Nefertiti established a new monotheistic religion and capital in the Middle South. We don’t know if they did that to simply get away from the more established religious centers of Thebes and Memphis, to challenge the stubborn, or to seek protection from the people of the middle south. The reign of the single god Aton did not last, and the established order of Amon was soon restored. The capital of Egypt moved away from the Middle South, back to Thebes.

The fact that massive violence erupted in the South of Egypt and many people got killed is not a major shock. The Luxor tourist killings in 1997 speak clearly of that, and for the last several decades that part of Egypt continued to be very difficult and, by the relatively peaceful standards of Egypt, violent.

The murders of 21 Copts in El-Kosheh are yet to result in any serious convictions. One wonders why …is it the traditional silence awaiting vengeance for the killings? This is highly doubtful. The Copts of the Middle South are as renowned for their stubbornness as their Muslim kin. Is it likely that they would want to continue the feudal killing without getting some police officers and attorneys from Cairo or elsewhere involved? Could it be that they want to seek justice with their own hands? This is unlikely; the Copts of the middle south or for that matter throughout Egypt know that they stand little chance of gaining justice on their own. I am inclined to think that witnesses said all there is to say, or at the very least tried to.

I wonder, 21 dead, yet over 90 suspects were set free and only four were convicted, with only one receiving a sentence of over 10 years (for illegal possession of weapons, not murder). It just does not add up. Could it be the local police force had colluded with the killings and refuses to self implicate? This allegation has been made by some Coptic organizations, and several outspoken Copts in the US have accused the Egyptian police of playing a complicit role in this massacre. Some Copts say that Muslim judges and district attorneys absolutely refuse to seek or apply serious punishment on a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim. Could it be that the district attorney in charge or the panel of judges just believe that there can be no law above the Law of God, and their own interpretation of the Law of God precludes the killing of a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim? Or could it be that these very same people are concerned that the community would seek retaliation had they sought to apply the laws of Egypt and seek the death penalty for convicted killers? Could the restraint be political? Could it be that the Province or the Egyptian Government feel that hanging a dozen Muslims, or even fewer, would ignite waves of anger that could cost the lives of more people. Could it be that that the Government itself is choosing to circumvent the law in an attempt to protect life? Would any of this be right? But why are Muslim intellectuals silent?

There are indeed many possibilities and many ways to attempt to understand the lack of serious convictions. In well-publicized cases Egyptian justice is often swift; three years is an eternity. Some Copts in the US and elsewhere have suggested that the belated recognition by Egypt of the Coptic Christmas on January 7th as a national holiday is a bone thrown to the Copts in exchange for the light convictions for the accused killers of El-Kosheh. Yet the government, with relatively muted criticism, has allowed the state attorney to appeal the case to the Court of Cessation, Egypt’s highest court. This is encouraging.

In the last two weeks I came across many government-owned and opposition Egyptian newspapers. The diversity of views on many issues is impressive. I saw many different theories, including some very good insight into the Iraq war and a tremendous amount of coverage of the Palestinian daily struggle and the Road Map. I did not see one, not a single word or article, on El-Kosheh. I did not see any analysis of the possible motives for the most recent court ruling, nor have I seen any analysis on the Coptic community post-El-Kosheh in Middle Egypt. Has there been any behavioral change? Are the Copts frightened now, fully subjugated, or are they defiant?

Was El-Kosheh a massacre or simply a tragic incident? Massacres are not measured in the numbers of the dead, they are measured by their impact. Massacres instill fear in the hearts of their would be victims, to ensure compliance, subjugation, or eviction. Massacres move neutrals to action, hearts of stone flicker a bit at stories of massacres. The victims of massacres of Srebrenica and of Sabra and Shatila measured in the thousands, Deir Yassin in the hundreds, and the Boston Massacre was less than 10. In Bosnia, Srebrenica finally forced an end to the war, through an escalation at first. Sabra and Shatila forced the Israelis out of Beirut and Sharon into disgrace for well over 10 years. Deir Yassin frightened the Palestinians out of their homeland. And the Boston Massacre, with the fewest victims of all, triggered the American War of Independence. Massacres bring about change, for better or worse. When a change is needed, small numbers get killed unnoticed, the numbers keep rising, and one day we wake up to the news of Srebrenica. Then something happens, a change occurs. Let’s hope El Kosheh is recognized for what it is, a massacre that forces all Egyptians to think …and to change.

We must label El-Kosheh a massacre and set about to seek some answers. Why did it happen? Why does it continue to go under-reported, under-discussed and under-analyzed? Sheikh Muhammad Sayed El Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar and a leading Muslim spokesperson, spoke very passionately to the cameras during the latest Iraq War, issuing a religious “fatwa” or responsa, that those who die in suicide bombing against the American invasion of Iraq are martyrs. “Shahidun, shahidun, shahid!” were his exact words, meaning martyrs who will not be punished for committing suicide and will be rewarded in the after life for death in the cause of God.

While I disapprove of the war on Iraq, I am astounded by how a leader like Sheikh El Tantawi can manage to come up with an unambiguous Islamic legal ruling on suicide bombing while remaining virtually silent on the killing of his innocent non-Muslim compatriots.

The issues of the legality of the death sentence or even life imprisonment for a Muslim convicted for the killing of an innocent non-Muslim appears far less ambiguous than the issue of suicide bombing. A very clear-cut and passionate declaration by Sheikh El Tantawi affirming the position of Islamic Law on the issues related to the killing of non-Muslims by a Muslim and against obstruction of justice is sorely needed. While I have not seen a single news report from Sheikh El Tantawi on El-Kosheh, I understand that he has indeed reached out to the Coptic Community.

In a few hours or days after the first suicide bombing against the American invasion, Sheikh El Tantawi spoke to the world, very passionately. Yet, it has been over three years now since El-Kosheh; how clear has he made his position on this issue. Is he quiet because he does not wish to alienate those who believe that serious punishment is inappropriate? Or is the case so complicated, and he does not wish to interfere with Egyptian Law? Yet Sheikh El Tantawi feels free to interfere with Egyptian foreign policies both in regards to Palestine and Iraq. And his pronouncements are generally not case specific, even though they maybe issued in response to specific situations. Surely Sheikh El Tantawi can say that those who murder innocent Non-Muslims are “murderers, murderers, murderers” and should be punished. Those who stand in the way of justice are enemies, not friends, of Islam.

Sheikh El Tantawi can do more, but at least he is trying to reach out to the Coptic community. Far more worrying is the silence of Muslim intellectuals both in Egypt and in the west.

Here in the US, the silence of Muslims on cases of abuse and discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim countries is complicit. Twenty-some Christians are gunned down in a Pakistani church, the killings of Christians in Indonesia, the complete lack of freedom of worship for Non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia …and we are silent. We don’t say much; we don’t even offer condolences or stand for one-minute silence. We just move on as if it’s irrelevant to us. Yet we are not disconnected from the interests of the Islamic world, and we rise in protest or in support of events in the Islamic world. We Muslims, in America and elsewhere in the west, have shown little interest in the treatment of minorities in the Islamic world.

With a few exceptions, such as the courage and eloquence of people likeYale’s Khaled Abou El Fadl, Muslim religious and political representative organizations remain largely silent. True, they condemn acts of violence against Americans committed under the false pretense of Islam. Indeed this is a step forward, but it will be far more powerful when this stand against violence is not connected to political gain. We must speak up against violence even when there is no gain, even where there maybe pain. Our condemnations must be tied directly to a principled religious and moral Islamic core belief, or indeed a core set of beliefs encompassing above all the sanctity of life, justice and the doing of good on earth.

9/11 has triggered much pain and uncertainty to all of America, perhaps to none more than to the Muslim, Arab American and immigrant communities. For me personally, the most painful was not the spilling out of the underlying religious and ethnic prejudices of the mainstream media, or the rubbish of the racist talking heads, or the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell brand of hateful fundamentalism; the most painful was the reaction of other minorities. Those who are normally anti defamation at best stood silent; more often than not, they fed the fires of hate. I feel no more 9/11 pain than when I hear Egypt’s Copts in America, blinded by their own anger over the treatment of the Coptic minority in Egypt, inciting discrimination against Muslim Americans. The vast majority of Copts in the US do not take part in this hate, but as always the loud minority dictates the agenda and paints the silent or ambivalent majority with its own ugly brush.

But the Copts in the US and elsewhere in the west can do little to fan the fire of hate and anxiety; they represent no more than a hand fan aiding a jet engine when compared to the Christian Fundamentalists, Zionist Right or indeed the secular Neo-Conservatives. And I know the jet of hate and racism will eventually blow away the little hand fan too. Yet that self-destructive little hand fan causes me personally far more pain than the jet. Because the Copts know better. They know of millions of Muslims who share their values, laugh at the same jokes, sing the same songs, eat the same food and share most habits. They know most Egyptian Muslims are simple, non-hateful and peaceful people. Most Egyptian are pious, God-fearing people who pepper their speech, indeed their whole life, with “alhamdulillah, inshallah, astaghfirullah..etc,” meaning thank God, God willing, ask forgiveness of God, etc.

In the more classical sense of the word, most Egyptians are “orthodox” be they Muslim or Christian. Their religious faith, their piety, is as much an ethnic as a religious heritage, an integral part of their whole being. The vast majority of Egyptian Muslims and Christians are peaceful and believe, at their core, in coexistence. Doubtless there exists discrimination against the Copts in Egypt in many facets, doubtless the extent of the discrimination is not recognized nor accepted by the Muslim majority or the state. Yet difficult as it maybe, just as many Christian Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis are in the forefront of defending and standing by the Muslim minority in America. More Copts and indeed the American Coptic organizations must speak out too and stand shoulder to shoulder with Egyptian American Muslims in the US. To do otherwise is to accept the injustice of the discrimination in Egypt and to wish its equivalent institutionalized right here in the US and elsewhere in the west.

Many of the outspoken Copts in the US come across as simply wishing revenge, and they see discrimination against Muslims in America as some sort of payback. Their claimed belief in minority rights is voided by their hate. And again the troubling silence of the majority of the Copts and of the US Coptic organizations is indeed a parallel to the equally troubling silence of the American Muslim minority and institutions about the abuse of Christian minorities in Islamic countries. A reciprocal selfish and self-destructive silence that feeds hate and undermines the rights we all aspire to for ourselves. Belief in minority rights and in religious freedom can never be selective, and to claim it for narrow selfish reasons reveals intellectual dishonesty that betrays a freedom-loving tolerant facade and reveals an ugly self-hating interior.

Sand Storms

Often time as I run in Boston my mind takes me back to Cairo, the city of my childhood, and I look at the Charles River but I really see the mighty Nile before me. The long Mass Ave Bridge transforms itself to Qaser el Niel Bridge; Longfellow becomes Abu el Ala’a Bridge and Cambridge become Zamalek. Not last night, that wasn’t the Charles River I was running by, it was the Tigris. The cars going by me were not cars they were Cruise missiles. I heard the air raid sirens too, three times in fact and I never heard the all- clear! Last night I run in Baghdad, under bombing! As I ran last night, I thought of myself a traitor, doubly so. As I went running last night, I pictured myself on the streets of Baghdad and I felt fear, I felt helpless and I felt sorrow.

I was not anti war, but I have now become anti war. All I wish for now is sand storms …sand storms and more sand storms that will slow down the tanks, make it difficult for the laser to see, difficult for the planes to fly difficult for the killing to go on. Sandstorms that will prevent Iraqis from killing anyone, its own sons or America’s finest. Just sand storms, bad enough to stop the killing but not to increase the misery and the suffering.

Saddam Hussein represents the absolute worst calamity that has hit the so-called Arab World. His propaganda machine, his internal security apparatus, his torture chambers, his killing squads, his ethnic cleansing, his belated false commitment to Islam and his pretend care for the Palestinian struggle have lasted for way too long, far too many years. He has killed too many people, tortured and tormented too many people and his thugs have raped too many people and destroyed too many families and villages. I, for one, want him gone.

I supported the US policy in tightening the noose around Saddam’s neck. I supported the military build up that forced him to accept UN inspections and lowered his standing in the eyes of the whole world including those who supported him in his brutal invasion of Kuwait. I would have even supported and offered my help in a war to remove him, but such war had to be sanctioned by international law and had to be very clear and public about its objectives.

I can’t support the current war. Call me inconsistent! I am not a politician I don’t have to be consistent, I only write to get my feelings and thoughts out…to communicate what I now, right this minute, think is right, not to prove that what I thought was right three weeks or two years ago turned out just that.

This war started out almost like vendetta by the Bush Administration. In my eyes the US failed to prove any real danger from Iraq to us here in US. It looked to me more like electioneering and a focus group driven war, a war to show Bush as resolute leader and in the process to get rid of one nasty thug. I was willing to go along with that but the Bush Administration in its bullying of the UN and later in its defiance of the UN changed the equation, for me, completely. It is no longer just about Saddam losing; it is also about Bush winning.

Last night as I ran on the bend of the Tigris in the heart of Baghdad, I felt so much for the Americans POW’s, the kid from New Jersey and Shawna from Texas, the young mother, the Asian American kid, I wanted to reach out across the TV screen and hug them, I want to bring them back to their kids, mothers, fathers, husbands and wives, I wanted them home. I felt the same way about the little olive skin Iraqi boy screaming with the white bandages around his head, I so wanted to comfort him. And the young Iraqi man whose brains were literally blown out and pieces of his skull and hair were barely attached to the rest of him made me just want to die to get out of this whole horrible mess. These images can’t escape from my mind, the dread in Shawna’s eyes and the pain in the eyes of the Iraqi boy and the skull fragments with hair on them. I wanted this war over now, I wanted the bombing over me to stop, I wanted the all-clear siren, wanted it in the worst way.

The Bush Administration may well be wining the public relations war in US; not me! though, they had me but no more. I am appalled by the double standards and their lies. I can’t believe the propaganda war coming out of the Bush Administration directed at me! at us; Americans! What is this stuff about a coalition, am I supposed to believe that having starving countries like Eritrea in the coalition as a substitute for France. Is distant El Salvador the equivalent of Europe’s largest economy Germany and is Bulgaria with its heritage of compliance under Warsaw Pact a substitute for including Russia? Why lie to me about a coalition, why not tell me, we are doing this alone? I resent the insult to my intelligence. Tony Blair does not dare talk about a Coalition of the willing, I respect his honesty.

Come the issue of POWs and treatment of POWs. Again I am disturbed by the double standards. The US took it in its own hands to define who is a POW and who is an “unlawful enemy combatant” during and after the very legitimate invasion of Afghanistan. Those captured were shown on TV in shackles. Instead of showing the world that supported our liberation of Afghanistan our respect for the rule of law, we aimed to redefine the law. On to Iraq, AOL and most US TV showed Iraqis in civilian cloths surrendering and being told to kneel down before their captors, in another shot Iraqi captives were shown marching with their hands over their heads. We can’t win hearts and minds through double standards, but do we care? I don’t think so! the Bush Administration seem to have bought into the Fouad Ajjami & Paul Wolofwitz doctrine, that the Arabs and Muslims will not like America no matter what, so we should not care one iota about their views and get on with doing the right thing.  It is the American hearts and minds that the Administration is really after not those in the Middle East, Europe or even Eritrea.

I am sick of the soft questions of vast majority of American media, I am sick of an American correspondent’s incitement to the military to “take out” Iraqi media, I am sick of American press not asking the really tough questions about Geneva Convention and about the human cost of the war. I am sick of media acting as if covering military product exhibit. I am sick of idiotic use of words such as terrorism that only ultimately serves to equate the Anglo-American “liberation” forces with the Israeli occupation forces. More importantly, why not comment on the fact that the Iraqi Army is a conscript army? As liberators we don’t want to shoot Mohammad or Ali to free their parents and we should indeed expect that Ali’s mom and Mohammad’ dad may not really object to being used as human shield to protect their kids. Mohammad & Ali never enlisted, they were forced into the service. As an American patriot and an American by choice, I fear we got it so badly wrong. We are surrendering American values. Our news briefings are sounding somewhere between the Sharon Spokesman and Tariq Aziz; we are creating whole new definitions for the law .. for morality ..for accuracy in reporting …and for truthfulness.

I find myself also so sick with the reversal of roles that seem to be happening now. Twelve years ago, after Saddam invaded Kuwait, he offered to get out of Kuwait if Israel got out of the West Bank. Much of the world denounced this “linkage” and while many Palestinians and sadly some distinguished Arab Americans fell for it, his whole offer was not taken seriously by anyone. Nowadays guess who is offering linkage? It is the Bush Administration that is over and over again promising to tackle the Palestinian suffering as soon as its gets its way with Saddam. Surely if tackling the Palestinian problems is the right thing to do, it has nothing to do with the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Will the Palestinians have to wait for the rest of the axis of evil, or is Iraq enough?

Al Jazeera and the new all news Arab media seem to have actively sided with Saddam and his army. A naive, but perhaps understandable reaction, to the Bush Administration failure to offer consistent and coherent reasons for the war and simple knee jerk reaction to the involvement of foreigners in our own messy affairs; and not any foreigner ..after all the US is the staunchest ally of the oppressive enemy Israel. So Al Jazeera and the so-called Arab street want to see more Iraqis and others fight America and die fighting America. No one talks of a simple non-cooperation with an uninvited occupation. Why not promote or even discuss refusing to fight for Saddam but also refusing to be liberated. A bus load of Iraqis charging an American tank is not an act of nationalist courage or Islamic commitment; it is neither ..it is the product of ignorance and misinformation ..it is the product of people being lied to by their own Government and by the free independent media, above all it is waste …a terrible waste of life. Jazeera and other Arab media are absolutely right to call it an Anglo American invasion but to claim that suddenly the brutal butcher Saddam is now DEFENDING Iraq or fighting on behalf of Islam and the all important Arab pride is a lie. Jazeera never quite makes the claim explicitly; it is however made over and over again in many ways that it never need to be verbalized.

Islamic authorities, the worlds over seem to be producing new fatwa’s by the hour. How can such a complex issue be resolved so simplistically by declaring that fighting against the invasion is an Islamic duty and those who die fighting against the occupation to be martyrs? Surely for this issue to be subject to Islamic legal interpretation the fatwa givers would have had to take account of all the facts and then issue a legal Islamic opinion. What facts have they taken into consideration and how sure are they of these facts? In accordance with Islamic jurisprudence, just like any legal codes, many issues have to be weighed and dissected. Do the fatwa’s address the crimes of Saddam? What do they make of the possibility that the Anglo-American invasion would indeed result in freedom for the Iraqis? Or do they simply adopt a view that anything America touches in the Muslim World is evil? Where are the dissenting Islamic views? How can the Sheikh of Al Azhar encourage martyrdom through suicide attacks against Anglo American forces; how can he square that with the Quranic commandment not to destroy ourselves? How many mosques must Saddam Hussein bomb and how many hundreds of thousands of Muslims must Saddam kill and how many rape squads must he employ before Sheikh Al Azhar can see that standing by Saddam is not really a commitment to Islam?

As I ran last night in Baghdad my brain was working so hard, in over drive trying to make sense of it all. I wanted sand storms, just sand storms.. I certainly don’t want Saddam Hussein to win ..As a Muslim, does that make me a traitor? Not in the least, Saddam is not fighting for Islam, Saddam’s party is nothing if not anti Islamic to its very core. During the Gulf War of 1991 the bombing of Iraq, a so-called Islamic state never bothered me, I so desperately wanted his defeat and the end of his atrocities. The US courageously jumped into the aid of the Bosnian Muslims when the whole world stood idly by watching the massacres. I don’t want Saddam to come out victorious. But, I am a traitor; I don’t want Bush to be proven right in his defiance of international law, and in his deceit about coalitions and in his contrived causes for the timing of the war. So as I run I can only wish for sandstorms and more sandstorms to stop these horrible sirens of air raids in my head. I want sand storms to silence the fatwa’s that trade in my religion that appeal to popular sentiment as cheap politicians do and in the process push more innocent Iraqis to their death. I want sand storms to help me put my own skull back together to re-find my non-conflicted identity, my whole being.

I worry about my own American identity in all of this. Is my opposition to this war and my desire for the killing to stop now an expression of conflict of identity or maturity of identity? I just don’t know, but my struggle with identity and disturbing images is nothing, those who are suffering are the troops and the civilians in Iraq, all of them.. I am just passing through their city of sorrows, city of rivers of blood.

As a Muslim, I am angry at the use and abuse of Islam. I am angry to see Islam evoked by Saddam Hussein’s propaganda  and at millions of Muslims the world over not getting clarity from their leaders but rather political driven hallucinations and racist hate of the west under the name of fatwa. I think of the difficulty we have every year agreeing on a day to start our fast in Ramadan…of the many different Muslim debates on such a silly, divisive and marginal issue ..they then speak out …not now ..it is all silence. As if standing by Saddam is so very clearly Islamic, just like looking above your head and seeing the full moon in Ramadan …no argument then about the holy month..where is the dissent? Where is it, when it really matters?

I want our young soldiers to come back safe and sound; I don’t want them to be victims of propaganda, to be objects of hate the world over. I want Shawna to come back to her young child and I want the killing to stop. I don’t want a victor in this, because I can’t see truth prevailing and I see a clear victor as a recipe for more war in Iran, Libya or Korea. I just want blinding engine-stopping sand storms. And I run harder and harder to get my skull back together and to get home and as I cross Commonwealth Avenue I hear the massive explosions and my whole being is shaken ..shaken, desperate for sandstorm, desperate for sound Arab, Muslim, American and world leadership.

AA
April 6, 2003