الثورة .... و تدارك الأمال

لم انزل الى الشارع تحت قيادة او كيان مشترك و لا اسمح لأحد ان يتكلم بأسمى إذا لم يعبر عن موقفى و ليس من موقفى أن اتخلى عن من ثار معى ، يوم أن رحل مبارك و صعدنا أول درجة من درجات النجاح، رأى البعض ِمن َمن يروا انفسهم القيادة مغادرة الميادن فلهم عذر السذاجة السياسية و لكن حين تم إستكمال الإعتصام من البعض الأخر مِن مَن لم يدّعوا القيادة ظهر من "القيادة الثورية" وجه على الإذاعات التلفزيونية يقول أن المعتصمين حاليا فى التحرير ليسوا من الثورة و لا علاقة لهم بها ثم تم تعديل الكلام لاحقا بأنهم اعلنوا للباقين عن موقفها و لا يمكنهم دعم المعتصمين و ان كلا من الأطراف حر فى رأيه ثم أتى الحوار الأحادى مع الجيش مع أعلانهم انهم يمثلون أنفسهم لا الثورة .... فلما؟ ثم أتى الاعتداء على المعتصمين من الجيش و لم يصدر عن "القيادات" إلا بيانا يؤكد عدم كفاية الإعتذار و أنما ما يكفى هو تنفيذ المطالب و الدعوة الإعتصام يوم الجمعة .... عذرا فالإعتداء حدث يوم السبت و الرد المناسب هو الإعتصام يوم الأحد حتى محاكمة المسؤليين من الجيش و تنفيذ المطالب، لما هذا النفاق؟ أهو ضعف أم سذاجة أم انتهازية؟ و لما تعطى الثورة شرعية لمجلس أعلن نفسه قواما على الثورة حتى بدون أن يتنصل من مبارك؟ و لماذا الإجتماع بين المعارضة التقليدية و "قيادة الثورة" للحديث عن من يكون القائد و إعلان هذه القيادة أن التاريخ يبدأ الأن؟ أليس من الأحرى عدم الإلتفات لمن لم يقدم شئ – و هو بالفعل ما قدمته هذه المعارضة – أم أن إمكانبة الإتفاق من الممكن أن تسفر عن نجاح قيادى جديد؟

الا يتفهم القادة المستحدثيين أن القيادة هى تعبير و تفويض مشروط بالأهداف لمن يقودون؟ و الا يتفهمون أن الأتحاد قوة؟ و كيف لا يتفهمون قيمة الأتحاد و هم من كل فصيل طيف؟ و لكن أليس من الأنتهازية تفكيك الأتحاد دون تحقق الأهداف؟ عليهم أن يفهموا أن الناس سوف تنفض من حولهم و قد جائت الشواهد ظاهرة فى تقلص الأعداد و هى الفرقة التى يريدها النظام الذى أستُبدلت قيادته بالمجلس الأعلى و عليه فأن أستمرار نفس السياسات مسلم به و لكن مع التعويم و المهادنة كى لا يستنفذوا الغطاء الشعبى التى تصنعه الفرقة و التى هى قائمة بسبب تفضيل كل فصيل مصلحته، هذه الفرقة يغزيها النظام بقيادة المجلس الأعلى و أيضا العقلية السياسية أحيانا و الأنتهازية السياسية أحيانا أخرى لبعض التيارات المستحدثة و القديمة سواء.

لم أغادر ميدان التحرير حين ظهرت أحد القيادات – التى أذيع لاحقا تحدثها عن نفسها – تدعى إلى الحوار مع عمر سليمان و لم أوافق على تعديل الدستور الذى سقط ببدأ الثورة فالنظام هو التفعيل السياسى للدستور، و الذى يدعو إلى الإحتكام لدستور فاقد الشرعية يأتى برئيس و برلمان يؤسسوا لديموقراطية سياسية فهو إما ساذج سياسيا أو مستفيد من الوضع الذى سيقوم أو هو ليس بثائر و إنما بغاضب ضيق الأفق، فتعديل الدستور و الأتيان برئيس و برلمان فى ظل هذه الأوضاع يفوض إرادة الثورة إلى نظام لم يثور و يقيض الديموقراطية بهذا التفويض و هى ديموقراطية لم نتفق على مبادئها أو أدواتها. اما عن الفوضى، ليذهب الجيش إلى ثكناته و يأتمر بأمر مجلس رئاسى مفوض من الشعب، ام أن الجيش أعلى شأنأ من الشعب؟

و لم أذهب للتحرير لسماع من يتاجر بمن فقدناهم و يتغنى بغير تفاعل مع المتظاهريين بالقرأن فى حين أن أحد قيادات هذه التيار كان يقاطع الهتافات فى الإذاعة من الناحية الأخرى من الميدان ليعلن أن القوات المسلحة هى من تعالج سائق الميكروباص الذى أطلق عليه ضابط شرطة النار فى الشارع و هى من تعتنى به و قد جاء هذا القائد فى نقل الخبر كالمبشر فى لمحة أنتهازية كأتنهازية تعديل الدستور.

علينا أن نغيير من أنفسنا لتخلص من النظام و لكن بمثل هذه الطريقة فإن النظام الذى يثور الشعب ضده سوف يولد بأيدينا من جديد. موقفى هو الأتى:

مجلس رئاسى مدنى وحكومة أنقاذ وطنى لفترة أنتقالية لا تقل عن عام يتم وضع دستور جديد فيها و يتم إبعاد رموز النظام و محاكمة كل على جرائمه بدأ من مبارك


و من يتحدث بغير هذا فلا يتحدث بأسمى

احتراما لنفسنا

ليه نفرح بالنصر و النصر لسه مجاش؟ ليه نفرح باننا كسبنا معركة و الحرب شغالة؟ حرب بين شعب عايز حرية و كرامة و بين اللى بينصبوا نفسهم حكامنا و اللى بيهادونا زى العيال الصغيرة لحد ما نهدا و ترجع ريما لعاديتها الأديمة بتغيير فى حبة وشوش جنب الوشوش اللى بينها و بينا ذلنا و استبدادهم و دم و جرحى، لو اللى كسبناه من يوم ٢٥ يناير هو بس فرصة للتعبير عن كبتنا أو وعود من ناس قديمة شاركت فى ظلمنا انهم يلبسوا هدوم جديدة يبقى احنا فعلا عيال، اللى ينسى ان الجيش وقف على الحياد - و الحياد بين الظالم و المظلوم هو فعلا حياد - لحد الوقت اللى حس فيه المجلس الأعلى ان الجيش هينفرط يبقى بيهدى نفسه بأمانى مش هتحقق، و تتحقق ازاى لما نفس اللى وقف على الحياد هو اللى بيقلنا اهدوا انتوا و انا هظبط الديموقراطية بتعتكم ديه، على أساس انه عرفها يعنى، على أساس ان الجيش يفهم فى الكفت، صحيح ما هو فهم فى العيش ازاى بقى ما يفهمش تأسيس و تسيس و تلبيس الديموقراطية، بس ديه بقه ديموقراطية الشعب قاعد على الكراسى، و بما انه فاهم فى الكفت يبقى نتلم عشان الكبير بيتكلم ... عموما لو متلمتوش الشرطة العسكرية تضرب فيكم شوية و تطلع احتكاكات ... على انه مرض جلدى عند العساكر فلازم يهرشوا على قفى المعتصمين، على ان العسكرى ملوش قائد، و لا ان القائد ليه قائد و القائد فى الأخر هو اللى بيفهم فى الكفت وده طبعا المجلس الأعلى، ولا على أن قائد المجلس الأعلى هو الوزير اللى مبارك مغيروش فى أي وزارة أتغيرت فى ٢٠ سنة، ما هو كان النضيف فيهم عشان كده مبارك كان سيبه ينضف. و هل الجيش اعلى من الشعب بحيث يعتدى على الشعب بدون محسابة و عقاب؟

حضرة المصلح الديموقراطى شفيق - اللى هو تعيين مبارك قائد مسيرة الحرية و اللى هو برضه يكلم التلفزيون فى وسط البرنامج و يقطع البرنامج عشان الكلام مش عجبه حيث ان الكلام مضر بصحة الشعب و تفكيره على ان المحاور من اسطوات حضرته و الإعلام ملك سيادته و الضيف خروف من وسط اكتر من ٨٠ مليون خروف، المهم الملهم الديموقراطى مستر غاندى البصل بيعيين وزراء من المعارضة و رموز الإستقلالية فى دولة أتكلم اه أعمل حاجة أديك بالجزمة، بس الراجل ناصح و ادى فهمى فرصة ينضف أو يأشط وزارته قبل ما يمشى، ما الدليل لازم يموت و العالمه لازم تمشى، اما عن السيد الناشط الحقوقى راعى حقوق الأنسان و الحيوان كمان فى دولة أمن الدولة السيد وزير الداخلية اللى زوّد الحوافز للشرطة ١٠٠٪ و طلع قالك ان العناصر المندسة هما اللى اتضربوا بالنار فى المظاهرات أكيد فاكر ان المجرمين المنّدسين شهداء الثورة هما كلاب الحركة المتمردة بتاعت اللى بيقولوا عليها بالغلط ثورة، ما هى أكيد حركة ادام الملهم الديموقراطى شفيق بيقول عليها حركة و زاده تأكيد ان وزير الخارجية المعلم ابو الغيط اللى واخد السياسة دراع بيقول عليها حركة برده ... حركة العملاء بتوع كنتاكى. أحسن حاجو ان الموظف اللى أسمه وزير هيطمن الناس و اديها فتحة خير على أساس ان الداية قالت ديموقراطية و أكيد أى عميل ميطمنش الناس من الناس من الموظفيين الجداد هيترفد من عزبة الملهم و مجلس الكفت.

شرعية دول مين حد يفهمنى؟ شرعية الحركة العميلة و لا شرعية الدستور اللى اتعطل لأن الناس الخونة طلعوا ضده و لا شرعية الدراع و لا شرعية جايه من فين بالظبط؟ هما خافوا على البيه الدستور قالوا نداخله المستشفى و نعملوا عملية و لا اتنين هيطلع احسن من اجدعها شوال بطاطس، بس ده برضه مايجبش شرعية ليهم لان الدستور المرقع بتاعنا بيقول انهم يحافظوا على الدستور اما بالدستور فهوا رئيس المحكمة الدستورية اللى يحكم فى الأوضاع ديه بس هو دراع، دستور ايه اللى نحتكم ليه و الناس فى الشارع بتقول ميش عوزينه، الدستور اللى هو عبارة عن رؤية الشعب للمبادئ اللى بيحتكم ليها بيجى من الشعب مش كتاب لأيناه فى الشارع، ولما كان بيجى من الشعب و ان النظام رقعه على مزاجه و الشعب عليه ثار يبقى لازم يتغير و الانتخابات تتم على هدى الدستور الجديد اللى الشعب يوافق عليه مش فى هدى ترقيعة جديدة تخص الرئيس عيعد اد ايه و مالوش دعوة بصلاحيات الرئيس، بيقولوا هاتوا انتوا رئيس فى الانتخابات يبقى يغير، طيب و ليه مش دلوقتى؟ عشان اللى هيجى بالوضع الحالى هيبقى حد مدعوم بالنظام بعد تشويه كل اللى الناس هيشوفوا فيهم امل او بتلميع حبة حلوين من البيقولوا مبارك يتحاكم على ايه هو عمل ايه زى عمرو موسى وزير خارجية مبارك و الساكت عن ثورة ليبيا ٥ ايام، و كمان احزاب و قوى سياسية ايه اللى هتتولد فى ست شهور، العيل بيجى فى تسعة هنجيب احنا عصارة التاريخ فى ستة؟! و ليه مش مجلس رئاسى؟ ما هو المجلس ده هيركن المجلس الأعلى اللى فاهم فى الكفت و مدلع مبارك الرئيس السابق و ليس المخلوع و مظبط شفيق ملهم الديموقراطية بالذات فى الإعلام و سايب واحد زى وجدى بتاع القلة المندسة واللى مدير امنه بيقول على الشرطة أسيادنا و النايب العام اللى رفض التحقيق فى ألاف القضايا و اللى معينه مبارك و كمان المجلس الرئاسى و حكومة الإنقاذ الوطنى ممكن يجيبوا ديموقراطية بجد و الفاس تؤع فى الراس و كمان كده الناس تفهم انهم هما الشرعية مش حد تانى.

احتراما لنفسنا و للناس اللى اتصابت و اللى ماتيت نقعد فى التحرير و فى كل ميدان لحد ما اهدفنا تتحقق و تتحقق بأيدنا او بأيد اللى نخترهم مش بأيد وصى على إرادتنا و ناس بتستخف بعقولنا، ديه مش طلبات لأن الطلب يكون موجه للليه حق الرفض و الشعب هو الوحيد اللى ليه الحق داه، نختار مجلس رئاسي و نعلنه و نحطه يجيب حكومة و ديه هى الثورة

مناقشات ما بعد الثورة 2

لا ديمقراطية بلا شفافية

بما أن الديمقراطية هي حكم الشعب لنفسه عن طريق إنتخاب ممثلين له - نظرا لاستحالة جمع الشعب في مكان واحد للتصويت على القرارت الكبيرة و الصغيرة على حد سواء - فإن عمليات إنتقاء المرشحين هي جوهر ألية تنفيذ الديمقراطية . حتى يمكنك إنتقاء مرشحك بشكل يعبر عن متطلباتك يجب أن تتسم عملية الدعاية و الانتقاء بالشفافية . الشفافية هنا تعني قدرة الناخب على الوصول ألي كافة المعلومات اللازمة لانتخاب المرشح و لا أعني هنا المعلومات الشخصية و لكن على سبيل المثال و ليس الحصر - الإقرار الضريبي ، مصادر تمويل الحملة الدعائية ، السجل التصويتي في مجلس الشعب أو المجالس المحلية أو النقابات ، الانتماء الحزبي ، الانتماء الفكري ، الموقف الأيديولوجي من قضايا محددة كالصحة و التعليم و الأمن القومي إلخ ......- قد تبدو هذه المعلومات المطلوبة بديهية و لكن الواقع يخبرنا أن معظم المرشحين لا يقوموا متطوعين بكشف هذه المعلومات و خاصة ما يتعلق بالعلاقات المادية كالأسهم في الشركات و عضوية مجالس الإدارات و الأسوأ هو إخفاء مصادر تمويل الحملة و معروف أن مصادر تمويل المرشحين تتنبأ جيدا بأداء المرشح في حالة نجاحه.

دور مؤسسات المجتمع المدني في الحياه الديمقراطية

ستلعب منظمات المجتمع المدني المستقلة - أي التي تمول ذاتيا بدون تمويل حزبي أو حكومي أو رأسمالي - و التي تنأى بنفسها عن العمل السياسي المباشر دور كبير في دافع و حماية الديمقراطية في مصر و تحديدا أنا أعتقد أنها ستلعب دور في هذه المجالات

١- التوعية السياسية : و هي ما يقصد بها تصحيح بعض المفاهيم الأساسية في الممارسة الديمقراطية و التي أعتقد أنها غير واضحة أو ناقصة في الحياه السياسية المصرية . أقصد بالتحديد هنا المفهوم التشريعي لعضو البرلمان بمجلسيه . معظم الناخبون ينتقون المرشح بناء على ما يقدمه لهم من خدمات ( كتمهيد شارع أو بناء مستوصف أو مدرسة أو إيصال الكهرباء ) و في الواقع فهذه ليست وظيفة عضو مجلس الشعب على الإطلاق و إنما وظيفة المحافظ أو رئيس الحي أو أمثالهم . وظيفة عضو البرلمان هي سن القوانين أولا ثم مراقبة الحكومة ثانيا - هذا الوصف التشريعي لعضو مجلس الشعب هو ما يجب إيصاله و ترسيخه في عاقل الناخبين حتى يكون القرار التصويتي نابع عن فهم للهدف من منح الصوت لمرشح معين و ليس لاخر- هذه ستكون مهمة أحد منظمات الغير حكومية المدنية المستقلة . تلك هي نقطة جوهرية و هامة جدا في الحياه السياسة حيث يجب أن يستطيع الناخب أن يسأل مرشحه عن أرائه في مختلف التشريعات وان يعرف مسبقا كيف سيكون تصويته مثلا على مشروع لرفع الضرائب على الدخل - بل يجب أن يسأل الناخب المرشح هل لديه أية مشاريع قوانين أم لا ؟

٢- الرقابة السياسية المستقلة : و تشمل

أ) الرقابة على تمويل الحملات الانتخابية أو حتى الملاحقة القضائية للتأكد من القدرة على الوصول لمصادر التمويل أو حتى الدفع بوجود حد أقصى لما يمكن التبرع به أو تنظيم النسبة بين تمويل الأفراد و المؤسسات

ب) الرقابة على الأداء البرلماني من خلال منظمات تعمل كعين رقابية شعبية و ستكون وظيفتها توثيق السجل التصويتي لكل عضو مع مراقبة الوعود الانتخابية من المرشحين و أعضاء الحكومة على السواء . و هذ السجل التصويتي سيصبح أداه مهمة للحكم على مصداقية المرشح و كذلك سيكون التقييم الخاص بوعود الوزراء أداه مهمة للحكم على أعضاء الحكومة

مناقشات ما بعد الثورة

1 -برلمانية أم رئاسية

تتعدد النماذج التي يمكن تقديم الديمقراطية بها للشعب و لكن يمكن حصرهم في ثلاثة نماذج و هي :

أ) النموذج الرئاسي : كالولايات المتحدة الأمريكية حيث ينتخب الرئيس من خلال برنامج متكامل للحكم و يقوم بتعيين الحكومة بالكامل لتطبيق البرنامج المقترح و الذي وفق عليه الناخبون بانتخابهم للرئيس . توجد صلاحيات هامة للرئيس في هذا النظام و لا يوجد ما يسمى برئيس الوزراء و لكن توجد رقابة من الكونجرس و مجلس الشيوخ على قرارت الرئيس خاصة الشديدة التأثير و العكس صحيح حيث يلزم موافقة الرئيس على القوانين حتى تصبح نافذة .
ب) النموذج البرلماني : ألمانيا و تركيا و إسرائيل يطبقون هذا النظام و فيه الرئيس شرفي و صلاحياته رمزية و بروتوكولية بالأساس - الحكم لرئيس الوزراء أو المستشار في ألمانيا و في الحالتين ينتخب عن طريق حيازة الأغلبية البرلمانية أو القدرة على تشكيل ائتلاف برلماني حاكم.

ج) النموذج الفرنسي : و فيه يوجد مساران متوازيان - واحد للرئاسة و آخر لرئاسة الوزارة . في هذا النموذج تقاسم الصلاحيات بين الرئيس الذي يحتفظ بصلاحيات سيادية و بين رئيس الوزراء الذي يحتفظ بصلاحيات تنفيذية . ينتخب رئيس الوزراء و لا يعين و طريقة الانتخاب مماثلة لنموذج البرلماني حيث يجب الحصول على الأغلبية البرلمانية لاتشكيل الوزارة .

إنا افضل النموذج الفرنسي حيث يضمن إنتخاب كلا من الرئيس و رئيس الوزراء و يضمن عدم تركيز السلطة في قبضة واحدة و هذا في رأيي ضمان إضافي لعدم سوء إستخدام السلطة و هو ما يجن النظر إليه بشدة في دولة حديثة العهد بالديمقراطية كمصر ( السلطة المطلقة مفسدة مطلقة)

2- النظام الديمقراطي في ظل الحزب الواحد

من أخطر الأمراض السياسية هو مرض الحزب الواحد و لا يمكن الحفاظ على حرية الرأي أو الديمقراطية في وجود حزب واحد و لا أعني هنا الوجود المادي لحزب واحد و إنما أعني حيازة حزب واحد على أغلبية مطلقة بشكل مستديم أو مستمر في الانتخابات مما يعني تملك هذا الحزب - أحادي النظرة السياسية بالطبع - القدرة على تمرير أو رفض أية قوانين يراها. و لهذا يجب أن يحرص المجتمع و تحرص الدولة على التعددية الحزبية .

و إذا أردنا النظر إلى مصر ما بعض الثورة من خلال منظور التعدد الحزبي نجد أن الحزب الوطني قد فقد كل مصداقية ممكنة و أصبح حزب سيئ السمعة ، تأتي في المرتبة الأولى جماعة الإخوان المسلمين ككيان معارض قوي و هي أكثر القوى السياسية تنظيما و التزاما و خبرة حيث اكتسبت خبرة إنتخابية جيدة من إنتخابات البرلمان و النقابات و إتحادات الطلبة ، و هي بهذا تصبح مهيئة لأن تكون أكبر كتلة سياسية في البرلمان مع الاعتراف بائن هذه الكتلة في الأغلب لأن تحصل على الأغلبية و لكن ستظل أكبر كتلة .

يأتي بعد الإخوان كيان إفتراضي يمكن مجازا تسميته بالكتلة الليبرالية و هي تمثل مجموعة من الحركات و الأحزاب و الجمعيات التي إشتركت في الإعداد ل ٢٥ يناير و أقصد هنا ( حركة ٦ إبريل - الجامعية الوطنية للتغيير - حملة دعم البرادعي - كفاية - شباب العدالة و التنمية - مجموعة أحزاب الغد، الجبهة، الكرامة) و هذه الكتلة تمتلك إمكانية الحصول على أكبر كتلة برلمانية فقط إذا اجتمعت الشروط التالية ١- تكوين ائتلاف سياسي و التغلب على رغبات الزعامة و الاختلاف الفكري ، ٢- وجود تمويل قوي ، ٣- انضمام مجموعة من المستقلين لهم . إذا أرادت الكتلة الليبرالية هذا فى يجب التحرك بسرعة ليتم استغلال ثقة الشعب فيهم بعد تنظيم الثورة و يجب تقديم قيادات من الشباب الذين نظام الثورة . يأتي بعد الكتلة الليبرالية المستقلين و هم يمكن أن يشكلوا عددا كبيرا لكن الخلاف الفكري سيمنع تشكيل قوة برلمانية منهم . في النهاية تأتي مجموعة الأحزاب التي يري الناس أنها شكلية نظرا لقبولهم التعايش في النظام السياسي السابق بقيادة الحزب الوطني ( الوفد - التجمع - الناصري - ألخ ....) و لا أرى أية أمل في هذه المجموعة لتكوين أو قيادة أية كتلة برلمانية مع الاعتراف بأنه سيكون لهم بعض الوجود و هو ما قبلوه من زمن طويل.

يمكن الدفع بوجود فراغ سياسي يسمح بتكوين حزب للعمال بتوجه إشتراكي حيث يوجد فراغ في الجانب الاشتراكي من الطيف السياسي - و إذا تم ذلك يمكن أن يكون هذا الحزب أهم حزب مستقبلي نظرا لجدية العمال في الشأن السياسي و ابتعادهم لفترة طويلة عن السياسة مما أوجد حالة من الجوع السياسي لديهم.

أسترداد وطن

مبارك و نظامه يدفعوا مصر إلى الصدام المسلح و الذي قد يتطور إلى حرب أهلية، لا تفاوض و لا تراجع أن النظام يصر على كونه مِصر و أن الشعب هو العدو، لن تكون هناك حرية و لن يكون هناك أستقرار إذا تراجعنا الأن، يجب أن ندفع بإصرارنا و ثباتنا شرفاء الجيش إلى حماية الشعب و ليس النظام و يجب أن نعلم أن بعضاً من قادة الجيش يحمون مبارك و لكن كما في الشعب أتضحت صفات و كرامة المصريين ففي الجيش ستضح و تعلن، أن الشعب هو مِصر و على الجيش حماية مصر أي الشعب، علينا أن نثبت و أن نتحد حول الثبات، التراجع و التهدئة الأن هي رهان النظام على خوف الشعب من الصدام و هي أمتحان للثورة، لا نريد صداماً و لكننا لا نهابه، و لهذا فعلينا الإصرار على ما ثرنا من أجله حتى نستقطب كل القوي الشريفة في هذا الوطن و منها الجيش.
 

يتحدثون عن مخاطر اقتصادية و لم ترى أغلبية الشعب غير الفقر و لم تصل إليها أى نتائج للتنمية، يتحدثون عن تدخل خارجي و قد جعلوا مصر خاضعة للولايات المتحدة و أسرائيل، يتحدثون عن أستقرار و المجتمع يغلى جميعه، يتحدثون عن كرامتهم و قد استعبادونا طيلة ثلاثين عاماً، ومن أجل كل هذا هى ثورتنا.

أن نظاما ديكتاتورى لا يمكن أن يصنع الديموقراطية و أن نظاما مبنى على القمع و الأساليب الأمنية لا يمكن أن يرعى حواراً، ما يحدث الأن هو محاولة زرع الفرقة فى صفوف الشعب و عزل الجيش عن الشعب فيجب أن نواصل ما بدأناه حتي نرى الحرية يوماً فى هذا الوطن و أن نشعر بكرامة فى هذا الوطن، لقد ثرنا جميعا باحثين عن وطن بعد أن سلب هذا النظام بلدنا و يجب أن نسترد وطننا. و لا يسترد الأوطان من أرتعشت يداه.

يجب أن يختار الجيش بين الشعب و النظام الأن و ليس غداً فبداية الحسم هي اليوم، يجب أن يتوقف هذا التلفزيون الكاذب عن العمل و يجب أن نصعّد سلمياً، و لايجب ترك التحرير بل يجب المحافظة على الاعتصام، ولكن و قد ذهب البعض إلى القصر الجمهورى فيجب أن نساند هؤلاء بأعداداً غفيرة حتى لا يقع الصدام و يجب المحافظة على سلمية الثورة، على الشعب أن يصبر و على الشعب القيام بالعصيان المدني العام ولكن دون توقف الحاجات الأساسية للمحافظة على أخوتنا في هذا الوطن.

لقد سقط النظام و حان موعد إزاحته

ثورة ثورة حتي النصر

شرعية الثورة

لم أخرج في مسيرات الحرية التي أشعلت هذه الثورة مثلى مثل أي شاب أخر لكي أتفاوض مع نظام فقد شرعيته مسبقا و قد أعلنت هذه الثورة سقوط شرعيته و جعلت الشعب طوّاقا إلى واقع جديد بلا أقنعة و لا خوف، واقع يستند إلى الحرية و التمثيل السياسي و الاجتماعي الحقيقيين دعائم له.

لما هي ثورة إذا كان الهدف هو الإصلاح و ليس التغيير و لما هي ثورة إذا كان الهدف هو وعد ممن لا وعد له بعدم الترشح حين يكمل فترته التي أغتصبها من هذا الشعب، لماذا التفت كل طبقات الشعب و فئاته على شعار واحد يلخص كل ما أتت هذه الثورة من أجله "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام"، إن الوعود المهدئة و القمع التابع لها كانت و لا تزال هي طريقة النظام في خنق مطالب الشعب.

لا يمكن القبول بشئ غير إسقاط هذا النظام ولا يمكن إسقاطه بالتفاوض معه، هل يمكن أن تفاوض نظام حول إمكانية سقوطه؟! لا يمكن القبول باستبدال أشخاص و الانصياع إلي أحزاب شكلية غير مؤثرة أعطت شرعية مزيفة لنظام جثم على صدورنا بالظلم و القمع و الاستبداد، ليس من المقبول أن يضع كل هؤلاء المصريون حياتهم على المحك و لا أن يضيع دم من فقدانهم بهدف أن يُعدِل دستور مهلهل دكتاتوري ثار الشعب ضده مجلس تشريعي مزور مشبوه و من أعضاءه من قاد و موّل أعمال البلطجة ضد هذه الثورة، ولا يعقل أن يتم أنتخاب رئيس الجمهورية على أساس الدستور نفسه و هو ما تؤدى إليه المفاوضات الجارية بين أطراف لا تعى معنى الثورة و فقط ترى الإصلاح غاية لم يمكن لبعضهم إدراكها سابقا، أن الشرعية الوحيدة هي شرعية تستند إلى الشعب و ليس شرعية تمكن النظام من استرجاع ما فقده، الشرعية الأن هي شرعية الثورة و هي الشرعية التي يجب أن تحركنا، لا تفاوض إلى بعد الرحيل و هو التفاوض الذي يجب أن يكون محوره كيفية أنتقال السلطة و ليس حول المطالب الشعبية للثورة، أن المفاوضات الجارية هي ألتفاف من النظام و المعارضين الذين تمكنوا دائما من التعايش الأمن معه حول مطالب ثورة الشعب و هو الشعب الذي لا يمثله هؤلاء المعارضون المصابون بالشيخوخة الفكرية كما النظام.

أن المشكلة هي عدم إفراز هذه الثورة العفوية لقيادة و عدم نضجنا السياسي لتراكم ثقافة القمع و الثقافة الفردية بما سمح لأشخاص و أحزاب فقدت مصداقيتها مع إهدارها كل تطلعاتنا عبر السنين الكثيرة بشق صفنا من أجل تملق نظام أيل للسقوط لكونهم غير مدركون ماهية الثورة و خائفون من أن يقوى النظام ثانية، يجب أن نتوحد حول قيادة من الثورة نفسها غير مهتمين بالسن و الخبرة التي أُكتسبت و ستكتسب من العمل الميداني و إن تقبل هؤلاء الحكماء القابلين للحياة مع أي نظام قيادتنا فأننا نقبل باستشارتهم، ويجب الأخذ في الاعتبار أن هذه الثورة بدأت كانتفاضة شبابية و تطورت إلى ثورة شعبية فيجب إشراك هذه الجموع في العملية الجارية و ليس تهميشهم، إن علينا إكمال هذه الثورة حتى و إن أختار الجيش الوقوف ضدنا و أن لا نتوقف حيث أننا و بكل بساطة أظهرنا قوتنا ولكننا لم نجنى ثمارها.

علينا الإبقاء على الاعتصام في ميدان التحرير بكل السبل و لكن يجب أن نتحرك في نطاق الثورة و ليس الاعتصام، علينا أن نملأ مصر بمسيراتنا و أن نحرك ما يطلقون عليه الأغلبية الصامتة، علينا التصعيد الدائم و فعل ما هو مفاجئ و ما من شائنه إضعاف مؤسسات النظام وهو ما يتضمن تثوير النقابات و الإعلام.

الشرعية - شرعية ماذا؟

مع كل الحوار و اللغط الموجه من النظام و كل من حسب يوما عليه حول الشرعية لم يكون من الواضح أى شرعية يتحدوثون عنها، أن الشرعية الدستورية التى يتحدثون عنها هى شرعية مهلهلة تم تقيضها و أستعمالها و ترويضها طوال ثلاثين عاما و هى ما سمحت بتكوين و تمكين مثل هذا النظام الذى خرج الشعب عليه، كما أن مطالب الشعب هى مطالب تقتضى إسقاط هذه الشرعية، فكيف يمكن أن يحتكم الشعب إليها؟! و كيف يمكن أن تُفرض أو حتى أن تناقش مطالب الشعب فى إطارها؟!

أن إستناد النظام للشرعية الدستورية هو الموقف الذى تستند إليه الأحزاب الشكلية التى أعطت شرعية للنظام و هى الأحزاب التى تدرك جيدا أن إستغنائها عن الشرعية الدستورية و إستنادها إلى الشرعية الشعبية يعنى ضمنا إسقاط هذه الأحزاب، أن الوضع الطبيعى لأحزاب تساند الثورة الشعبية و تستند إليها ان تحل نفسها و تعييد تكوين نفسها إستنادا إلى الشرعية الشعبية، و لكن فضلت هذه الأحزاب الهجوم على أشخاص بعينهها و التفاوض مع النظام مما يؤدى إلى فت عضد الوحدة الشعبية.

أى تفاوض يكون مع نظام يريد الشعب محاكمته على أسس جرائم ضد الإنسانية و نظام يتعامل مع شعبه كعدو هو تفاوض أساسه إعطاء شرعية لنظام فاقد الشرعية، إن الغرض ليس الإصلاح و لكن التغيير، ليس تعديل الدستور و لكن تغيير الدستور، أن الشرعية الوحيدة الواجب الإستناد عليها هى الشرعية الشعبية و التى تقتضى عدم الإستناد إلى مجالس تشريعية فاقدة الشرعية و لكن تقضى بتأسيس لجنة تـأسيسية تضم جميع الأطياف السياسية تشرف على إدارة البلاد و وضع دستور جديد و بعد إستفتاء الشعب عليه تجرى إنتخابات رئاسية أو برلمانية كما يقتضى الدستور الجديد.

أن الشرعية الوحيدة هى شرعية تستند إلى الشعب و ليس شرعية يثور الشعب ضدها.

جمعة الغضب 28 يناير

قوم يا مصري مصر دايما بتناديك خد بنصري نصري دين واجب عليك

http://bit.ly/AngryFriday

مظاهرة يوم الجمعة

The Whole Is Not Always Greater Than The Parts

Egypt is shaking for a change? I am not sure. Not saying yes or no, just I don't know. But I believe something, this country is not going to change as long as the whole is buried in fear. And this whole will always be buried in fear if there is no part of the society trying to get out of the silence break to affect the whole.

Peaceful change? I don't know whether this is a dream to come to true. We all understand how the regime is built upon the remains of us. Once we could be angry, once seems gone for good. Violence and injustice exercised daily and awfully by the regime in different ways: police against the people, the army against its own soldiers, professors against their own students, clerks against people and police against clerks. We are all fighting against each other as planned by the regime to remain afraid. Tell me how peaceful change would be brought about if police kills people, in the past secretly in police stations and so on and now on the street. Tell me what peaceful wisdom would encourage this afraid man to march in a demonstration if he doesn't see a heroic act that contribute to his feelings and thoughts.

Heroism in the state of violence is, by definition, against violence. The reaction of the mob however peacefully directed would at least be affected or cause a theme or two of violent acts.

People saying that a democratic reform cannot be brought about unless in a peaceful way. History doesn't agree. Democracy? Which democracy we are talking about? Do we talk about democracy as in the USA or Norway? They are different, not only in application but in principle. A democracy must satisfy the will of the people at a certain time and place. Democracy should reflect freedom however we define freedom.

Freedom is not won without a fight.

People: the ultimate source of Authority

"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792. ME 9:7

"[The people] are in truth the only legitimate proprietors of the soil and government." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1813. ME 19:197

"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named and removable for unfaithful conduct by themselves immediately." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487

"The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

معاناه المصريين من أجل أبسط حقوق الحياه

Look Here and Here

See You...!!!!

It is enough, see you sometime.......................

Peaceful Explosion II

The second and third perspectives are really interesting. As they were mentioned in part I they go as follows:

• The war is between Israel and Lebanon.
• The war is between Israel and the Arab world.

The principle issue with both perspectives can be considered rather internally. It highlights a plethora of defects in the Arab body in a very compact way; people will in opposition to rulers’ will. Regardless of any different motivations, the Arab rulers reacted in a way that, in fact, gave Israel the required cover to continue its barbarian attack on the Lebanese nation. Breaking the scene into parcels, the Arab rulers’ position may be described sequentially:

• For Hezbollah is the aching thorn in their backs – each with his own considerations – they point out Hezbollah as the trigger of this unbalanced and unplanned fight.
• Therefore, Hezbollah is blamed for the war.
• They try to convince the peoples of their account. Each using his methods. Thanks to the KSA for lending its hand to the USA by claiming that it’s sinful for the Sunni to help the Shiite. The Egyptian peace dreamer Mubarak claims that Hezbollah destabilises the heavenly peace in the Middle East, forgetting those who die daily in Gaza, but why not? He actually forgot those two Egyptian soldiers who died for nothing on the borders with Israel.
• They play the lead clowns who cry for a flourishing human spirit, so they politely ‘request’ a cease-fire.
• The play is not finished yet, they allow local newspapers to damn Israel on every single page so that they deceive the plunging Arab anger.
• Finally, they are on the safe side; Israel wins, their account is practically proven. Hezbollah/Lebanon wins; they will find a way to get around as they did many times in the past.

On the contrary, the main public Arab account refuses this uncivilised attack. However, the play goes on with the same set of rules, which prevents the public voice to reach any power position. This extreme dualism, typically, defines the whole Arab world. At this point I am directing my attention to a more internal level.

There are only two ways for the Arab countries to help Lebanon: a) being powerful countries and b) being united. Actually, this argument is, somewhat, misleading. A clearer argument would be for the Arab countries to be powerful they must become united, but still they can unite without each country becomes powerful. However, the two arguments are valid and highly related. But can the Arab country really unite? Can they really become powerful? Devastatingly, with the current Arab condition they cannot achieve unity or power. This leads us to another level; the national level.

I will take Egypt as an example throughout my arguments. I am not going to discuss whether the Egyptian ruling regime is formed to be a dictatorship or not, you can take a look at the rest of posts. Also, I am not going to discuss the relatively fabric subject – at least it is so in Egypt – of the effect of dictatorship on a country power and position. Simply, our experience in Egypt shows that this dictatorship has been leading us to an ever increasing humiliating position both locally in our own country and internationally. Not only cannot Egypt unite with other Arab countries but also it cannot be any powerful. By unity I refer to common goals, set of methods and mentalities at the political, economical and social level which aim at a prospering Arab world. Nonetheless, there are other types of unity taking place in the Arab world, for example, the somewhat common view of KSA and Egypt. But this latter type, in fact, aims to get the Arab world into a worse position, as both the Saudi and Egyptian rulers manage to remain, legally, in power. For they stay in power some will say it is not going any worse, I consider this foolish. As time passes and the same symbols of submission still present in the Arab world any forming social volition will always be weakened to the degree it does not make any difference other than temporal disturbance. This unity aims to break any symbol of resistance. By resistance I am referring to a state of refusal and rejection which is able to ally the people in the face of their rulers. So is Hezbollah becoming the symbol of resistance?

This section is for those who are pleased by swings. The argument is, basically, twofold; religious fundamentalism and refusal of current state – not the State or government and such things. I am picking the second part first. Hezbollah refuses to compromise with the Israeli streams of actions or even its existence. Also, it refuses to accept the American views concerning the Middle East, which when seen as a part of a whole it means the American views on general. Contrariwise, the Arab ruling regimes accept and aid just the opposite. Internally, the majority of social scenes refuse what the ruling regimes do, which groups them with Hezbollah in a way or another. This may seem an oversimplification, but it is not. What makes Hezbollah different from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is very simple; Hezbollah is located in Lebanon. This means that Hezbollah does not claim rearranging the social hierarchy in Egypt, which when claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood is opposed by many accounts. Hezbollah just, remotely, materialises many Egyptians’ wishes. How many Egyptians feel happy and, oddly, victorious when Hezbollah damages an Israeli tank? They are so many. Also, many Egyptians believe that Hezbollah’s help to the Palestinians is honester and much more effective than that of the Egyptian ruling regime. Hezbollah challenges the current state, which is defended by the Arab ruling regimes. Thus, it challenges the Arab ruling regimes. Many people wish they could have been able to challenge the current Arab conditions or at least the Arab ruling regimes. So, Hezbollah, naively, symbolises resistance if it remains in focus. This is supported by the lack of any effective account which is able to challenge the current ruling regimes.

The second part is religious fundamentalism. Actually, this fundamentalism is a powerful drive for idealising Hezbollah position in the Arab world. In part because it unites the Arab world with other ‘Islamic’ countries – a term I wish I could find a replacement for, but this is how a world came apart due to religions may be described. One of these Islamic countries is Iran, which is seen a hero by the Arabian eye for its refusal to the American and Israeli plans in the Middle East. The more important reason is again the lack of any similar account which refuses the current state and realises its views. The most important reason is yet to come; when people suffer poverty, lack of cultural understandings or distorted ones, insufficient education process, inability to follow any political directions – mostly due to the previous sufferings – and, in turn, suppression of dictatorships, they are directed by virtue to their elementary intuitive backgrounds to judge different things. After all is gone the intuitive background is their religion. The evidence for this argument is really an apparent one; the Arab rulers know this condition well. So, they employ religion to direct the peoples whenever they are out of other tricks. They put on faith and go haunting for fearful souls of sin. Poverty is not a must suffering for this condition, but it is an extra and fertile reason to support the condition to hold. In Saudi Arabia poverty, as a suffering, may not be of significant importance, but the other factors drive the condition very well to fit into position. However, the condition is double sided as it became so apparent in the current situation of war. The forming condition of the Arabian mentality could not be used by the Arab rulers, so the tables are now turned. First, what happens in Iraq teaches the Arab peoples a very hard lesson about how wars and conflicts between the Sunni and Shiite may be. Ironically, the Arab rulers exploited the lesson to prove some of their account earlier, so it was hard for them to conflict themselves. Second, in a world where Muslims are treated and conceived differently and badly, then, there forms an intuitive unity between the Sunni and Shiite in face of others. However, KSA tried playing the trick again, so it received a very hard slap on the face. Nonetheless, there are people who are convinced with what the heavenly blessed Saudi Arabia has announced. The Egyptian peace dreamer figured out that he can’t play the trick form the beginning. Partially, because the Egyptian regime would be easily defeated in such a battle of religious advices as the Muslim Brotherhood would strike and gain more popularity – they did just the same with the Saudi position. In addition, the ‘official’ Islamic opinion of al-Azhar would not be so clear because of all the contrasts between the regime’s interest and the religious advice, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood stalking. The Egyptian church account was so expected; it just had the peace dreamer’s back covered. However, the church position is, actually, challenged by many Christian Egyptian figures. So, the final outcome is that Hezbollah is supported by the majority of the Arab people for its account and for many for its religious model as well.

The key to fundamentalism is distorted cultural understandings. These cultural understandings are yet outcomes of other factors; social, economical, familial and other cultural heritages. The interesting point here is that these factors are also the factors which remarkably form identity. However, this is not my concern.

My actual concern may be addressed in one question: can the Arab and Israeli live together in peace? There are situation when they both communicate in normal environments, such as, international youth camps. There, after some barriers resolve, both can communicate normally like any other people. They may have friendships for a while. Also, there are peace campaigns and organisations founded and run by both Arabs and Israelis to work together to find the missing peace in the Middle East. But the question which remains unanswered is whether this kind of human relationships is going to be lasting and fruitful. The answer can be found in everyday life; when two friends each goes through different life experiences so that their lives change, they, most probably, lose their friendship for their different livings, although they may still love each other. This is a very simple example which most of us experienced some day, but it also fits our issue very well. In Israel and the Arab world there are people who are willing to live in peace – regardless of morality of peace in this context. However, they are not the majority, but they form a potential reason for peace in the future. The other part is that of ruling regimes. In Israel the ruling regime is hunger for realising its ideological and religious views using the safety threshold to convince Israeli people of whatever it wants and aided with potential identity-related factors. In the Arab world the ruling regimes work solely to remain in power exercising every means of suppression on their people. The interest for both the Israeli and Arab regimes is to work together. For the Israeli regime this aids realising its views in an easier way and for the Arab regimes it helps them to stay as it brings the American aid. Interests in our world always defeat human values and goals; democracy became the cover for the kill and social orders turned out to be a tool to bring freedom and equality in line. From the accounts of ruling regimes in both Israel and the Arab world one may conclude that the motives and potentials for peace already exist. However, one would be wrongfully thinking. The account of the Israeli ruling regime shapes the feelings and thoughts of the Israeli people towards the Arab; it encourages them to discriminate and hate the Arab as they are of a lower rank. Nothing could be telling more than the photos of young Israeli kids writing on missiles, which will be finally launched to kill Arab people. The Arab regimes account is not so much different, although it employs different drive; Israel kill Arab people nearly on daily basis in Palestine, yet the Arab regimes co-operate with Israel. The resultant feeling is of humiliation and, in turn, more hate for the Israeli. When this feeling is coupled with the Israeli occupation of the holy land and barbarian actions the outcome becomes nothing expect anger which can only be directed to violence. It is no tragedy, but it is just a daily scenario of how our modern civilised life crushes humanities.

Israel is a fundamentalist country which is built around religion. Also, it is being threatened by religious fundamentalist. The Israeli people found their saviour in fundamentalism and so did the Arab. Each claiming rights it becomes a never ending maze. Although there are many historical pieces of evidence shows that the land which Israel claims is Arab’s, they have no reach to power. Finally, force becomes the resort. So, there will no peace in the Middle East as long as these conditions continue to exist. And as longs as religions find their way to make the world comes apart Israel will exist resulting in nothing but thriving violence.

The thing that we have to do in Egypt – and in most if not all other Arab countries – is changing the ruling regime so that a new Egypt may be able to help another Arab country. The mysterious part is that the method by which this regime may be changed, the model to which a change should lead and by whom a change may be brought. There will be more posts about this issue in the future.

Who is Against Who? II

There is no way that anybody can not be touched and deeply hurt by what is happening to Lebanon now, the Lebanese people are paying the price , probably a price for something that they never bought or never will know what is it for.

Again, this whole Israeli/Hezbollah war is another example of the extent of confusion and uncertainty in the political theatre which is intended to further divide the body that is called Arab’s more and more.

The Shiite/Sunni conflict is in its highest summit now to the point that Saudi Mufti is condemning sympathy with Hezbollah. If we remember shortly before his death, Al-Zarqawi called Hezbollah a strap that is protecting Israel from the Sunni’s. The Egyptian government accused Hezbollah of being the initiator in this conflict by kidnapping the 2 soldiers.
On the other hand, Lebanon is being squashed by Israeli forces claiming military revenge from Hezbollah, among those war operations, people are being in a swing day to day between feeling of sympathy and anger from the massacres against Lebanese people and the support and hope when they hear a victory of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah himself is standing against the Israeli attack with extreme amount of powerfulness and self-confidence, this stand is gaining Hezbollah an increased popularity and support.

But, I have some un-answered questions:

1. Why did Israel decide to respond brutally against an offense that is totally out of proportion to the Israeli response, it looks to me as if Israel was waiting for this to happen to justify the attacks?
2. What Israel is going to gain from those attacks, does Israel think that they will be able to squash Hezbollah? I doubt it.
3. Why does the Egyptian government and Egyptian media give mixed messages: The official response of the government does not seem to be sympathetic with Hezbollah, while newspaper on daily basis increase the heat among people against Israel “Which is the right thing to do”, but it is hard to imagine that our Journalism is so independent from the government to the point that it follow a stream not approved by the regime
4. Is there any role to Syria and Iran in this war, are they pushing Hezbollah against Israel at this particular time to relief the pressure on both states from the USA.

Finally, I think that Lebanese people as the rest of Arab people are only audience in the roman political theatre;but they are a new type of audience; not only they pay the price of the play while some one else is moving all the actors and gaining all the benefit, but also they may be a victim to the Lions in the same roman theatre for the amusement of other audience.

Peaceful Explosion I

In our civilised world there are many values, however, we are still uncertain of one of them, it is Man's life. Michael Servetus puts it so "to kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man.” In a world echoing truths of humanity still Man is not an answer. We are still divided as to unfold hierarchies. Man's value is pre-conceived dependent upon his origins. Let the global funerals blacken the world for the death of an American or European soul, Let the reasons be derived about those hundreds or maybe thousands of Arab dead bodies, have they done anything wrong led to their death?!

There is a war taking place in Lebanon, or following an old fashion in the Arab world. It goes without saying that there are many smart perspectives: a) the war is between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas, b) the war is between Israel and Lebanon and c) the war is between Israel and the Arab world. Whatever perspective you take there are many Lebanese and a few Israeli dying! Here we are concerned with the first perspective only, the other two perspective will be the subjects of other posts.

The first perspective is mainly Western's but it is still taken up by the most of wise Arab rulers. Following the dominant trend, Hezbollah is a terrorist Islamic fundamentalist organisation. Here we have two parts. The first is terrorism and the second is Islamic fundamentalism. Hezbollah claims it has captured the two Israeli soldiers as internees to interchange them with its own Lebanese internees in the Israeli prisons. Many of these Lebanese internees have been in the Israeli prisons for nearly twenty-six years. This cannot be considered terrorism for very simple reasons: a) Israel occupies the Lebanese Shebaa Farms and b) there is no peace treaty between Lebanon and Israel. In war this is not terrorism. The US occupies Iraq, no terrorism. Hezbollah fights for rights, this is terrorism. Maybe intentions are ruling the world. The American goal of occupying Iraq is a good one, then occupation is good! Quoting Albert Einstein it goes "you cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time.”

There is something missing, one cannot talk about Israel and neglect fundamentalism. For those who forget Israel is a country in which every aspect of life is based around religion, even nationality. The West neglects that Israel doesn't provide citizenship for non-Jewish people - so civilised democratic non-religious based fashion. The fight is between two religious fundamentalist entities, however, the world keeps a blind eye. But why we should bother now, France and the UK which work hard to prevent Iran from getting nuclear technologies are the very same which remarkably and secretly aided Israel to build its nuclear weapons. No country has precise information about the Israeli nuclear weapons! However, Israel gets a lot of prises for that. Ferment France and the UK are exploiting every means to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading, they seek to make the world a better peaceful place. However, their methods are really selective. They make the world a better place by providing an outlaw country, which refuses to ratify or co-operate in any work done by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with nuclear weapons. Israel is not Pakistan, which was considered a terrorist country until the US could make good relationships with it to use it for the American good. Israel is basically the West's best friend, at least for the West. The US, officially, refuses any attempt to encourage Israel to cease fire as it hopes the war would result in disarming Hezbollah. Put it plainly, the US encourages Israel to kill Lebanese people to disarm Hezbollah. But why? Good question, cruel answer. This encouragement is to allow Israel to kill more people at will. Implant a thorn in a body filled with oil, buy the dictator mind and you get the oil plus an open market - the rotten body needs medicine. It is known that Bush has strong relationships with energy companies. The interesting part is that terrorism has never been given a definition on the international political level. The reason is simple; terrorism is customised on every occasion to fit the West's needs. This is our dirty world. Devils dance in angels' way.

If the war targets Hezbollah then what about these dead Lebanese, they are many by the way? What about destroying the Lebanese infrastructure? What about terrifying the Lebanese people? What about the Lebanese children who saw the burnt bodies of their parents? Who is responsible for the future dark memories of these children? For two Israeli internees who Israel portrayed as kidnapped soldiers it blasts Lebanon then it calls what it is doing war against terrorism! Terrorism is to take an innocent life and in our case the innocent life is Lebanese.

Terrorism is to slain every mind who attempts to look at history. How in a civilised world knowledge becomes so proprietary! Israel claims holocaust, anyone else goes the opposite direction is trailed and most probably jailed! Despite of correctness or incorrectness, it remains terrorism when some country or person monopolies the truth.

One question left unanswered, what is the value of non-Westerns and those who don’t help the West? Ask the civilised West! It is all about interest. Bring me advantages you become so precious – for the moment – otherwise, you become so despised.

“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity” – Author unknown

To be continued.....

Journalism,Sanity and the Iron Capsule

In the last few months, a huge deal of talks, protests, movements were surrounding judges’ stand in front of the regime, rightfully so, but frustratingly enough, the real results of all that effervescence is still not appreciated.
Now, Journalists and Journalism are in a big stand against the regime, which is not less crucial than Judges’ stand.
I am confounded by the fact that there is nearly no word on that issue; this brings the idea of twisted priorities of blogging again to focus.
Are we just a safety valve to relief the pressure inside the congested society ? are we a hole among other holes in the wall of the Iron Capsule? are we just keeping our sanity by blogging ?

One Piece of an Online Chat

This is a real conversation between me and one of my friends who works in one of the Gulf countries, we were chatting over yahoo. He was a little un-happy because he was not selected for promotion .
I am not trying to turn it personal; read on and u will know what I mean.

Him: U know I feel I am weak
Me: we are all weak , But we have to be strong like steel from inside, so what hurt us or cause injury to us , do it only from outside in the skin not to the core, and I know that u r not week
u r actually a very strong guy.
Him: thanks, I am not week because of my problem
Me: but?
Him: I am week because of my country, I feel I am homeless..
Me: yes, but we can not change our nationality, also, we are responsible for that, This also should not make us want to change our identities.
Him: Egypt for rich people and weld Elkalb we bas
Me: Our country is bad because bad people rule.
Him: Yes, it is
Me: We should change this, but all of us run away to another country, when there is enough brave people to change this and are willing to die for it, it will change.
Him: If I am Indian or Philippine they con not do that with me

Me: So, we can not blame the country, we have to blame ourselves, always remember that, Egypt is a victim.

Him: I love it but I hate it 2
Me: I think u should not hate the country, u should hate the bad condition of it.
Him: Everyday I see me tear, really, Believe me
Me: U have to ask yourself what can u do to change this.
Him: Which change, I have to change so many things
Me: Change our country , we all can do
Him: 1st ask yourself from where u start or u end
Me: If we all work together
Him: It is so much
Me: I know
Him: So, u want me back home to change it

Me: Not really, First thing is to be strong so u can withstand troubles, strong meaning, have money, have power and have science, when there is big group of people who are strong gather, they can together change, u can not be strong in Egypt now, So, I advice u to try to stay out as much as u can to be sronger BUT never lose your love to Egypt, cause u will be able to something later when u are strong enough, does this make sense??

Him: Yes, I promise u to do my best
Me: Great

Snapshots from Civilized Places II

1-If you work for the federal government, and then you certify that you will not strike.
Good, the government secures the right of strike but not to its workers.

2-Free dance classes for children with cancer, University of Oregon is sponsoring the study to see whether dancing will affect the outcome of those children.
I guess if this is true, then when someone gets a cancer, he should immediately buy Soheir Zaky CD’s

3-Another bogus study found out those patients with serious heart problems do worse when their families pray for them.
Who in the earth would sponsor this study…?

4-Moslem Egyptians and Christian Egyptians had a fight “Big real fight” in the streets of Seattle sometime in the last few weeks.

How to be an activist in 3 seconds

Just make a random mix of talks about the following:
1-Human Rights
2-Women Rights
3-Coptic Prosecution
4-Detained Bloggers
5-Random Personal Experiences
6-Sexual Freedom
7-Resenting Religions
8-Communism and socialist theories
9-Whatever topic others are talking about at the same time , e.g Judges...
10-Egypt is Not an Arabic country

P.S. : Try to use ambiguous vague terms as much as you can.

Do We Have a Winner?

I guess it is all had been arranged. We just have to -helplessly- wait and see what is going to happen.

But let us go over the possible options of change:

1- Gamal Mubarak: He is the candidate number one, he does have better chances of being the president than others, but if he was so sure, he would not have tried to make deals with Moslem brotherhood, besides, his last visit to the US might be a sign of desperateness. On the other hand, he has many control buttons under his fingers, inlcuding the National Democratic Party, Political powerful figures "Zakareia Azmy, Ahmed Fathy Sorour", The republican Guard "Al Haras Al Gomhuri", and the businessmen who are a substantial power.

2-Omar Sulayman: I believe he is the most powerful man in Egypt now, well connected and more importantly he has all the information and knows about all the deals and he is the only one who is capable of planning a plot that will get him in Power . But on the other hand, his loyalty to Mubarak Family is strong, and his US ties are un-certain.

3-Moslem Brotherhood or Mahdy 3akef: On the surface, it appears that the US is against MB, but there are chances that the US would let an Islamic Radicalist rule if she thinks that they would serve her interests better, if the US thinks that MB would help in deepening the East/West conflict and further emphasize the fact the Sunni's are bold uncivilized group of people and Hamas had been an example. One more thing, the current president might end up refusing to turn the power to any other moderate power or to the Army which would leave MB as the strongest alternative.

4-Ahmed Nazif: The Canadian trained , liberal , technocrat anti-MB. I think if he has the ambition, he can easily make a deal with the US and be the president and kick everybody else.

5-Minister of Defense "Hussein Tantawy": In the situations of uncertainty, and where is a conflict related to power, the Army holds itself as an alternative all the time, however Hussien Tantawy is such a follower that I doubt his ability to take such a move. But, history taught us not to trust anybody , and the sheep might be the wolf in a second.

6-Minister of Interior Affairs "Habib Al-Adly": He certainly has some keys to power, and the experience of Zein Ben Aly in Tunisia is a good example of that. But, the Army would not let him do it easily and his popularity among citizens is in its lower level.

7-Ayman Nour: I personally think that his chances are nil. Nelson Mandella will not happen again in Egypt. But, he remains a player who has good relations with the US and fair popularity , but I do not see the mechanisms that will lift him to the chair.

8-Un-identified Army Figure: The army is definitely full of powerful and ambitious staff, but who will step up for this ? How is willing to risk it ? And will be he a patriotic or Just another toy in the hands of the US ?

9-Un-identified civilian political figure or a businessman: I think this is the least possibility but not impossible. I believe that if it would to happen , it would not be immediately.

A surprise move from any of the current figures "Zakareia Azmy, Fathy Sorour, Safwat Al Shareif..etc....." is unlikely cause they themselves would not allow one of them to be the president but not the others, they know all the black files about each others and would not let go.

S0, all the options are obviously not related by any means to what the poeple want, I am not sure even if the poeple know what they want.

How poor are we!!!

The Man and the Journey (I)

What do we need to bring about a change in Egypt? Do we need our suppressed “desires” and maybe thoughts to flush out? What is it that we really want to change? What alternates do we want to implement? And how will we implement them? Actually, the question that must be answered firstly is that: who are we?

For fifty four years till now the ruling regime is continuing its very clever play of guarding power in Egypt. Yes fifty four years, not less. It just changes its names and faces but never its essence, never its hierarchy. It is not Mubarak's ruling that is the cause of all that we suffer but it is the chain of the very logical extensions that creep one after another in a very boring rhythm. Nasser in whatever way handed us to al-Sadat, then, the latter in some way handed us to Mubarak. Nasser and al-Sadat both faced the same problem that they never could have been able to work out.....they simply couldn't take their possessions with them to their graves......they couldn't take us with them. But finally Mubarak found a solution, he found his son to be the youthful replica of him. Why should we blame the guy? Are we blaming him for being creative? Or are we just envying his throne?

The point is that the system has always remained the same it just maintains changing cliché. It wasn't by chance that Nasser worked hard to have good relations with the Soviet Union while he was detaining many Egyptian Communists, also, it is not by chance that Mubarak works very hard to maintain very “versatile” relations with the United States while he is rounding up many of the so-called Libertarians coupled with the so-called honourable others. Al-Sadat was unique, maybe just smarter, he served as the bridge on which Mubarak walked his way to heaven. How unlucky you are, Sadat. You couldn't harvest your plantings. You have just gone before you do...how desperate is that......you were just gone in a very mysterious accident.

Anyway, what does it mean to build good relationships with powerful countries and at the same time arrest your people? What does it mean for a President who is supposedly a representative of a ruling regime to do this? Note that these relationships are always two-way: a powerful country seeking its interest and a President seeking “something”. What is it that “something” in each case? It is existence, for the glare of truth. They always talk about truth those so-called Presidents now it is our time to use some of these catchy attractive words! But what existence? It is their existence, in other words, their power. Simply, they couldn't have existed without power.....and at many times without “stealing” it. People die but regimes have the ability to survive afterwards. This typically is the case. Nasser built a regime then the regime survived. Yes in his life the regime was just his tool to survive but the regime was much more far-sighted. The regime learnt how to act on his own. It learnt how to “instrumentalise” its users/representatives to become no more than components that act within the regime itself. The regime has always been spreading his thoughts among people. It is not Nasser who got in my head telling me just obey, just let go, just love what I am doing for I am making you. Neither him nor any of his successors, it is the regime itself. This regime thinks and his good at planning by the way. It is the regime without which both al-Sadat or Mubarak could never exist. It is the regime without which Nasser could have carried on with his stupidities.

There is something to notice, something that always offered itself as the savior of all of our Presidents; something called war sometimes and occupation some other times. It always was the very controversial subject that supported whomever President. And when it was the time for his nap, each President found a way around to get some freak alive. It is only when he left the scene people started to feel numb. It is only when the fuss is gone - at least partially - the guarding walls that keep Mubarak behind began to crack. The controversial subject now is mainly the Palestinian-Israeli struggle or as some like to call it the Arab-Israeli struggle. The Egyptian ruling regime uses this struggle to exercise power on the Egyptian people. The regime is not willing to end this struggle, because it is the regime's last source to gain some approval from the public.

Is it the regime now dying? Or is it taking another phase? Are we people freeing ourselves from the regime? Or is it taking our instrumentalised minds by its slanders?

Let's track the regime itself regardless of those who make use out of it for a moment. A ruling regime is a set of procedures to represent some ideological views. I am not going to list all the resonant words I heard of then attempt to use them. An ideology simply is just a coherent view and set of thoughts concerned with reality and how it must be, that is, organised thoughts and conclusions that in some logical ways lead to one another. An ideology often implies general lines about how its views may be applied to reality. For a ruling regime to realise its ideological views through procedures it must institutionalise these procedures into organisations. That is, the ruling regime finds ways to make the methods that apply its views to reality. These methods are nothing but a great lengthy chain of offices and their management. The regime is by no means separable from people, he interacts with them. So, the very first aim of a ruling regime is to cope with people. For the regime to be stable there are no more than two means: a) the regime rides people or b) people shape the regime. Fuzz arises when people try to challenge a dominating regime....but this is not always the very crystal heavenly “honourable” case. The fuzz may arise from different sources that are in some way or another related to the regime itself, like how the regime punishes the deviants! Or like how people should interact with the regime – negotiating how people should think of the regime and what extents of freedom those are acceptable. Ironically, this is always the case when the regime is running an internal changing phase. Please notice that I am not saying dying phase..I am clearly saying changing phase.

Well, so what about the Egyptian regime? Here I am talking about the regime that has been continually controlling the Egyptian society since 1952 not the cluster that we are now blaming. One sensible way to answer this question is to assess its outcomes and how they affect people, that is, strikingly to assess people themselves not the regime. Let's not stand arrogant. Let's drop our deluding honour for a moment. It is in essence the interaction between the regime and people's livings that concern us not the regime in isolation. Those livings are made by people who are restricted by the regime. So, the best way to assess the regime is to assess the quality of people and the shape of their livings. The quality of me and you, the quality of those who live silently, the quality of those who “honourably” oppose the regime, the quality of the youth, the quality of those young kids, and the quality of their parents. Those are who we call people, and some time poor people not out of poverty but out of their dark livings, those who we often proudly and bitterly separate ourselves from. Another point is that: as the regime has its history we must go from where we stand backwards to the beginnings so that we don't take past assumption for granted. We should make our journey back to front.

Find the similarities..!!!

Work for the fantastic government, and here is your reward...!!!!!!!

Transformational Diplomacy

Transformational Diplomacy

The name answers it all. This is the new diplomacy that is changing the American Foreign policy. Formal declaration of the new diplomacy was on January 18, 2006 in a speech by Condolezza Rice at George Town University.

The formal definition is probably as follows:

“It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. To achieve this bold mission, America needs equally bold diplomacy, a diplomacy that not only reports about the world as it is, but seeks to change the world itself “

What is relevant to us in Egypt, is to know that one of the tools of this policy called as “American Presence Post, APP” was operating in Egypt even before the policy is formally instituted. Those APP's were operating only in two places worldwide, Egypt and Indonesia. What is also relevant is that in the same day of introducing the policy, Dr. Rice appointed a new manager to the USAID...???!!! Any link between transformation and the money….??!!

When you go through the whole speech, you immediately realize how Americans are helping Democracy only if it serves their goals, nations have to share American values to get the help, and if you do not share the American values then they will try to make you share it. The US department of state is trying to change nations particularly those of special rule in their key regions; and it is not a secret that Egypt is on the frontline of this.
But this policy for the first time is a policy operating at the people or individual level, a policy that uses the tactics and dynamics of a “communist” active cell within the community that is trying to recruit more people to the cell. This takes the American diplomacy to a different level meaning that they are working probably among us right at this moment??

The interesting part of the speech to me is this:

“It cannot be that the last three Secretaries of State -- the daughter of European immigrants, the son of Jamaican immigrants and a daughter of the American segregated South -- would be more diverse than the Foreign Service with which they work”
I felt proud after I read that cause I mentioned in a previous post the fact that the last 2 secretary of states are colored is not just a co-incidence” .

Again and again, the saga continues and further proof on the intentions of the US shows again.
It is both disappointing and sad at the same time (at least for me), that I notice all of those people who are trying to hold the American values more than the American themselves. They believe, either rightfully or wrongfully - in a good faith or in a bad faith, that those values are going to help. They would....but not us.....not Egypt!!!!

We shall see………….

re-published

25th of May; Another Day of Illusion

On Thursday, 25^th of May, 2006 protesters demonstrated in front of the Judges Syndicate surrounded by a great number of riot police forces. The judges organised a stand in front of the Supreme Court House. The stand began after the demonstration and ended before the latter. The Judges Syndicate, the Supreme Court house, the Lawyers Syndicate and the Journalists Syndicate are all placed in a big rough square that was totally surrounded by thousands of riot police forces.

A closer look at the scene reveals many points:

• The number of judges was claimed to be 500.

• The number of protesters was claimed to be 300 – I personally doubt this number because this was not what I saw.

• The Muslim Brotherhood had no presence as they indicated earlier.

• The protester were mostly all activists.

• The protesters' slogans were mainly resentments and rarely uttered the aims of the different movements that were present.

• The protesters mainly belonged to Kifaya.

The judges outnumbered the protesters and this has a strong indication of the unpopularity of their situation in the eye of the public. The Muslim Brotherhood stated days before the stand that they would not participate unless the judges invite them to do. This reveals many points about the Muslim Brotherhood but this is not our issue for the time being. The very fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood aid withdraw caused a dramatic decrease in the number of protesters. An instant popping assumption is that the previous demonstrations were relatively big ones out of the Muslim Brotherhood participation. Bearing in mind that the 25^th of May was highly popularised relative to many previous days, the assumption becomes qualitatively proved. This strongly indicates the unpopularity of the whole scene among the public.

The protesters were mainly activists who are involved in the current Egyptian scene. Most of them put Kifaya's logos on their chests. If this is to prove a thing it again proves the unpopularity of the scene in the eye of the public.

The demonstration slogans almost could be considered grudges. The slogans showed a preference of relating the Egyptian crisis to the current regime. This is true for sure. However, the slogans of such a demonstration, which was organised by supposedly organised movements, were expected to refer to the movements' common methodologies or even aims for the desired change. It counts to chant “our freedom is killed” but it counts even more to shout “we need (or will do) 'something' to revive our freedom”. This brings out a very faulty view. This view demonstrates how the different movements target people's suppressed anger while they lack any views about re-forming the Egyptian society. The result turns out to be very disappointing. A result that failed to group the public together to say no. A result which shows how these movements comprise different elites which are separated from the regular Egyptian.

There was a unique woman who participated in the demonstration. She was wearing “Glabyah” and holding a plastic black bag (kees eswied). She was carrying no signs or logos. At the end of the demonstration she was hopping around asking whether the demonstration was done. When I saw her I felt happy. She is just normal and she wants her voice to be heard or at least that is what I thought or loved to think. For me she was the most respectable person who attended the play. I could behold no more “normals”.

Who are the regular people?

Most Egyptians think that it is of no use other than harming the self to participate in demonstrations or involve in the current scene. They simply believe that when they go to jail in the name of freedom they will find no one and no money to get them out of it again. Bearing in mind that many of the Egyptians suffer from poverty which weakens those poor classes at the end of the social hierarchy/order, it becomes apparent that many have the very right to think naturally in such a way. It is not an illusion that most of the Egyptians belong to those classes. People who belong to these classes have very distorted thoughts about society and their public awareness settles down to nearly nothing. A malfunctioning education system, a very hard economical state, a cultural heritage that has been distorted and a resulting very clear sense of individualism all of these combined stop any thought of public bragging.

Also there are Egyptians who belong to the middle class suffer the pattern of thinking I mentioned above. And those mainly belong to the lower divisions of the middle class. Many of those at higher ends carry very distorted identities that compromise a mixture of conflicting thoughts and views. These identities enforce many of them to stay away from the scene as they think it is of no use to live in this country in the first place. The very prior aim of those is to go to the next level and join the next class at higher position in the social order...which is the rich class or at least the lower divisions of it.

If those social and political movements target people, then they have failed. Because their methods of loud shouts cannot persuade anybody who carries one of the former patterns of thinking to change his/her mind. The reason is that these methods explain neither the political and societal state in Egypt nor any methodology to bring about a change. I am really wondering what do these movements aim at? Do these movements fool themselves or fool the people?

What are the relationships among those movements and organisations and the international players? Who do they target? And what is the role of money in the play?

If it is not for the public then for whom the bell tolls?

The corrupted Egyptian regime must be changed by the Egyptian people not by elites separated from people claiming leadership.