The Role Copts Should Play In Post-Mubarak Egypt

After decades of being marginalisation, the way forward is for Christian Copts to participate vigorously in Egypt's political life

By Amira Nowaira
This commentary was published in The Guardian on 08/05/2011 

Coptic Christians have an exceedingly important role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. Having been marginalised and frequently forced into submission for decades by a repressive regime, they are now called upon to engage actively and fully in forging the new political system that is slowly emerging out of the rubble of autocracy.

Sectarian tensions between Muslims and Copts have surfaced with unnerving regularity throughout the past decade. Evidence now strongly suggests that many of these incidents were the work of Hosni Mubarak's own security apparatus, to keep the country on the edge of disaster and in a perpetual state of fear and suspicion. The Coptic population were led to believe that without the protection of the regime they were at the mercy of a predatory population bent on destroying them.

The falseness of this claim was demonstrated by the fact that throughout the 18 days of protests that swept the country until the ousting of Mubarak, and despite the total absence of the police on the streets, there were no reported attacks against any churches or Coptic property.

But we cannot lay all the blame for sectarian tensions on conspiracies alone. Sectarian strife no doubt finds a fertile soil in a population ravaged by poverty and ignorance – the classic breeding grounds of fanaticism and intolerance. The quality of public education in many parts of Egypt was, and unfortunately still is, so poor that it often amounts to non-education.

Worse than non-education is mis-education, where students are intentionally misinformed or have their heads crammed with useless information. Autocratic regimes often use the school history curriculum as a political tool to promote a certain ideology or attack their opponents.

Successive regimes in Egypt did just that. They didn't hesitate to rewrite history according to their single-minded vision of what students should and shouldn't learn. One of the many problems resulting from this policy is that six centuries of Egypt's Christian past have been largely absent from history curricula. It should come as no surprise, then, that few Egyptian Muslims realise that their ancestors worshipped in churches or spoke Coptic.

Sadly, even academic institutions have contributed to this marginalisation. Alexandria University, for example, boasts a Greco-Roman civilisation department while no separate Coptic studies department exists to examine the artistic and cultural productions of that period.

It is the responsibility of all Egyptians, both Muslim and Christian, to work towards changing current educational and cultural policies through advocacy and by putting pressure on decision-makers. But the Copts themselves bear a particular responsibility in fighting the stereotypical view of them as passive and uninvolved. They need to make their voices heard and to be visible in the public sphere.

The Coptic population understandably feel threatened by the surge of Islamism in Egypt. Their gut reaction may be to rally against this tide by seeking the protection of their church. But only confusion can result from the blurring of boundaries between religion and politics. The Coptic church, like al-Azhar, should remain a source of spiritual inspiration and moral guidance.

As Egypt strives to establish a system where religion returns to the private sphere, the notion that the church is in a position to take political decisions on behalf of its congregation would erode the very idea of a civil democratic society.

The highly publicised and controversial case of Kamilia Shehata highlights some of the challenges facing the transition to a democratic state that treats all its citizens equally under the protection of the law. A Coptic woman married to a Coptic Orthodox priest, Shehata is reported to have left her husband and converted to Islam, presumably because the Coptic church does not grant divorces except in cases of adultery. Now she has mysteriously disappeared, evaporated like a dewdrop in the morning sun. Nobody knows where she is.

The radical Islamist Salafis allege that she had been abducted by Mubarak's state security and handed over to the church, but the church denies these allegations. The Salafis, who are mute on all other serious infringements against human rights with wider implications, such as the prosecution of civilians in military courts, have decided to fight the Shehata holy war. For months now they have been going on demonstrations almost on a daily basis, calling her their jailed Muslim sister and demanding her release from the church "prison".

The case of Shehata should be a matter for the law to resolve. Freedom of religious belief is a basic human right guaranteed by Egyptian law. It matters little whether she decides to be Christian or Muslim. But she should not be held against her will by any party. It is imperative at this stage that all Egyptians, Muslim and Christian alike, insist that the law be respected and applied to all citizens regardless of their religious affiliations.

The way forward is for Egyptian Copts to participate vigorously in political life. They should do that not as a religious group seeking to solve limited Coptic problems but as Egyptian citizens calling for equality and freedom for all. They must remember that many great Coptic personalities in the first half of the 20th century helped shape Egypt's outlook and contributed to the political and cultural life of the country by engaging in mainstream politics. They can follow in their footsteps by joining political parties, including even the newly established Freedom and Justice party of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Their active participation, along with secularists, liberals and women, will be the most powerful safeguard against any deviation or extremism. Remaining on the sidelines is no longer a feasible or an advisable option for Egypt's Christians.

Israel Isn't The Center Of The Mideast, Or Of The World

The problem with Orientalist discourse of our commentators − which sees the world through the prism of the Israel Shin Bet Security Service − is that it helps to seal off the ghetto into which Israelis are gradually locking themselves, a ghetto within the Middle East and within world history.
By Yitzhak Laor 
This commentary was published in Haaretz on 08/05/2011 

Since the 18th century, revolution has shaped the world and its consciousness as a universal experience of popular sovereignty, from east to west, from north to south. But in the face of the Egyptian revolution, a kind of mean-spiritedness has been evident here in Israel − for example, in the television commentary. Commentators and moderators never stopped giving grades for behavior. A huge comet flashed past us, and Channel 2 commentator’s muttered, like the survivor of a traffic accident: Had they only suppressed the demonstrations at the start, everything would have been different.

Again and again, they searched for Islamic signs in the pictures of the masses, as though they were immigration officials checking for smallpox. Others were excited to discover signs that reminded them of “us”: Facebook, young people speaking English, and of course women in jeans. There’s nothing like a woman’s thighs as an index of progress.

But the person who deserves the prize for folly is Dr. Oded Eran, formerly our ambassador to Jordan. He suggested organizing elections in Egypt under European supervision, to ensure that monitors would turn a blind eye to fraud by the regime during the vote count.

For years, our Orientalists saw a danger in ‏(secular‏) Arab nationalism. Both the right and the left examined Arab intellectuals with a fine-toothed comb in order to prove that they were “pan-Arabists.” What lay behind this, always, was a colonialist questioning of their right to self-determination on a par with our own standards.

But today, when people no longer demonstrate in Lebanon’s squares on behalf of Lebanese Arabism, and when nobody is singing paeans to the Arab nation in the streets of Cairo, our examiners are rewriting the questionnaire: Instead of “nationalists,” they are looking for “religious people.”

The problem with such discourse − which sees the world through the prism of the Shin Bet Security Service, with no inhibitions and no curiosity about what is unique to Egypt − is that it helps to seal off the ghetto into which we are gradually locking ourselves, a ghetto within the Middle East and within world history. We should recall Israel’s attitude to the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the “rotten business” we perpetrated in Egypt in the early 1950s, the 1956 Sinai Campaign, the affinity between these events and our alliance with the shah of Iran and his murderous security services, and the affinity between all these and the coronation of Bachir Gemayel as Lebanon’s ruler on the broken blades of Israel Defense Forces bayonets.

Forget about the strategic dimension. The issue is that military interests have always trained intellectual integrity and analysis to provide them with justifications and the status of “the truth.” The adoption of the region’s oppressive elites was carried out with the help of Shimon Peres-style language laundering and constant conciliatory gestures toward the West: We’ll be a base for you in the heart of darkness − even now, when the West is turning its back on these politics. After all, that is the only historical significance these events have as far as we are concerned: The United States no longer needs this offer.

Our ideas about the Arab world are blind to the sufferings of the nations around us and their hatred of their rulers. The average annual income in Egypt is $6,200; Israelis’ average annual income is almost $30,000. Will stability in the relations between two such countries be guaranteed by a huge, brutal police force, of all things? That is the discussion that we haven’t yet had.

The Egyptian revolution is costing blood. A great deal of blood. No elite leaves of its own free will, even if its sponsors in Washington have decided to get rid of it. Spontaneous action is fated to decline, and in the absence of a revolutionary party, it is not at all clear what will happen. The Egyptian opposition has been repressed for years, and there, too, the left has drowned in European subsidies to dozens of different human rights NGOs, which are always interested in obedient monitoring rather than change.

Nobody knows where the revolution will end up: in an Iranian-style republic? In something along Turkish lines? Or perhaps something new, the likes of which we’ve never experienced? At the moment, there is no need to reply, but only to think and remember this: It doesn’t all revolve around us. And in the face of the Egyptian people’s heroism, we should bow our heads in humility.

Western Moral Authority Died In Abbottabad

By Joan Smith 
This commentary was published in The Independent On Sunday  on 08/05/2011 

It isn't Hollywood. It isn't an action movie with Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis crashing through an upstairs window, spraying bullets. On the contrary, it seems likely that Spielberg or Scorsese would make a more coherent version of last weekend's operation in Abbottabad, appreciating both its moral dimension and the need to get the story straight in advance.

For most of last week, the United States government seemed to be operating from a series of bellicose scripts. US special forces had met fierce resistance in Osama bin Laden's compound; they were involved in a fire-fight lasting up to 40 minutes; the al-Qa'ida leader (or someone) had used one of his wives as a human shield. In Washington, President Barack Obama and his top advisers had witnessed Bin Laden's death, relayed to them live from a camera on the helmet of one of the US Navy Seals. The tension was reflected in a photo taken in the White House situation room, Hillary Clinton nervously covering her mouth.

Now it appears that none of this is true. The US team met little resistance and surprised Bin Laden in a doorway. Yesterday's spin, that he turned to go back into the room, possibly to retrieve a weapon, raises even more questions about why he wasn't captured alive. Distastefully, he appears to have been shot in front of his 12-year-old daughter, while his wife was wounded in the leg trying to protect him. Obama and his aides didn't see the raid live. It isn't clear what they were watching – a DVD of Saving Private Ryan?

Even a halfway-competent script editor would return this dog's breakfast with acerbic comments. But the White House's lamentable handling of the raid has begun to tarnish the celebrations that erupted (tastelessly, in my view) on the streets of America after the killing was announced. Too many people have died to characterise this sombre event as some kind of edge-of-seat sports fixture.

Last year, the President shocked liberal commentators with the announcement that he had approved the "targeted killing" of a US citizen, the Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be in Yemen. Last weekend's operation shows that the administration has gone further and is operating a policy of extra-judicial execution against its most high-profile enemies, even when they are not actively engaged in terrorist attacks. And that should trouble all of us who believe in the rule of law.

I loathe Bin Laden. I despise his cruelty, puritanism, misogyny and romanticising of violent death. For all these reasons, I'd rather see him demystified in a courtroom day after day than transformed into a martyr. The Allies managed to put leading Nazis on trial at the end of the Second World War, even though they posed a much greater threat to Europe than Bin Laden's pipe dream of a return of the caliphate.

The election of Barack Obama was supposed to mark a definitive break with the cowboy lawlessness of the Bush administration. It was supposed to be the moment when liberals could feel solidarity with the US again, instead of wincing each time an American president claims leadership of the free world. Countries that aspire to a model of universal rights can claim moral superiority over the miserable theology of al-Qa'ida, but there are no exceptions. No matter how great the temptation, and identifying Bin Laden's hiding place falls into that category, democratic leaders have to behave better all the time.

To Preempt Militants’ Recruiting Plans

By Musa Keilani 
This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 08/05/2011 

Many Jordanians reacted to Osama Ben Laden’s death with jubilation and sighs of relief, since his Al Qaeda group was the one who targeted Jordanian civilians in Amman hotels. He was the one who encouraged Abu Musab Zarqawi to plan nine terrorist operations against government offices and security personnel. People in Madaba and Fuheis exchanged sweets and congratulations on the occasion.

Many Iraqis here rejoiced to hear the news of his death, since he and his Al Qaeda forced many of them to flee their hometowns following the explosions in the churches there. But in Zarqa, Salt and Maan, tribal heads opened condolence pavilions to receive Salafi Jihadists who wanted to express their sympathy, condolences and condemnation of the “Great Satan”.

Ben Laden is gone, leaving behind him an insidious ideological legacy which considers all Muslim Shiites, including the ten million Alawites, infidels, which makes them legitimate targets for killing. His legacy allows the killing of civilians, whether their governments are combating Al Qaeda or not. But the worst part of his legacy is that he made all Muslims terrorist suspects all over the United States and Europe.

A balance sheet of his actions shows that the occupation of many parts of the Muslim world was the direct result of his ideology and actions.

But what does the killing of Ben Laden, once the world’s most wanted extremist, mean to the international community at large?

One thing is certain: an overwhelming majority of the world has welcomed it for mainly two reasons. The Americans and their allies look at his death as revenge for the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. Although it came nearly 10 years after the attacks, the death of Ben Laden was a much-awaited event (despite the fact that many had actually given up on the hunt for him and many others believed he was already dead).

The physical elimination of Ben Laden has given a huge boost to the sagging political fortunes of US President Barack Obama who plans to run for president again in 2012. It remains to be seen how far Obama can ride on this success at having killed America’s number one enemy and whether it will be the most influential factor that will return to the White House.

The second reason for the world to rejoice over Ben Laden’s death is that one of the world’s most dreaded man is no more. All those who rallied behind the “war against terrorism”, declared by Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush, see his death as proof that their perseverance paid off, despite the change of guard at the White House.

For us in Jordan, the death of Ben Laden is doubly significant since the Kingdom was among the first countries to suffer from the extremism unleashed by Ben Laden’s so-called Arab Afghan followers. The world might not remember, but the names of Ben Laden and his Al Qaeda group appear in Jordanian court and police records dating as far back as 1990.

There are many theories about how the US managed to get to Ben Laden, or about whether Pakistani forces helped the US or even Islamabad was caught by surprise about Ben Laden’s presence in Pakistan. The truth and many details will soon emerge and the secrets that the US wants to keep will remain secrets until someone blows the whistle.

The sinister aspect of Ben Laden’s death is that it will not mean an end to extremism. People interpreting religion in ways they find fit are not in shortage and they have managed to rally hot-blooded young men around them in order to carry out extremist attacks against any target they deem deserving. Small groups of Al Qaeda sympathisers have sprung up in many parts of the world that do not even know of the others’ existence. There is no shortage of targets and militants do not need Ben Laden’s directives to carry out attacks.

American interests figure as prime targets because of this sole superpower’s perceived anti-Muslim policies. Washington has vowed to eliminate the entire Al Qaeda leadership, starting with Ayman Zawahiri. That vow does not sound feasible since there is no central leadership for Al Qaeda and there is no interlinked networks controlled by any of its so-called leaders.

In Jordan, they form cluster groups, with no one knowing the rest of the cells, even though their number does not exceed 2,000 members.

For instance, it is doubtful that Al Qaeda front group in Iraq has any organisational link with Al Qaeda of Awlaqi, in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, or Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, based somewhere in North Africa.

The only effective means of fighting extremism is to address the root causes. To understand why alienated, deprived, frustrated and desperate youth embrace militancy as a way of life. There is a sense of denial of social justice and a yawning gap between the rich and poor in many countries. In Arab countries, 18 million Arabs were unemployed last year. These millions are an endless reservoir for Al Qaeda.

The recent revolts that toppled long-time strongman regimes have given a new sense of purpose to those countries’ young people who now realise that they could change things themselves. Effectively, this servesmilitant recruiters’ many arguments and endeavours to convince potential supporters.

If there is a decline in militant activities linked to Al Qaeda following the death of Ben Laden, it will not be because the militant leader was killed but because of dramatic changes in this part of the world. However, that does not negate the reality that there could be a surge in militant attacks if only to avenge his death.

In the meantime, the US can and should support Arab and Muslim efforts to root out one of the main reasons for militancy, which is the leaders’ financial corruption and authoritarianism. It could start by bringing about fundamental changes in approach to Arab and Muslim issues, including the Palestinian-Israeli problem and the wars in Afghanistan and Iran. If it does not, the Arab and Muslim push to stem the tide of militancy will be ineffective.

For as long as the US is perceived as hostile to Arab and Muslim rights and interests, the militants will have a strong reason to lash out with unpredictable consequences.

Gaddafi Has To Go Without Any More Bloodshed

Gulf News editorial (08/05/2011)l: His Arab colleagues must persuade him to quit for the good of his own people

Libya needs time to find its own way forward, without the presence of Muammar Gaddafi as leader and probably without any of his family in the future government. Military solutions look very unlikely to bring about any resolution, as the civil war has become stuck, with neither side being able to land a decisive blow. The future of Libya is not likely to be decided on the battlefield.

The Libya Contact Group met in Rome last week, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the desired outcome was an end to violence and ‘the beginning of a democratic transition to a better future'. All the Nato, Arab and other countries in the group agreed that they were looking for a transition.

An excellent article last week by Shaikh Hamad Bin Jasem Al Thani, Qatar's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, written with Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, was very clear that the international community wants a political solution in which the Libyan people alone will decide their country's future.

The two were right when they said that "the start of such [reconciliation] demands the cessation of violence, a ceasefire which requires Colonel Gaddafi's definitive departure if it is to be credible."

There needs to be more Arab activity to bring a diplomatic end to the civil war. Gaddafi needs to be persuaded to leave without bloodshed for the good of his people, and his long-term Arab colleagues may be best placed to bring this about.

But what is as important as any diplomacy, is the very good plan from the Contact Group to set up a trust fund of $3 billion (Dh11 billion) for the Transitional National Council, which might be funded from seized Gaddafi assets, or future oil sales from rebel territory.

This makes it clear to Gaddafi that the rebels cannot be starved out; and it will also give some heart to the rebels in their dispiriting stalemate.

Egypt's History Repeating Itself

By Ahmed al-Jarallah 
This commentary was published in The Arab Times on 08/05/2011 

Egypt always stands out among its peers across the globe. The country is popular in a way that one regime overrides its predecessor in leadership and religion, resulting in a disastrous end for its leaders. The former leaders of this great country were ill-fated because they did not stay long in power. One of the Pharaohs perished in the sea, while the popular Cleopatra is said to have committed suicide.
During the Islamic era, the situation of the leaders did not differ from that of their predecessors. Qutuz, Al-Zaher Rukn Al-Din Baybars and Ezz El-Din Aibak were assassinated. The Ottomans engaged in severe fights over the leadership in Egypt until they got rid of one another.

Other Egyptian rulers also faced a similar fate. Mohammad Ali Basha suffered senility, while Abbas Helmy the First was assassinated. Al-Khedewi Ismail spent years in prison before fleeing the country, the British ousted Al-Khedewi Abbas Helmy the Second, and then the revolution led to the exile of King Farouq in 1952.

The first Republican President Mohammad Naguib did not spend more than 18 months in power before Gamal Abdul-Nasser toppled him and put him under house arrest until his death several years later. The popular belief is that Abdul-Nasser was either poisoned or strangled to death, while Anwar Al-Sadat was assassinated during a military parade on Oct 6, 1981. It is now the turn of former President Hosni Mubarak to face trial and imprisonment after rendering meritorious service to the country.

Whoever ventures into ruling Egypt has enough examples to get discouraged or lose passion for leading the country. Anyone aspiring to take on the mantle of leadership must be ready to risk his future or meet a tragic end. He needs to ponder on the fate and strange stories of the Pharaoh, the Al-Khedewis and other previous leaders.

Will the Jan 25 Revolution change the pattern? Nobody can predict the future until now, but the fact remains that the aftermath of the revolution on July 23, 1952 is similar to the current situation. It seems history is repeating itself. Amidst the noises and propaganda, we cannot help but ask, “What will those people say in the future when the pros and cons of the revolution become clear, especially since all that we have seen so far is the negative aspect?”

Undoubtedly, tracing the history of the previous Egyptian leaders heightens fear for the future, considering that the previous government is better than its successor. It does not include positive expectations, especially if the current fever of revolution is taken into consideration.

Syria: Has Communique No 1 Been Issued?

By Tariq Alhomayed 
This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 07/05/2011 

For the seventh week in a row, the Syrian people's uprising against the regime has continued, without showing any indication of stopping or weakening, in fact the protests have spread to various geographic regions across Syria. This is something that reflects the strength of the protestors' momentum within the country, and the depth of the crisis that this regime, which is sinking in quicksand, is facing.

This Friday, dubbed the "Friday of Challenge" in Syria, saw new escalations, including previously seen phenomenon, but on a larger scale. We saw the huge number of hand-held banners being carried by the Syrian protests which personally denounced the Syrian president himself, not just his policy of suppression, or his political party. This means that the regime and the Syrian rebels have reached the point of no return, and we can no longer view the protestors as being a minority or belonging to a single sect. This is because the protest movement has taken root in all Syrian cities, including Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, and Hama, as well as the Kurdish region and other cities and regions, including even those that are majority Alawite.

What will the regime do now? Will it rule the people and protect the cities with tanks, and continue as a divided and weak regime, along the lines of the al-Bashir regime in Sudan, which split the country in two in order to stay in power? Will there be an internal coup from within the regime in order to set right what can be set right? Or will this "Friday of Challenge" continue week after week until the army splits – especially as there have been reports of clashes between the army and the security forces in Homs and other regions – and so will we see al-Assad's Syria following in the footsteps of Gaddafi's Libya? These are all good questions! It is clear that the Syrian regime does not understand what is happening, and indeed cannot believe that the people have risen up against it, something that reminds us of the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's famous "Zenga Zenga" speech in which he addressed his people asking "what has happened to you? Why are you acting like this?" It seems that the Libyan regime does not understand that the rules of the game have changed, and that they can no longer govern through fear, in the same manner as Saddam Hussein, the other face of Baathism; this is something that indicates that the end is approaching.

The fact that the rules of the game have changed in Syria has now become clear, and today we have seen the people of Homs, Aleppo, and Damascus come out to protest against the Syrian government. The Syrian regime's suppression of protestors even included the suppression of religious figures, which may serve to further divide the army and security services. Following the protests in Aleppo, the city of merchants, as well as Damascus, and the Syrian regime arresting a prominent imam in the capital, and the protests now engulfing the rural areas, as well as the capital city, in addition to the recorded cases of mutiny in the army, what is left of the regime?

Therefore, protests have broken out in all of these cities, for the seventh consecutive week, and there is talk today about the disappearance of influential Syrian figures from the scene, not to mention the silence of others, particularly as almost everything we hear today is attributed to a military or security source, or a statement from the Syrian Interior Ministry. This is contrary to the normal Syrian mode of operation where the most prominent spokesperson for the Syrian regime was either the president himself, or his media representative Bouthaina Shaaban. All of this raises real questions about the extent of the cracks within the Sryian regime today, which has caused observers to feel as if a Syrian Communiqué No. 1 [along the lines of Communique No. 1 issued by the Egyptian army just days before Mubarak stepped down] has been issued without anybody realizing. Some faces have disappeared, to be replaced by ghostly "sources" and statements, and this raises more questions than answers, and serves as evidence that the Sryian regime itself is its own worst enemy, for it does not want to acknowledge the facts.