Adonis Diaries

Archive for August 18th, 2013

Military Rule Again? in Egypt and the Arab World

Note: It is never too late to read how Egyptians analyzed the conditions before the bloody mass dispersal of peaceful sit-ins of the Moslem Brotherhoods.

Millions of Egyptians are continuing to take to the streets. They are calling on President Mohamed Morsi to resign and to hold early presidential elections.

At the same time, many express concern about the army’s 1 July statement and the potential for a return to military rule at the hands of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF).

The statement said that SCAF would impose its own “roadmap” to exit the current impasse if no solutions surface in the next 48 hours:

“The Armed Forces repeats its call to respond to the people’s demands and gives everyone a forty-eight hour deadline to carry the burden of these historic circumstances. [The Armed Forces] will not tolerate anyone doing less than what is needed to carry out their responsibility”.

Hesham Sallam published in Jadaliyya this July 2, 2013: “Down with Military Rule…Again?

The statement left open the possibly of a military intervention or a coup has led many people to question the wisdom behind the current mobilization. Others have equated these protests with an open invitation for military rule and the death of Egypt’s emergent democracy.

While the current standoff between the protesters and the president lends itself to a variety of unpleasant scenarios that would be detrimental for the country, the binary between democracy and military rule is misleading.

There is little doubt that if left to its own devices the military will try to maximize its own influence in any future transition should the president resign.

This is a lesson many Egyptians learned the hard way after Hosni Mubarak’s downfall. It is inconceivable that anyone could call for overturning the political system without expecting the military to play some role in the subsequent transition, however minor, as evidenced by the army’s recent statement. At the same time, there is an infinite range of possibilities between full-fledged military rule and a civilian-led transition.

The proposal that the Tamarod Campaign spokesperson unveiled last week calls on the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court to assume the Office of the Presidency for an interim period until presidential elections are convened.

In the proposal, a national salvation government, headed by a revolutionary figure, would manage the country’s affairs. Security affairs would be handed temporarily to a National Defense Council composed of 8 military leaders and 7 civilians.

Similar proposals have been circulating among various political groups. Another idea a few  political figures endorsed is the convening of a national referendum on whether or not Morsi should finish his term.

As of now, reports have indicated that should political forces fail to agree to a solution, the military intends to suspend the constitution, dissolve the legislature, and install a civilian controlled council, though the details of that plan remain unclear.

Regardless, the current moment is a reminder that during SCAF’s rule, revolutionary forces consistently called for a civilian presidential council to manage the post-Mubarak transition—a proposal that the Muslim Brotherhood also refused to entertain.

Indeed, there are some political figures and protesters, most notably those gathered near the Ministry of Defense, who openly call on the military to intervene. However, the fact of the matter remains that the 22 million Egyptians who signed the Tamarod petition endorsed early presidential elections, not military rule.

For those who have just tuned into the news this week, the warnings of a military return may be a jolt. But, for those who have been watching Egypt for the past two years, these concerns are far from the realities on the ground.

For one, the military never left the political realm, even after President Morsi’s inauguration on 30 June 2012. In fact, the political basis for Morsi’s rule today is a pact between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military.

The former controls the presidency and the sectors of the bureaucracy that do not pose a direct challenge to its interests. The military retains its abnormal political and economic privileges, including its vast economic empire, far from any meaningful civilian oversight.

It is for this reason that the Muslim Brotherhood-sponsored constitution delegates military affairs and budget to an officers-dominated council, distant from conventional parliamentary accountability or public transparency.

In addition, and thanks to the subservience of the presidency to the officers, no steps have been taken since Morsi took office to reform the security sector as a whole, not just the military establishment, which remains a virtual “state within a state.”

For those not following the news the last two years, they may also miss or forget, that SCAF leaders’ “safe exit” after the formal end of the transition was “sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood.” The military has remained above the law under the Morsi presidency

To this day, no senior military official has been brought to justice for crimes committed under SCAF rule.

This impunity flies in the face of popular calls for bringing those suspected of involvement in killing protesters to justice. Last April, when word came out that Morsi received a presidential fact-finding commission report that implicated military leaders in killing and torturing revolutionaries, he refused to act.

Instead, Morsi appeased senior military leaders with promotions, and rebuffed what he characterized as “insults” against the Armed Forces.

During his infamous 26 June 2013 speech, in which he criticized calls for his resignation, President Morsi, not only showered the leaders of the armed forces with praise, but he also threatened to resort to military prosecution in dealing with his challengers.

In short, there may be military lackeys protesting on the streets against Morsi, but, make no mistake, the presidential palace is packed tighter still of them. The struggle to bring the military under meaningful civilian control is ongoing and will remain pending, whether or not Morsi resigns.

The military, however, has quickly come to the realization that the protesters are imposing new realities on the ground. Those realities threaten the future of the current political order and, by implication, the privileges the military was able to secure under Muslim Brotherhood rule.

The Muslim Brotherhood regime, however favorable to the military, has become prone to uncertainties that the officers are reluctant to accept. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the army is opportunistically sending signals of support to the protesters in order to ensure that its special status is not compromised in a post-Morsi Egypt.

The army’s abandonment of its pact with the Brotherhood is a testament to the power that decentralized revolutionary popular mobilization has accumulated over the past year. A new consciousness is sweeping Egyptian society.

It is true military leaders are attempting to preserve their role as the Egyptian state’s guardian. However, these attempts are in large part the product of the overwhelming will and defiance of the millions of Egyptians who have had enough of the current regime.

There is no question that among opposition political forces, there are some who are willing to live in a political order that grants the military anti-democratic privileges (I have written about this in more detail here). However, such an outcome is not an inevitability of Morsi’s downfall.

This is especially the case given that many of those who are taking to the streets have suffered the wrath of military rule. They are unlikely to accept any special privileges to the armed forces without a fight.

In any conventional democracy, poor performance is not a good enough reason for terminating a presidential term short of formal impeachment or a vote of no confidence. But the situation in Egypt is more complicated than any conventional democracy.

As president, Morsi heads the executive branch. He is also the manager of the ongoing transition, which has failed to produce a functional political system in which all relevant players agree to the rules of the game.

Morsi signed into law a constitution that failed to garner credible support outside his coalition. The turnout for the referendum that ratified the constitution did not exceed 33%.

Politics in Egypt have been virtually missing in action since 22 November 2012, when the president granted himself enormous powers through a unilateral decree, which paved the way for passing the current constitution. The opposition is unwilling to recognize the current political order. They will not engage in dialogue with the president until he appoints a neutral committee to draft amendments to the current constitution, forms a national salvation government, and appoints a neutral prosecutor general. Morsi has done none of the above. And so the stalemate continues.

In the absence of real national politics, there have been no credible means for channeling widespread popular discontent with the current government. This explains the surge in protests and strikes throughout the country, as well as the overwhelming support for the Tamarod Campaign’s grassroots initiative.

It takes a lot of diligence to ignore the reality that the existing political system is defunct. In such a context, prevalent media sound bites that the current protests are aimed at “aborting Egyptian democracy” are simplistic and naïve. That so-called Egyptian democracy never saw the light of day.

Historians can spend years figuring out how to divide the blame between the Brotherhood and the opposition (and perhaps SCAF) for the current fiasco. But beyond the blame game, one thing remains incontestable: You cannot ram through a constitution that the majority of relevant political players objected to, and yet express surprise that people do not recognize the legitimacy of the current political order, and are demanding the president’s resignation.

Rectifying this problem demands, at the very least, a new, inclusive transition that could generate the type of politics capable of bridging part of the long-standing gap between people’s basic demands, and national political institutions.

Certainly no alternative transitional framework can succeed in Egypt if it is managed by the partisan sensibilities of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi, though it must not exclude them either. After all, if the current mobilization leads to an NDP-style marginalization of the Brotherhood, then what was the point of the January 25 Revolution?

Whatever its mechanisms and details, any solution must begin by heeding to people’s demand for Morsi’s resignation.

There are many who claim that those who took to the streets on 30 June are full of supporters of the former ruling party and those who want to hijack revolutionary mobilization for their own regressive agendas.

For those who have lived through the struggle for transformation change in Egypt before 30 June—and even before 25 January 2011—the response is: What is new?

Has this not been the story of the January 25 Revolution all along, a struggle against reactionary forces inside the state and within the opposition?

Was the fight against the Mubarak regime not worth it because it featured the Muslim Brotherhood and their polarizing presence?

Were calls for an end to SCAF’s rule unwieldy because Salafists were doing the same?

If the answer is no, then why should we stop resisting the Muslim Brotherhood’s oppression because the former NDP is on board?

There is value to thinking critically and cautiously about who will benefit from the stances one adopts, and applying some strategic thinking in choosing an appropriate course of action: vote to approve objectionable constitutional amendments in the 19 March 2011 referendum in order to expedite the end of military rule; or vote for Morsi in the presidential elections in order to prevent the former regime from reestablishing itself.

But there are days when principles just have to win out and trump strategic planning. And 30 June happens to be one of these days.

This is not to downplay the difficulties that partisans of the January 25 Revolution face today. Even if Morsi does in fact leave, the struggle for building a social order that delivers “bread, freedom, and social justice” will be as fraught as it has ever been.

This is particularly the case given the proliferation of voices expressing tacit support for military rule, or applying exclusionary measures against the Brotherhood.

Perhaps the current standoff will lead revolutionaries back to a fight to bring down military rule, a continued confrontation with the current regime, an entirely new struggle, or combination of all the above.

Concluding that the revolution will ultimately prevail in current and prospective struggles may be too hopeful. But Egyptians, as the events of the past few days have shown, are refusing to give up hope, adhering to the famous revolutionary slogan “hopelessness is treason,” (al-ya’s khiyana)—words that found new meaning on 30 June.

[This article is published jointly with Mada Masr.]

What are your questions about Egypt? No need to feel embarrassed to ask…

Today’s violence in Egypt is claiming hundreds of lives, worsening the country’s already dire political crisis and putting the United States in a quandary.

It’s also another chapter in a years-long story that can be difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it. You might have found yourself wondering what Egypt’s crisis is all about, why there’s a crisis at all, or even where Egypt is located on the map.

Admit it, and fire up your questions: not everyone has the time or energy to keep up with big, complicated foreign stories.

This story is important and critical.  Here are samples of the most basic answers to your most basic questions.

First, a disclaimer: Egypt and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

Max Fisher published this August 14, 2013 in The Washington Post World Views (with slight editing):

9 questions about Egypt you were too embarrassed to ask

(Laris Karklis/Washington Post)

(Laris Karklis/The Washington Post)

1. What is Egypt?

Egypt is a country in the northeastern corner of Africa, but it’s considered part of the Middle East. It’s about the size of Texas and New Mexico combined and has a population of 85 million. Egyptians are mostly Arab and mostly Muslim, although about 10% are Christian Copts. Egyptians are very proud of their history and culture; they are among the world’s first great civilizations.

You might have heard of Egypt from its ancient pyramids and Sphinx, but Egyptians are still changing the world today. In the 20th century, they were in the forefront of the founding of two ideological movements that reshaped – are still reshaping, at this moment – the entire Middle East: Arab nationalism and Islamism.

2. Why are people in Egypt killing each other?

There’s been a lot of political instability since early 2011, when you probably saw the footage of a million-plus protesters gathered in Cairo Tahrir Square (Liberation) to demand that the president of 30 years, Hosni Mubarak, step down.

Mubarak did and that opened up a big power struggle that hasn’t been anywhere near resolved. It’s not just people at the top of the government fighting among one another, it’s lots of regular people who have very different visions for where they want their country to go.

Today is the latest round in a two-and-a-half-year fight over what kind of country Egypt will be. Regular people tend to express their political will by protesting (keep in mind that democracy is really new and untested in Egypt), and because Egyptian security forces have a long track record of violence against civilians, the “fight for Egypt’s future” isn’t just a metaphor. Often, it’s an actual physical confrontation that happens on the street.

3. Why are they fighting today specifically?

Egyptian security forces assaulted two sprawling sit-in camps (of the ousted Moslem Brotherhood from reigning) in downtown Cairo this morning and tried to disperse the protesters. The protesters fought back.

So far, the casualties are rising every day.  The assault “to clear” the squares left over 560 killed (officially) and 4,000 injured. A lot of them apparently civilians shot by live ammunition rounds used by security forces.

The protesters were there in support of former president Mohamed Morsi, who was deposed in a military coup in early July (the military is still in charge). Morsi hails from the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group to which a number of the protesters in today’s clashes belong. He was also the country’s first democratically elected leader.

4. If the military staged a coup against Egypt’s first democratically elected leader, then all those Egyptians who protested in 2011 for democracy must be furious, right?

Actually, no. A whole lot of Egyptians, especially the liberal groups that led the 2011 revolution, were happy about the coup. A number of them were even calling on the military-led government to break up the largely peaceful pro-Morsi protest camp, even though there were children present and no one thought it would disperse without bloodshed.

There are two things to understand here.

First is that Morsi did not do a good job as president. He had a difficult task, sure, but he really bungled the economy, which was already in free fall.

(Morsi didn’t receive any financial aid from either the rich Arab States or the IMF or the US and European countries. After the military coup, the new government received $12 bn within a week from the rich monarchic Arab States)

Morsi did precious little to include non-Islamists, and took some very serious steps away from democracy, including arresting journalists and pushing through an alarming constitutional change that granted him sweeping powers. (No political parties accepted to join the Morsi government)

The second thing to understand is that Egypt is starkly divided, and has been for decades, between those two very different ideologies I mentioned. Many Egyptians don’t just dislike Morsi’s abuses of power, they dislike the entire Islamist movement he represents.

What you’re seeing today is a particularly bloody manifestation of that divide, which goes far deeper than liberals distrusting Morsi because he was a bad president. (The army is a class by itself and enjoys vast privileges, facilities and independent enterprises…)

5. This stuff about ideologies sounds complicated. Can you just tell me why Egypt is such a mess right now?

The thing about today’s crisis is that it has to do with basic stuff like the breakdown of public order and some really ham-fisted governance by the military. But it also has to do with a 60-year-old ideological conflict that’s never really been resolved.

ack in the years just after World War II, Egypt was ruled by a king who was widely seen as a British pawn. Egyptians didn’t like that. They also didn’t like losing the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and they wanted a way out of their long period of national humiliation.

A lot of them were turning to a movement called the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in the 20’s), which argued, and still argues, that Islamic devotion and unity are the ultimate answer. Their ideas, and their campaign for an Islamic government, are called Islamism.

A group of Egyptian military officers had a different idea. In 1952, they led a coup against the king. A charismatic lieutenant colonel named Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power and promoted, as his answer to Egypt’s problems, an ideology called Arab nationalism. It calls for secularism, progress, Arab unity and resistance against Western imperialism.

Both of those movements swept through the Middle East, transforming it.

Arab Nationalists took power in several countries; the Syrian regime today is one of them, and so was the regime headed by Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

Islamism also expanded in many countries, and sprouted some violent offshoots. But the two movements prescribe very different paths to the Middle East’s salvation, see themselves as mutually exclusive and have competed, at times violently, ever since. That is particularly true of Egypt, and has been since Nasser took power in 1952.

And that’s why you’re seeing many Egyptian liberals so happy about a military coup that displaced the democracy they fought to establish: Those liberals are closely linked to secular Arab nationalism, which means that they both revere the military and hate the Muslim Brotherhood, maybe even more than they crave democracy. Old habits die hard.

6. Getting really complicated? Do you need to take a music break?

Egyptian pop culture dominates the Arab world, in part because Egypt is so populous and in part because it’s really good. Their most celebrated singer is Omm Kalthoum (known as Planet of the Orient), whom Egyptians revere in the way that Italian-Americans do Frank Sinatra. Her recordings can sound a bit dated. Here is a cover by the contemporary singer Amal Maher:

7. Lots of people are upset with the U.S. for not doing more to support democracy in Egypt. What’s the deal?

The United States is a close political and military ally of Egypt and has been since 1979, when President Jimmy Carter engineered an historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel (Sadat and Begin) that involved, among other things, enormous U.S. payouts to both countries as long as they promised not to fight any more wars. That also required the U.S. to look the other way on Egypt’s military authoritarianism and its bad human rights record. It was the Cold War, and supporting friendly dictatorships was in style. And we’ve basically been stuck there ever since.

The Obama administration most recently drew withering criticism for refusing to call the military’s July 3 ouster of the president a “coup.” Doing so would likely require the U.S. to cut its billion-plus dollars in annual military aid to Egypt. That is also why you’re seeing the White House appearing very hesitant about responding to today’s violence with actual consequences.

Sure, the U.S. wants democracy in Egypt? And it wants leverage with the Egyptian government even more? That has been true of every administration since Carter.

It was not actually until the Obama administration that the U.S. came to accept the idea that Islamists, who have been a big political force in Egypt for almost a century now, should play a role in governing. But they’re sticking with the status quo; no one wants to be the administration that “lost” Egypt.

8. Are you getting depressed. Surely someone wants Egypt to be a peaceful and inclusive democracy?

Not really. Most Egyptians are way too preoccupied with their ideological divide to imagine a government that might bridge it. Self-described liberals seem to prefer a secular nationalist government, even if it’s the military regime in power today, as long as it keeps Islamists out.

The Islamists, for their part, were more than happy to push out anyone who disagreed with them once they took power in 2012 through a democratic process that their leader appeared very willing to corrupt.

Both movements are so big and popular that neither one of them can rule without at least attempting to include the other. But neither appears willing to do that.

When I asked Steven Cook, an Egypt expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, what he made of the liberals’ embrace of the military coup and why he had started referring to them as “alleged liberal groups,” he wrote as part of his response, “I think Amr Hamzawy and Hossam Bahgat are the only true liberals in Egypt.”

9. And What happens next?

No one has any idea, but it looks bad. There are 3 things that most analysts seem to agree on. Any or all of these could prove wrong, but they’re the most common, short-term predictions:

1• The military-led government will keep cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood and stirring up preexisting public animosity toward the group, both of which they’ve been doing since the 1950s.

2• The U.S. will call for a peaceful and inclusive democratic transition, as Secretary of State John Kerry did this afternoon, but will refrain from punishing the Egyptian military for fear of losing leverage.

3• The real, underlying problems — ideological division and a free-falling economy — are only going to get worse.

In the aggregate, these point to more violence and more instability but probably not a significant escalation of either. Medium-term, with some U.S. pressure, there will probably be a military-dominated political process that might stagger in the direction of a troubled democracy. Longer-term, who knows?

As the highly respected Egypt expert and Century Foundation scholar Michael Hanna told me recently, “Egypt might just be ungovernable.”

Note: Before the latest bloody crackdown, a feasible alternative would have been to bring back Morsi for another year, after a parliamentary election. Unless a drastic deal is reached with the Moslem Brotherhood movement, Egypt might be sinking into a civil war within a very populous State.

Horror transfer story: Ethiopian “Jewish” Falasha trips to Israel

In 1973, Israel leading hakham Afadia Yusuf decreed that the Ethiopian “Jews” called “Beta Israel” and known as Falasha were real Jews.

Two years later, the Israeli government decided to apply the Law of Return on the Ethiopian Jews.

In 1977, late Menuhin Begin PM summoned the Mossad chief (Ramsad) General Ishak (Haka) Hovi and ordered him:

Bring me the Ethiopian Jews

The Betrouz section in the Mossad was assigned the protection of Jews in “enemy lands” and their transfer to Israel.  Betrouz was later renamed Tzafrireem.

The vice chief David Kimhy (Dif) visited with Ethiopia strongman Mengestu Hilla Meriam. The deal was: For every helicopter Hercules landing with weapon, the plane will depart with a Falasha load. This procedure lasted 6 months and was terminated in February 1978: Late foreign minister Moshe Dayan, on purpose, had a “slip of tongue” and blurted out to a Swiss daily that Israel was providing military hardware to Ethiopia (allied to the Soviet Union at the time).

Shortly after this incident, several letters from the Ethiopian Jew Frida Aklom reached the Mossad. Frida was teaching in Sudan and had visited the refugees camp in Sudan. Sudan was suffering from famine and its own civil war.

Aklom was imploring Israel to rescue the Jews who flocked to the camps during Ethiopia  civil war against Eretria. Israel dispatched Dany Limor to meet with Frida. Aklom mission was to locate the Jews in the camp. Israel managed to whisk 30 Jews.

Aklom could not find any jews in Sudan to transfer to Israel, and he decided to go back to Ethiopia and harangue the Falasha to get ready to move to the “promised land”

Thousands of Ethiopian Jews started the horror land journey across deserts to Sudan refugee camp. Over 4,000 perished in this real crossing to the land of “Milk and Honey” (not the mythical crossing of Sinai) out of famine, thirst, diseases.

As these Jews reached the camp, they succumbed to other kinds of miseries and horror incidents: In addition to famine, refusal to eat non Halal food delivered by the international organizations, hundreds of girls were subjected to rape, molestation, and kidnapping into slavery.

The actress Mihirita Barouch described this horror trip: Dozen of corps were assembled every morning before resuming the relentless crossing to the unknown.

The Ethiopian kids sang a poem conducted by Shlomo Gronish:

“The moon stopped, our food bag was lost,

Thieves attacked us at night

Stabbed us with knives and swords…

The desert sand soaked mother’s blood

And the moon is a witness…

I promised my younger brothers “A little more, a little mile away…

Our dream will be fulfilled

Soon we’ll land in Israel”

All these horrors simply because Begin ordered: “Bring me the Ethiopian Jews”

In the summer of 1981, Limor returned to Sudan with a team of Mossad agents. The Ethiopian Jews in the camp were apprehensive of these foreign white men: They have already experienced cruelty and brutality…

A few commercial flights and faked passports transported a few Ethiopian jews. Quickly, Israel decided to revert to sea transport alternative.

The Mossad established a cover operation and registered a tourist company that was meant to serve sea diving sport and facilities to tourists coming to Sudan. The abandoned sea spot “Arouss” on the Red Sea was to become the business attraction for tourists.

Agent Yehuda Gill was appointed to administer the enterprise and he hired agent Jonathan Shifa for the daily operations.

Soon, 4 old trucks were collecting jews at specific locations who managed to flee from the camp, transported for hours to the sea and then loaded on Israel navy ships in waiting. These operations were dangerous, particularly coming close to the refugee camp.

By 1982, the operation was no longer sustainable and the Mossad decided to dispatch Renus Hercules 130 planes to whisk the jews out. The Mossad had located an ancient British airstrip south of Port Sudan. Another airstrip south west of Port Sudan was used for 7 more air transport transfer of jews.

During 1982 to 1984, about 1,500 Ethiopian Jews were transferred to Israel by different means.

By the end of 1984, the refugee camps in Sudan were fast becoming the hotbed of rampant diseases and endemic famine conditions.

The US came to the rescue and negotiated a deal with Sudan President Jaafar Noumeiri for the transfer of the Jews through Belgium. Coomercial Boing planes arrived in November 18, 1984 and loaded 250 Jewish refugees.

For 47 days, the planes transferred about 7,800 Jews using 36 landing missions.

The Los Angeles Times divulged the secret deal of operation Mosses and Vice president Bush Sr. stepped in and intervene with Noumeiri for the shipment of additional 7 Hercules planes that transferred 500 more jews.

Six years later, on May 1991, Israel and the US made a deal with Ethiopia Mengestu. Within 36 hours, 30 El Al planes transferred the remaining 14,400 Jews living in Ethiopia.

These horror stories did not stop once the Ethiopian landed in Israel.

A decade later, the Ethiopian had to suffer and endure the status of second class citizens, and not real jews, due to the color of their skin and their different customs and habits.

Ethiopian women are witnessing systematic operations of sterilization

The song of the kids terminates:

“In the moon, I see the face of mother looking at me

My mother doesn’t disappear.

If you were close by me, mother,

I would have convinced them that I’m Jewish…”

We are told there is no choice.

The repressive, racist and paternalistic policies continue unhindered – policies that are supposedly in the best interests of the immigrants, who don’t know what is best for them.

This policy of total control over their lives, which starts while they are still in Ethiopia, is unique to immigrants from that country and does not allow them to adjust to Israel.

Using the excuse that they need to be prepared for a modern country, they are brainwashed and made to remain dependent on the state absorption institutions.




August 2013

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,108 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 769 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: