Middle East Revolutions: The Coming War For "Arab" Independence and Israel

There is among western nations a strange idea that the settlement of the Israel-Palestine issue into two, viable states will extinguish at least one of the complaints of the "Islamists" and general "Arab on the street".  An idea that this is the cause of "extremism", or one part of it, and a necessity to reduce the tensions between east and west.

This is probably the most naive concept to ever have taken root in the great foreign policy think tanks that have influenced state policy.  The formation of Israel is a matter of history defined by each side of the question.  Some basic information researched by this blog can be found here (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII.)

The reality of this conflict comes down to two points: the war that never ended and the spirit of anti-colonialism that has never left the Arab constituency.  This is the war that has simply been put off for generations.  Largely because, no matter how often someone attempts implement Lawrence's idea of Arab Unity and an Arab Greater Nation, the desires and demands of the tribes, Shayks and political trends continuously drag them apart.  Because, while their may be a general designation of "Arab" among the population, it can never overcome the great divides within the entire community.

As with the Egyptian revolution, where the case for unity revolved around ousting Mubarek and was almost instantly gone, unity is only over singular ideas and moments.  The Revolution in Egypt is quickly being overcome by the Muslim Brotherhood, the reality of sectarian divides and the weakness of all other parties.  The only idea that is bringing any sense of unity back to the greater polity is now "Palestine".

While secular Egyptian movements had intended to mobilize millions of Egyptians on Friday in order to support national unity and condemn attacks on Christians in Egypt, Islamist forces succeeded in turning the protest in support of what is referred to as the "Third Palestinian Intifada".

It seems true freedom will be sacrificed once again to the driving political ideologies of others.   This is, as with the failure of the Arab contingency to take what was about to be handed to them on three other occasions in the early twentieth century and turn it into a battle they are destined to lose.  Again. 

The current interim government of Egypt is blocking the movement to the Sinai.  They at least recognize that Egypt and the surrounding nations are hardly in a position to confront Israel directly.  While the marchers were chanting "millions of martyrs to Jerusalem", the reality of a "peasants' crusade" would, indeed, result in millions of martyrs that would result in Arab states attempting to go to war on behalf of the martyrs and, once again, failing.  That is, if they can convince Jordan to allow them to cross the territory or can figure out how to cross the narrow Sinai peninsula in great enough numbers not to be completely slaughtered and pile up in the hole as most attempted breaches in history have shown.

As with the last war with Israel, Jordan was coerced by it's association with the Arab League.  The Arab League is quickly becoming a farce, being replaced by things like the Gulf Cooperative Council and Egypt and Iran jockeying for political position in the region.

As Syria is torn in half by unknown forces that are similar to Egypt.  The Brotherhood, liberals, leftists, etc all looking to make it their own fight. 

What is more than likely is that the end state of the status of Israel and anything that could be called Palestine will come at the tip of a gun and missiles.  Not necessarily because the MB wants a greater war.  They would prefer to do it the slow way, the same way in which they have been Islamacizing Egypt, taking over by population density.  That is the purpose of pushing for the "Two state" plan to have Palestine recognized as a state with the 1967 agreed upon borders.  At that point they can allow in a greater part of the "refugees" for a population boom that would attempt to mirror Israel.

The obvious points of insisting on the right of return for "Palestinian Arabs" is to take over Israel by dent of population and, if it is not allowed to take that position, a continuous cause for war.  This last purpose is the most likely.  So long as there is some "enemy" that it can point to as the "cause", they can continue to consolidate their hold over the general populations of the Middle East, bringing their ideology into the main by slow degrees.   It is very ironic to read from the "liberals" (left, center left largely) that the US is looking for the next enemy to confront as it is "perpetually at war".  No one has examined that the perpetual theme of war is the status of any entity in power or coming to power because someone always wants that power.  People who think that there is a future of "sharing" or "social justice" washes greed (capitalism) away and creates peace.  It isn't "greed", it is power and the thirst for it will never end.  It is a matter of how that power is used and to whose benefit.

The liberals are being broken slowly by their inability to be anything separate except whether to implement a minimum or maximum wage or a taxation program.  They want a different education program but the MB has already taken that ministry through negotiations with SCAF.  They will get different, but it will be about on par with that offered by the previous administration except with the inclusion of more Islamist bent educators and any religious or "humanity" education will be from their perspective.  Of course, leftist ideology will remain the main theme when it comes to "social justice" because this is the most acceptable aspect for the Islamists.

The enemy of liberalism and democracy in Egypt is not the United States.  It is entirely Egyptian made and they are willingly throwing freedom under the bus.  Continuously there are posts that insist that the Islamists are part of Egypt and must be given their place at the table.  There is no perception of history that shows that the intellectuals and free thinkers consistently giving ideologies "space at the table" and then finding themselves the first to be oppressed, imprisoned and killed. 

The warnings fall on deaf ears and those ears will be followed by muted voices. 

The Brotherhood has shown again and again that they have the power of the street.  The NAC (National Association for Change), April 6 and various others called for a "unity march" in Tahrir while the Islamists issue a call through the mosques for a march to Palestine to remember "Nakba", the catastrophe, when Israel declared State Hood, May 14, 1948. 

The Islamists have shown their power.  The Liberals and the Leftists will get what is left over if there is much of anything as the Islamists slowly push the entirety of Egypt towards confrontation with Israel.

Summary only...

Middle East Revolutions:Technology Trumps Tyrants

This is a video of protests in Damascus, Syria.  The lights are cell phones.

Summary only...

Middle East Revolutions: GCC Negotiating Deal for Saleh in Yemen To Step Down - analysis

Saleh Stepping Down in Yemen, with Immunity

0

April 25, 2011

by John F Moore

 

It is indeed true that the Yemeni people are denied some justice by this plan, but politics is, as they say, the art of the possible, and it should have been clear to all that Saleh would not leave willingly without immunity. Riding off into the sunset?

This is another development in a kind of crisis-behind-the-crisis: if leaders are subject to ill-treatment on their downfall, will their neighbors take notice and hold on to power with all their might? Saleh has seen Hosni Mubarak thrown in jail (again, justly) in recent days, and surely wishes to avoid a similar fate. The bloody crackdowns in Syria are the efforts of another tyrant to keep himself in power and out of the slammer. The Saleh deal is thus a positive step, in that it shows other troubled rulers that golden parachutes are available. However, it has a downside–the masses are still energized against the regime, because their demands have not been met. Will the elections sate them if they end up empowering a Saleh ally? Will the opposition parties be able to outmaneuver their uncompromising bases and enter the legal political game? If both of these questions are answered with a “no,” then Yemen runs a serious risk of civil war.

There is considerable questions as to whether this deal will actually go through.  The "protesters" are insistent that Saleh go now and go all the way along with any remains of the regime.  There is also the issue of the military which Moore suggests will not result in a military coup because the military is split. 

Jane Novak at Armies of Liberation has the report from BBC that Saleh refuses the deal saying that he will "not be subject to minorities", suggesting that the protesters do not represent a majority of Yemenis.  Her analysis of the situation is here.

 

Yemen is already suffering from “a security vacuum” and political and economic paralysis. Thirty days from now, the economic, political and security landscape is going to be much more bleak, with a level of damage that is nearly irrecoverable in the mid-term. The western consensus is that the protesters demands are immature and unrealistic, but they have it right. Saleh has to go immediately and be brought to trial for his many crimes. The requirement for a perfect transition plan prior to the executive’s departure was not applied in Egypt or Tunisia or contemplated in Libya and, like a war plan, won’t survive first contact with reality. The issue here is damage control. But any future state that is built on the crimes of the past will contain inherent triggers of conflict.

Summary only...

Middle East Revolutions: Iran's Proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon Foreing Minister Demands UN Representative Refuse UN Statement on Syria

Shami Calls on Salam Not to Approve Security Council Statement on Syria

Caretaker Foreign Minister Ali Shami called on Lebanon's ambassador to the United Nations Nawwaf Salam to reject the Security Council's expected draft statement on the developments on Syria.  The U.N. will discuss Syria later Tuesday.

Lebanon, Syria, Libya & Hizballah- Abu Muquwama at CNS

Boy, I would love to hear Hassan Nasrallah give some morally sanctimonious speech in which he explains why Gadhafi must be driven from office but that conspiracies against Bashar al-Asad are a Anglo-Zionist plot. And I suspect I am going to get that opportunity.

Lebanon (controlled by Hezbollah/Hizballah) had the rotating seat on the Security Council and used it to vote to get a no fly zone, condemn Gadhafi and make a statement that Gadhafi must go.  Now they aren't as interested in seeing the same for Assad.  Hmmmm...Goose meet Gander.

Summary only...

Libya and Syria Still on Fire with Iran in the Background

Misurata, Libya Monday, April 25, 2011 - Rebels believed to be on brink of crushing victory.  Libya's army seems to be made up of foreigners, children and whatever riff-raff or desperadoes are willing to trade their lives for what is becoming, literally, blood money (here if you tube won't load).

Check the Egyptian Chronicles for multiple videos from Syria including artillery and tanks being moved in to Daraa.  Reports official for 25 dead, but other reports suggesting that the number of dead are greater, they just can't be picked up off the street due to sniper fire.  Fog of War.

On Syria and Iran:

For Iran, its ties with Syria represent far more than just a rare friend in a region dominated by Arab suspicions of Tehran's aims. Syria is Iran's great enabler: a conduit for aid to powerful anti-Israel proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Should Assad's regime fall, it could rob Iran of a loyal Arab partner in a region profoundly realigned by uprisings demanding more freedom and democracy.
"Iran and Syria represent the anti-US axis in the region. In that respect, Iran wants to ensure that Syria remains an ally," said Shadi Hamid, director of research at The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. "The problem is that Iran's foreign policy has become quite inconsistent."

In the meantime, Iran is under another cyber attack and they are not nearly as good as the Chinese or the US at managing those attacks.

Summary only...

Middle East Revolutions: Massacre in Latikye, Syria April 19

Reported video of deadly shooting of peaceful protesters, Latikye, Syria, 19 April, 2011:

Michael Ledeen reports:

The Syrian killers probably thought nobody would be able to get it on video at night.  But they were wrong.  An amateur videographer was filming the demonstration, and was just about to go down to the street and join in, when the gunshots broke out.  A young girl behind him started to scream, he pushed her down…

Summary only...

Middle East Revolutions: Iran's proxy Hezbollah Supports Assad and Threatens Lebanon "Security"

Michael Ledeen and Michael Totten have done excellent jobs in outlining the various connections between Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.  Michael Totten's new book, Fatima Gate, is an expose on Hezbollah in Lebanon and the counter-revolution that thwarted Lebanon's Cedar Revolution.  Even as the Syrian's were forced to pull back, they provided material and monetary support to their co-tyrants in Hezbollah to take effective control of the country.  This is effectively Iran's "covert" war (if it can be called that) against Israel.  

Monday, Hezbollah issued a statement of unwavering support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and basically threatened what little "security" and peace Lebanon can claim:

"Today, we stand yet again by our sister Syria ... and by Syria's leaders who have refused to give into pressure or ... to conspire against the resistance," said Hezbollah MP Nawwaf Moussawi, in reference to the Shiite militant group.


"We are certain Syria will overcome this passing phase," he added.  "There is no stability in Lebanon without stability in Syria, no security in Lebanon without security in Syria."

Moussawi was basically echoing the Syrian Ambassador who had already threatened that:

any harm done to Syria will also harm Lebanon with the same magnitude or even more"

Lately, all of the "old revolutionaries", who have been in positions of power now for the last thirty or forty years, have all been claiming to be protecting the revolution from counter revolution.  Refusing to accept that, once the revolutionaries have taken effective control of the reins of power and institutions of government, they are no longer the revolutionaries.  They are the establishment:

Moussawi's spoke at a press conference entitled "In solidarity with Syria against the American-Zionist-Western plot to undermine its national, pan-Arab and resistance role," attended by pro-Syrian Lebanese politicians of all faiths.

There are two main themes going on here.  

Read More >>

Summary only...

The Mid-East Revolutions, the Internet and Greek Mythology: God Killers

I've been contemplating the on going debate about the power of the internet in organizing and supporting revolutions.  Any number of people suggest that the power of social media is over stated.  That, even without it or with minimal access, revolutions still manage to organize and that a revolution on the internet must follow the dictates set out by Mao in "On Guerrilla War": in short, they must eventually organize and go into the street.  


While this is true, my own thoughts suggested that, regardless of this fact, without the internet and the speedy flow of information into once repressed environments, modern revolutions would not have occurred.  Not at the speed that they were able to destabilize and reduce existing regimes. 


The debate over that power rages on.  Watching a recent panel at the Middle East Institute, Courtney Radsch insisted (paraphrasing) that the amount of internet penetration could not be evaluated without noting the penetration of cellular phones.  In essence, modern communication makes revolutions in repressive states more than possible, it makes it inevitable.  That pressing "like" isn't just a risk averse manner of participating as Gladwell insists, incapable of translating to the risk necessary to counter the power of real force, but can act as a social power of its own.  


Her counter on the panel took Gladwell's position, insisting that the internet was only a tool and that the real organization necessary for a revolution took place on the streets, in the Mosque and among existing or created organizations.  The debate was interesting, but the two points seemed to be missing the point.  Even Gladwell, writing for a magazine who posted his thoughts on their "e-mag" website, ironically, missed the point.


It wasn't social media, blogs, facbook or twitter, that presaged revolution.  It was the internet period, regardless of the app.  The internet itself is one giant "killer app", a "God Killer" that only myth and legend dared to suggest would come to exist.  Well, only myths and legends if you discount Nietzsche.  

Two Greek myth's portend the power of the internet.  In one myth, Zeus, who has just deposed his father Kronos, is given the same prophecy that had prompted Kronos to eat his own children.  One day a child of Zeus and Metis would depose Zeus and destroy the gods.  Metis was pregnant with Zeus' child.  Taking this prophecy seriously, Zeus swallows pregnant Metis.  Years later, suffering from a horrible headache, Zeus calls for Hephaestus to bring his hammer and open Zeus' head.  Zeus' head splits open and out pops Athena, goddess of wisdom, fully armed and full grown.

Through out Greek mythology, Zeus is constantly on the look out and battling other gods who he deems are threatening his position on the throne of Olympus, who may carry out the old prophesy.  In the meantime, Athena remains one of his favorites.  He gives her his aegis or shield with the head of Medusa as it's insignia.  She takes as her own symbol the "wise old owl" and she gives to man kind various gifts, including the olive tree.  


Athena is the closest thing to a favored child of Zeus.  The entire time, Zeus is nurturing his own destruction and the destruction of the gods at his bosom.  It is not Ares, the god of War, nor Apollo, the shining one, not Artemis nor Aphrodite.  Not even Poseidon or Hades, two of Zeus' brothers who seem constantly jealous of his position.  Even Hera, who in retrospect in attempting to belay Zeus' continuing liaisons producing offspring, is attempting to maintain the status of the gods and Olympus by forestalling the prophesy.

It is wise and thoughtful Athena, the goddess of Wisdom, the daughter of Metis/knowledge, who will eventually destroy the gods because it is the proliferation of knowledge and wisdom that makes the gods obsolete.  When men understood what made the rains come, the rivers flow, the earth to turn, the sun to rise and the moon to shine; when he understood the passions that ruled man, created machines and built structures that would serve generations and could write down his own words that would be passed down through all the ages, man would no longer require the gods


The story of Prometheus, who steals the fire of the gods and gives it to man kind is a similar story. At the end, however, Prometheus is punished by being chained to a rock where a giant eagle ate his liver every day only to have it grow back and start all over again.  Of course, the punishment is too late.  The cat, as they say, was out of the bag.  The fire of the gods was not just the power of warmth, but of light even in the darkest places.  It meant that mankind no longer had to cower in the night from whatever evils lurked.  With the power of fire, mankind could create new and powerful tools that could rival the power of the gods.


These are essentially prophecies foretelling the power of the internet, the power of knowledge and information to destroy modern day "gods".  Zeus never really suspected Athena, goddess of Wisdom, would be his down fall.  Largely because she was not stingy with her power, but gave her wise advice freely to gods and mankind alike.  Like Zeus, modern rulers of even repressive states are forced to embrace the tool, the weapon that will eventually destroy them, because it is the device by which the "gods", rulers of nations, must now conduct their business and organize the power of their growing states.  

However, like Athena, the internet is not stingy with it's power or wisdom, providing it to "gods" and the common man alike.  Whoever seeks wisdom and knowledge can easily find it on the net.  It is the modern day Agora, the Greek Forum, where all ideas are weighed and debated.  Wherever rulers attempt to control this information, users find a new way to obtain it.  Work arounds, dial ups, satellites and mobile devices that keep the flow of information moving in and out of even the most repressive regimes.  


What Greek idea most often wins the debate?  Democracy, literally people's government.  The internet, the super highway of information, has become the God Killer of modern times.


It does not even have to reach every human to provide this power.  However few are exposed in one area carries that knowledge and power out to the rest.  That is the real power of the internet, itself a "killer app".  Promethues' fire, lighting even the darkest corners of the world.  It is freedom writ large, the torch of liberty as never conceived.  


Like Prometheus, there is a tale of caution for those who have provided this killer app to the world: no good deed goes unpunished.  Information necessarily flows both ways.  Whatever power, whatever flow of information goes out of the United States and the "west", something will return to cause it continuous torment.  


The internet has broken the borders of ideas.  That means that even bad ideas can return in the form of individuals such as those who become "self-radicalized" and commit or attempt to commit terrorism in the name of an ideology that is no longer confined to the nether lands of remote nations.  Such ideas cannot be contained any more than the "fire" of freedom and democracy.  Fortunately, the Greek ideas of democracy and god killing remain the dominant idea in the agora.   The first gods to go will be those who refuse to share their power and attempt to control Athena, goddess of knowledge and wisdom, the flow of information.


Still, there is a warning for those gods, the creators and distributors of the fire and wisdom of the internet, Athena's intellectual children and would be Prometheus: go with the flow or become a victim of the God Killer

There is reason to hope the political dynamics in developing countries have changed such that hundreds of millions will now find they can push against an open door into political emancipation. However, the story need not end there. Better communication technology might just help those of us in the West who think that we, too, could use some relief from the dead hand of the state.

 Tax collection is set to become more difficult, as business oozes across traditional national and sub-national borders. Traditional borders evolved long ago in such a way that a government could monopolize almost the entirety of a person’s life within them, but communication technology is expanding each of our commercial spheres beyond them. And so we see a location-based bookstore (Borders) going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy while Amazon expands into more and more product lines....

The same applies to income taxes when work is atomized in the ways described above. Therefore, we see an inexorable decline in business taxes across the world and high-taxed welfare states in Western Europe unconvincingly moralizing about the “tax havens” as their revenues slowly seep away. Communication technology is changing the game in favour of individual liberty by spreading our commercial lives beyond the pens that governments drew for us in more technologically stable times.

The events in North Africa and the Middle East are complex in their causes. Nevertheless, one condition necessary for their occurrence is the proliferation of ever cheaper electronic communication and the dispersive, ungovernable networks they create. The rise of these networks has a neat physical explanation that applies just as much in the West as it has there. If I am right, then the effect of this great decentralization will be a great force for liberty here as it has been “over there.”

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/What+Moore+meant+Egypt+will+mean+Western+liberty/4596935/story.html#ixzz1JIAFcIXv

Summary only...

The Spectre Haunting Egypt: Counter-Revolution

Several weeks ago, SCAF made an announcement that it was enacting curfew rules and banning protests in order to protect Egypt's revolution from a counter-revolution.  From that moment on, every Egyptian is looking for these invisible forces of counter revolution.  Every act of every individual or group is a threat.  Egyptians are running from one situation to the next to counter the counter revolution and with every new march, every crazy idea that floats through the air, they are losing their way.


A relative calm had come over Egypt, even as small protests continued.  The referendum had passed and parties were gearing up to participate as quickly as possible, but even the relatively quick pace for elections in September and presidential elections come November, the pace is not fast enough to set Egypt back on the path to relative stability.  


The people still want Mubarek's head on a platter, figuratively or literally, whatever way they can get it.  They want all of his cronies standing in the docket/gallows with him.  SCAF, even with a facebook page, is not very transparent.  They are stuck in a hard place, trying to run a country where the only people who have been running it or have the experience to manage day to day workings of the structure are either NDP or have NDP relations.  The appearance of which makes every Egyptian believe that the old regime is still in place.  Largely because it is to an extent that any technocrat with any knowledge remains at the controls.  No Egyptian accepts that there are not others that could or should be running these bureaus.  


Second, SCAF is simply not able to control every aspect of the situation.  They can barely control their own forces who have apparently not imbibed the idea that being "one hand" with the public means not using physical force against every citizen under every circumstances.  


Friday, the Jacobin wing of the revolution, angry at the laws forbidding protests that they consider now to be the epitome of their first amendment rights and angry that sixty days later Mubarek et al remains at large, went into the square and held a mock trial of Mubarek.  In the mean time, seven army officers that the media was portraying as "former" (retired? every male in Egypt is required to join accept under waiver).  went on youtube and proclaimed they had every intention of joining the revolutionaries in Tahrir.  They demanded that Tantawi step down, the regime members be put on trial and a civilian council take it's place.


Their appearance in Tahrir was all the rage and the protesters were determined to protect them.  Through out the day, with close to or above 100,000 in the square, the army stayed back.  That night the mutinying officers remained in the square, asking for protection by the protesters.  They were placed in a tent and surrounded by people.  As curfew arrived and the crowds thinned, the military police waded in ostensibly to disperse the crowds.  


Chaos ensued.  Protesters attempted to resist the MP's from coming in.  The MP's used billy clubs and fists to respond.  More protesters rushed forward.  The MP's opened fire.  It appears most of the shooting was in the air.  However, at least two were shot dead and several others were wounded by gun fire.  Most of the other injuries appear to be contusions, abrasions and broken bones.  Several of the protesting officers at the square were arrested.  One may have been killed at the site with doctor's at the local morgue reporting at least one "soldier" dead, possibly two.


The military issued a statement saying that they did not attack the protesters first, that they only shot into the air to disperse crowds and that the army was using rubber bullets.  Later, two groups of men were seen entering Tahrir with machine guns, also reported on twitter.  The men appear to have quickly dispersed, but no one knows who they were or what they were doing.  SCAF is suggesting that the events may have been perpetrated by three men associated with Ibrahim Kamel who was alleged to be responsible for the January 28 "camel attack".


The military may be telling the truth that they did not shoot directly at the protesters, but shooting into the air is just as dangerous as shooting at people.  Bullets go up, must come down.  In ME countries, there are untold numbers of people who die or are injured (head and upper body wounds) from this phenomenon.  A video circulated purporting to show one person being shot or killed.  They were a considerable distance from the main area.  

In the background, machine gun fire was heard constantly and repetitively.  With that amount of fire, if they were aiming directly at protesters, there should have been more GSW (gun shot wound) than the eight others reported. That doesn't mean that one or two soldiers did not aim directly at some of the crowd.  Fear can over ride discipline when confronted with an angry mob.  


The military said that it used rubber bullets.  That seems not to be the case.  Or, at least, not everybody was shooting rubber bullets.  It is possible for even rubber bullets to cause penetrating wounds at close range.  That would not account for the man shot at a distance.  Whatever the issues, it is clear that someone is not telling the truth.  Whether that is the officers in charge of the raid who were not truthful in their reports to the command chain or SCAF trying to save face after making a serious miscalculation.  The last possibility is that there were two or more men in civilian clothes with machine guns, as reported on twitter and as suggested by the military who opened fire on the crowd to stir unrest and insurrection.


The problem comes down to the protesting military officers, whether former or current.  They were not just calling for the regime remains to be arrested or removed.  They were insisting that Tantawi had to go in order to speed up the process and put a civilian council in charge.  

As one Egypt watcher noted via Facebook, this was a challenge that the military was guaranteed not to ignore.  Nasser came to power in 1952 after the the Free Officers Movement had deposed King Farouq.  He and several officers forced Gen. Naquib to step down and Nasser took control.  Tantawi is definitely old enough to have been in the military or to simply recalled.  The officers in the square were obviously attempting to incite mutiny within the army.  The protesters either didn't care or didn't realize how serious that event would be.  


In the midst of this event, a small group of approximately 1,000 protesters marched to the Israeli embassy and demanded that their flag be removed and the ambassador expelled.  The military arrived and surrounded the embassy, keeping the protesters back.  The Israeli's lowered their flag, but the ambassador and his staff remained.  


These two events split the revolutionaries who were busily tweeting demands as well as accusations.  


Then came Mubarek's slow, but insistent speech Sunday morning.  Reminiscent of Nixon's famous "I am not a crook" speech, Mubarek insisted that he and his family did not have assets outside of Egypt and that he had to respond to the accusations damaging their reputation.  Almost instantly, the messages began to reflect the one unifying theme that had brought the different parties into Tahrir Square on January 25: Mubarek must go.  


Within an hour, Egypt's Attorney General issued a demand that the Interior Ministry arrest Mubarek and members of his family.  Two other requests for arrests quickly followed and were carried out.  Aside from Ibrahim Kamel, three "big fish" received summons to appear for "interrogations" on Tuesday April 12.  These include:

[Safwat] El-Sherif is widely considered to have been Mubarak’s top enforcer in corrupting the nation's political life. When Mubarak took office on 14 October, 1981 one of his first decisions was to appoint El-Sherif as minister of information. 

In 2004 El-Sherif was promoted to chairman of the high consultative committee of the Upper House, which made him by default the chairman of the influential Political Parties Committee and the Supreme Press Council – two watchdogs in charge of licensing political parties and appointing chief editors and board chairmen of state-owned press organisations.

That wasn’t enough for El-Sherif, though. In 2002 he was appointed secretary-general of Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), becoming the leader of the regime’s machine...

Like El-Sherif, [Fathi] Sorour is accused of using his postion as Speaker of Egypt’s Parliament for 20 years for personal gain. Sorour, 79, is also thought to have amassed a large portfolio of prime real estate, villas, and apartments. The IGO is currently investigating his wealth and he is expected to be summoned soon to face charges.

Sorour, however, faces a plethora of charges of political corruption. A case in point is that he exploited his job to help certain cabinet ministers fend off embarrassing criticism in Parliament. One of these is Ibrahim Soliman, a former minister of housing, whom opposition MPs held responsible for misappropriating public funds by selling large plots of land to NDP crony businessmen and construction magnates at below market prices and offering Sorour and other heavyweight officials a number of luxurious villas in Marina resort.

On 7 April, Zakaria Azmi, 73, was put into custody for 15 days pending investigation of charges of illegal profiteering levelled against him. Azmi is widely believed to have used a number of businessmen as “henchmen” to secure illegal gains. One of these is Mamdouh Ismail, a business tycoon whom Azmi helped to monopolise maritime passenger transport between Egypt and Saudi Arabia across the Red Sea. In 2006 Azmi is thought to have helped Ismail escape Egypt after one of his ships – Al-Salam 98 – sank into the Red Sea drowning more than 1300 Egyptians.

Azmi is Mubarak’s closest confidante, having a wealth of information about his secret life and business deals. He was appointed Mubarak's chief of staff in 1989. His job included preparing Mubarak's daily agenda of meetings and visits.

Other details on the three men can be found here.  

In fear that the revolutionaries are serious and plan to march on to Sharm el Sheikh Monday, security around Mubarek's palace is reportedly being increased.  How this will play out to the revolutionaries is anyone's guess.

In the mean time, Tahrir has turned into Egypt's barb wire protected agora, the forum where everything is debated, even the merits of the continuing revolution, the role of the military, their actions and many others.  What may be an epitaph for this stage of the revolution:

Many simply wanted the barricades lifted and traffic to begin following normally. Others, standing near the two burned-out military vehicles, demanded that the youth use their energy to clear the square of all its rubbish and debris - especially the vehicles which had been turned into a refuse dump.

For all the looking into nooks and crannies, eye balling every act or actor as the instigator of the counter revolution, the real counter revolution will begin right under the revolution's nose:

Egypt's revolution blights 2011 tourism revenue

Food prices increase Egypt's inflation beyond expectations

Egypt's risky economy is making investors think twice

Summary only...

Egypt and Democracy: Observations on the Egyptian Paradox - Political Rights v. Individual Rights, the Meaning of Freedom and Martyrs of the Revolution

As events in Egypt continue to unfold, there are interesting paradoxes emerge between what the people say they want and what they are actually working, or not, to achieve.


For instance, reading about El Baradei doing his best to begin campaigning for president.  He spoke at a charitable fund raising event on Friday.  What did the media report that he said?  

...vowing to continue his struggle until all the goals of the revolution have been achieved. At the ceremony on Friday, organized by the  Egyptian charity Resala, ElBaradei said he had hoped that change could take place without the loss of lives. He said that these lives will not be wasted, and Egyptians must realize the objectives of the revolution to pay them tribute.
The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has called for clear steps to achieve a peaceful democratic transition, to revamp Egyptian media and to remove corrupt officials involved in the killing of protesters.

A necessary triangulation, the "goals of the revolution" since it is the Revolutionary Youth that makes up the majority of El Baradei's followers.  What are the Revolution's demands and goals?  Here is a report listing twenty six demands in the form of questions.   


Were these the main objectives of the Revolution?  In some ways, they are understandable as subject to the specific time and experiences of Egypt.  Probably necessary if Egypt wants to get to a place where the government is of, for and by the people.  


On the other hand, the one thing that I do not hear or read very much about is what this "peaceful democracy" means.  There is really no discussion about individual rights, the basis of any really "free" democracy as opposed to a "peaceful" democracy.  The Mubarek Regime retained a facade of "democracy", but it was extremely lopsided and had little respect for individual rights.  Even Iran says it has a democracy, but anyone with even a rare experience of reading about it understands there is no protection of individual rights.  That means no real freedom.


Without a true understanding of these rights and how they apply in a free democracy, government becomes "mob democracy" or the "democracy of the majority".  Just because a majority agrees on an action, any action including discrimination against minorities or enforcing a religion, does not make it right or a "free" nation.  Mob rule based on it's own confluence of reasoning can become as destructive and oppressive as the rule of a dictator even when it starts out as a benign force.


One of my favorite lines comes from the movie "The Patriot" and sums up this issue nicely.  The fictional character, debating the colony of Virginia's declaration for independence and joining the American Revolution, asks: "Why should I change the government of one tyrant three thousand miles away for the government of three thousand tyrants one mile away?"  


In other words, what is more dangerous?  One man, all be it with the power of state, over "there" and largely concerned with his own issues, making an appearance here and there through government branches, subject officials and a small, but efficient security apparatus attempting to enforce his rules from a distance, is less dangerous than three thousand "neighbors"  who live right down the road, able to visit and enforce their oppressive laws twenty four hours a day, seven days a week with an inescapable force of the majority.  


I do not see these discussions about how or what kind of government should be formed beyond "peaceful democracy" nor any insistence on or discussion of what constitutes a free people.  There are no discussions of individual rights.  No discussion about how to protect the rights of the people from the power of a majority rule.  Protection that is necessary in a democracy.

There is a demand for investigations into torture and abuse with the prosecution of the guilty, but no one adds to that the declaration that a free man has the right to be secure in his person and papers.  He cannot be forced to give evidence against himself.  The state cannot inflict cruel and inhuman punishment.  There can be no taint of blood (ie, family and friends cannot be arrested, persecuted or dispossessed simply for having a relationship with the accused or to coerce a confession).

There is a demand for all remaining political prisoners to be freed, but no where is the declaration that a man has the right to legal representation.  He has the right to a speedy trial and cannot simply be held for years without reason or trial.  He has a right to face his accusers and bring witnesses on his behalf. He has the right to free speech which means that he has the right to speak his opinion, to criticize the government without fear of persecution or prosecution.  


The list of demands go on and on, but so to could the declarations of individual rights that support these demands.  It is as if the revolutionaries expect that once these demands are met, their individual rights will simply fall into their hands and that no one would dare to infringe on these here to for invisible rights in the near future as it would be "counter-revolutionary".  As if every person who reads their demands and agrees with the demands in body, completely understands the spirit.  The basis of which is freedom and individual rights.  


Neither is there any mention of these rights in context to the soon to be written constitution or soon to be seated parliament.  In fact, what is spoken of more often in relationship to these upcoming events and the recently passed referendum are citizens achieving their "political rights".  Voting in an election, allegedly fair and representative, has superseded individual rights.  The freedom to run for political office is more important than the freedom to simply live, think and pursue happiness unmolested from government.  


No one is articulating the idea that political rights are what are given and taken away by whatever government system or governing group is in power.  As was the case under Mubarek where people could try to run for office, but only if given approval by Mubarek's government.  Where people could try to vote, but only if they were allowed into the polling station, had the right political persuasion or, if not, have their votes discounted or changed in favor of the tyrant and his government.  A government that routinely abused the people's individual, natural and unalienable rights.  Where people simply gave up trying to assert their "political right" to vote or have a say in their government, choosing instead to "suffer while such evils are sufferable".

Whereas individual rights, natural and unalienable rights, belong to mankind regardless of what system of government or what people are in power.  That government of the people must be designed to protect these rights to insure that there is no future where an oppressor can rise nor use the law and lack of recognized, protected rights against the people.  No oppressor, neither an individual nor a group of people claiming to represent the consensus of the majority or even a powerful minority.


This lack of a cohesive and universal message being sounded over and over again throughout the revolution and after is what is allowing the "revolutionaries" and their ideas to be painted by such organized forces as the Muslim Brotherhood and, worse, the Salafis as dangerous. "Liberals" without religion or faith, bent on the disparagement and destruction of Islam.  A cohesive and universal message that appeals to a great majority of Egyptian citizens who have just spent their lives living in fear of being "too Muslim" in case it drew the scrutiny, reaction and oppression of the last regime.  Who also believe that the entire world is set against them.


To these accusations, if they are responded to at all, the Liberals seem to stamp their feet and yell, "No, we're not!  We want to give everyone freedom."  An ethereal idea that has many connotations.  The Islamists continue to say, "Freedom to do what?  Become not a Muslim?  We know because..." pick a reason.  Whatever the non-aligned Muslims and liberals do, it is always an indication that this small, but thriving minority is dangerous to the existence of the Muslim majority.  


So, the revolutionaries and the liberals within it continue to be pulled down into the Islamists' message, instead of coordinating a cohesive, universal message that bridges the gap, talks over the noise and speaks directly to the fears of the people.  The fear that some other group will come to power and repress them again under the guise of "liberation".


Somewhere, between the Revolutionaries in the Square and the Islamists on the political soap box, is a huge "silent majority", who are largely non-aligned Muslim Egyptians, who did not even come to vote on the referendum (some where between 14 and 18 million registered voters), but instead, are waiting to see how this whole thing plays out.  What do the Revolutionaries really want?  What new form of government will endeavor to organize their lives while they endeavor to avoid it?  Will there even be a government or will it simply blur into chaos and sectarianism?  Are the Islamists correct that this new government will be just as intrusive as the last, seeking to take away one of the few things they have been able to call their own these past decades: their faith?


In the end, these are the people that must be convinced.  Those who are not Islamist in nature nor even particularly liberal, but are waiting to hear the answers.  The people who must know the difference between political rights and natural, individual and unalienable rights that enable them to do exactly as they wish: to live unmolested and largely free of government interference in their lives.  These are the people that must receive the message.  

These people do not give a damn about the demands of the revolution.  While they may nod their heads at the notion of Mubarek and cohorts being prosecuted for their past actions, Mubarek could fly to the moon so long as they could get on with living.  It is these who the blessings of freedom and the protection of their individual, natural and unalienable rights most represent.  To simply live and to be without someone else coming along to tell them how they should do it.  A future that is at risk if the Islamists win the war of ideas in the newly free market place of ideas.


The realization of that paradox has stymied the revolution and stagnated it into a list of demands.  Demands the revolutionaries constantly marching in the square shout out amongst other calls as they interfere with the attempt of these ordinary Egyptians to simply live.  That is not to say that they do not have the right or should not be there, but that they are "losing the crowd", as they say in politics, because their "demands" do not resonate with every day life.  The revolutionaries are too proud of their revolution to actually explain what it means beyond these "demands" and the never ending protests.  Or, how realizing these demands translate into the protection of the ordinary Egyptian's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  


El Baradei, speaking at the ceremony to honor 42 of the hundreds who lost their lives in the Jan25 revolution said, 

these lives will not be wasted, and Egyptians must realize the objectives of the revolution to pay them tribute.

Then went on to list a few of these objectives including a peaceful democracy, a free media and prosecution of "corrupt officials" responsible for killing the protesters.  As if they will ever be able to discover who of the hundreds of men in these positions gave the order, or even had to considering the condition of the security services and their inherent adherence to what can be only cynically referred to as 'casual and routine violence' against the people.  Actions that cannot be changed until the idea of individual, natural and unalienable rights permeates throughout society.

That is one of the great paradoxes.  Here is the man, El Baradei, who drew these forces around him and gave them a center around which to organize after the death of a young man who was exercising his individual rights.  El Baradei who wishes to represent the "youth" and the revolution as the first president of this new era.  A man who does not really know why these young people went into Liberation Square, withstanding the cold, the hunger, the thirst, the tear gas and the fear, some giving their blood and others their very lives.


Or, at least, he cannot articulate it.


They did not stand and die so that Mubarek could be arrested and put on trial.  They did not stand and die so that the hated State Security could be dismantled.  They did not stand and die for some washed out version of a "peaceful democracy" where new laws could be written that pervert and destroy the very reason they went out into Liberation Square, depending on which staid old man with his own agenda can pander to the public and get elected.


These things, in the end, are meaningless and without value when compared to the noble and priceless gift that they paid for with their suffering, their blood and their very lives.  The achievement of these "objectives" will mean nothing unless the gift of their sacrifice is realized.  A gift that is in danger of being lost amongst all the noise of demands, rowdy protesters and triangulating politicians. 

That gift is Freedom.  Freedom that is not protected by "democracy" or "political rights", but is obtained through the promotion, understanding and protection of individual, natural and unalienable rights.  It is these rights that guarantee a free people, the political rights of participation and a responsive democratic government.  A government for the people, of the people and by the people that provides the opportunities, space and security for the people to achieve their hopes and dreams.  None of these can exist without freedom and freedom cannot exist without the protection of individual rights. 

On January 25, 2011, when the protesters marched into Liberation Square, there was only one thing worth dying for: freedom.

Speak it.  Live it.  Be it.

Summary only...

Middle East Revolutions: Everybody Wins - Al Qaeda Says It's Good News

Al-Qaeda hails "Tsunami of change" in Middle East

Western and Arab officials say the example set by young Arabs seeking peaceful political change is a counterweight to al-Qaeda's push for violent militancy and weakens its argument that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

But Yemeni-U.S. cleric Anwar al-Awlaki argues , in an article published online on Tuesday entitled The "Tsunami of Change", that the revolutions are good news for Islamic extremists and said the removal of anti-Islamist autocrats meant Islamic fighters and scholars were now freer to discuss and organize. 

This comes as no surprise from those in the west who have been saying that the potential for Islamists to emerge as a controlling power or major influence in politics and culture in the Middle East is all but assured.

The issue is whether these populations will succumb or be forced to adhere.  In reality, the Salafi Wahabi strain of Islam is Islam's and, to a greater extent, the Arab's problem to resolve.  Salafis v., for instance, Egyptian Muslims, it is a war between modern Islam and regressive Islam.  The United States and the West, however much they are attacked, are the side show.

From the outset, Al Qaeda's goal, formulated by their Salafi Wahabi ideology, has been to force Muslims to choose between Dar al Islam (the house of peace; within "correct Islam" as they see it) and Dar al Harb (the house of war; outside of Islam).  While the original intent was to establish the geographic boundaries of Islamic controlled states v. other states, Al Qaeda and it's fellow travelers have gone even further to suggest that Dar al Harb includes Muslims who are not "Islamic" enough (do not follow Salafi practices).

This is one of the reasons that Al Qaeda and it's fellow travelers feel that they have a free hand in attacking and killing Muslims.  If they are outside of Dar al Islam (bad Muslims), they are bad Muslims or kufar or takfiri who deserve to be punished.  If they are "good Muslims" that die as collateral damage, then they, as martyrs, are assured an eternal life of pleasure in paradise.

The other issue is that Salafis believe they have a right and an obligation to enforce Islamic law by force or "Hisbah".  That is what appears to be going on some areas of Egypt where Salafis reportedly broke into a home and accused a local woman of being a prostitute as well as harassed women on the street. They have also protested outside of a Christian Church and recently tried to enforce their ideology in a local village outside of Cairo where an armed conflict broke out after the Salafis tried to shut down liquor stores and coffee shops.  Obviously, the locals are not going to follow along quietly.

For Salafis, the reason that Muslim's have fallen from grace is the presence of outside influence, largely western, in the Muslim Arab world.  Obviously, since the Qu'ran is the infallible word of Allah and Mohammed the Rightly Guided Prophet, then Islam itself is blameless and no Muslims can be faulted for this decline except that they are tempted as all men are from the grace of Allah.  It has to be some greater evil.  The west becomes, in essence, the scape goat for all of the ills the Salafis find.

This evil is not just political or military, it is commercial in nature since every western product is imbued somehow with these ideas and is subversive by nature.  Aside from attempting to degrade the United States' economy as the driver for it's military power, the attack's on 9/11 were aimed at the World Trade Center was basically a two for one event.  Not only did it hope to impact the amount of money the US would have to support it's military, but it would also severely hamper the ability to export these bad influences on the Muslim world.

In that moment, of course, their over all goal was to provoke the US into an act of aggression against Muslim's in general that would force Muslim's to decide whether they are Dar al Islam or Dar al Harb.  In essence, Muslims would have to take sides.  In their eyes, Muslims had to choose between being "rightly guided" by Salafi principles or be forcefully converted or die. The struggle, as they see it, to convince Muslims of their "correct path" is on going.

Now Al Awlaki says that the Salafis have been given an "in" by the presence of democracy and the ideas of free speech (ideas that, if they were in charge, would go right out the window).  This is true.  However, as he points out, these things tend to work both ways.  Now, whatever the Salafis say can be countered, in the open, in majority Muslim country.  They get a chance to make their case, but they can also be rejected.

Of course, the Salafis and Al Qaeda types do not take well to being rejected.  The likelihood of Muslims coming under even more violent attacks rises with every step a Muslim state takes away from rejecting democracy and and away from accepting Salafi Islam.  The war then returns full circle from where it was born and Muslims will be, once again, on the front lines in both the ideological and physical war.

Summary only...

Revolution in Cairo

Revolution in Cairo via Arab Media

Summary only...

Egypt and Democracy: The Ways of Revolution, Social Media and the "Youth" of the Middle Class

There is an old adage that revolutions do not begin in the slums, but begin in the middle classes. Revolutions throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th century have born this out. As incomes rises creating a larger middle class, so do the aspirations for political involvement. Psychologically, the ability to create wealth and manage their personal lives satisfactorily begins to create the idea that they could and should be able to manage their political affairs to their own satisfaction as well.

The American Revolution did not begin on the tiny farms of men barely eking out an existence on small patches of dirt, but the bourgeois merchants and large farmers who were angry that their voices were not heard by the British Parliament. "No taxation without representation." The various revolutions that began in 1848 and spread across Europe and on into the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 were fomented by the children of comfortable middle class families, sitting in the tea houses after classes in the University. Classes that only a generation or two before were unattainable by the masses. It was there that they determined to tap into the demands of the workers, many employed by their own families, to confront the Czar and his unresponsive, unrepresentative Dumas.

Then came the Iranian revolution, the fall of the Communist Block in Eastern Europe and then the USSR itself. All of it brought on by the rise of the middle class and their demand for a political voice. Now comes the Middle East. Egypt is the prime example of how the young middle class, having risen so far, sees no place else to go without removing the very obstacles that hold them down. Usually, whatever government is in place, stacked with entrenched partisans who have been getting their own from insuring the continuation and strength of a ruling party or class. As Eltaway calls them "old men".

Interview with Mona Eltahawy:

And then much more recently, we saw last year in Alexandria, a city on the Mediterranean coast, the police beat to death a young man called Khaled Said. Now, Egyptian police have been known to beat to death people for, sadly, too long, but what happened with Khaled Said was that they beat to death this kind of young, tech-savvy businessman who looked like a lot of the Egyptians who are on Facebook.

And...

Especially Facebook. This [is] Generation Facebook. Kind of upper-middle-class, middle-class generation of Egyptians that have made Egypt the number one Arab user of Facebook. And when he was beaten to death and pictures came out of his corpse and his shattered face, it spread like wildfire. ... But here was this young man who looked like them. And if it could happen to him, it could happen to them. This was a moment for Generation Facebook to understand what it means to live under emergency law and the Mubarak regime.

As in the way of all revolutions, the middle class, not that far removed from the working class, is always able to tap into the issues and concerns of the working poor. The working lower and poor classes had organized into unions and had been striking occasionally, but would subside after some minimum of their demands were met coupled with the fear of serious repression. It was only after the middle class and the working class banded together that the power of revolution began.

One of the continuing discussions amongst many is whether social media such as Facebook and Twitter are the cause of revolutions or just a tool. Malcolm Gladwell, author of Tipping Point, suggests that the power of these tools is over rated. That forms of "high risk" social activism requires more than reading notes on an internet page and pressing "like". It requires personal connections. The idea that to risk life and limb needs a closer bond and that it is the bonds of close friendship, one person with another then another, that gives people the courage to stand up and take a potentially life threatening risk. That people may "meet" in cyberspace, but it is only when they are face to face, forming closer bonds, that this "high-risk" activism can come forward.

He gives an example of the sit ins and other activism undertaken by the anti-segregation, civil rights movement in the south (activism that inspired the Egyptian youth reading Martin Luther King, Jr and other books on the subject, per Eltahawy). There, the first roots of unrest appeared as small groups going to luncheonettes and sitting at the counters, risking violence and death. The movement grew as those involved convinced friends to join them who then convinced other friends to join them, but that those "friends" were not some passing acquaintance on campus. Instead, they had close, personal relationships with people involved that allowed them to make that move and that the underlying organizations had to be in place for this event and others to occur. That, in the end, Egypt did not need Facebook or Twitter to have a revolution.

Some reports of how the revolution began seem to bear this out. Many of the originators were not unknown to each other. They had been meeting and planning for months, even years. They worked with the MB, socialists, unions and human rights groups, but, in the end, they had never been able to pull off the size, unity and plurality of the group necessary to reach their goals.

Mona Eltahawy suggests in her interview that Gladwell and others' take is a complete misunderstanding of social media. First, it provided a space to meet. Not just for those already known to each other, but to find like minded individuals to share ideas with, to motivate and coordinate. The internet was a vast space with possibly billions of users logging on and off every day. They could move from space to space to talk and hide in the virtual world (a tool, by the way, that organizations like al Qaeda have been using for years).

Secondly, and this has been the problem with many in the older generations as she points out, those who do not use the internet as anything more than a "tool" completely misses how actual friendships can grow in the virtual world, building into trusting relationships, over time. It is not the physical reality of seeing someone that creates friendships, even over huge distances, capable of taking great risks. These friendships are built on sharing ideas and events, communicating on a daily, if not hourly occurrence, allowing one, two or even larger groups of people to share in the very personal day to day conversations and activities of otherwise unknown individuals. These friendships can become as strong as any in the physical world.

This lack of comprehension has severely limited the ability of organizations to counter problems such as "self selected" radicalization and internet related terrorist activities. In these cases, young men do not require the actual physical, face to face meeting of a "recruiter" to inspire, instruct or organize an attack. It only requires the user to log on and become "connected", even to people thousands of miles away. There are multiple cases of these events within the United States including the recent case of Maj. Hassan who opened fire on Ft. Hood.

Third, and it is surprising that the author of Tipping Points misses this, eventually, an idea takes on a power of its own, reaching critical mass or, in his words, "the tipping point". As Gladwell notes, it begins with "mavens" or respected people putting out an idea. Whether that is that pink tennis shoes are fashionable or that crime in a neighborhood will not be tolerated (as in New York's program to reduce crime). Then come the "salespeople" who take up this idea and start spreading it to people that they know. Finally, enough people catch on that it spreads like wildfire without the need for these ubiquitous middleman "salespeople".

How does the idea that pink tennis shoes are fashionable spread from New York to LA to London and Tokyo? In the past, it was through other media such as photographs, news papers, magazines, etc. Still, these media paths were often inter-related. As we know, a corporation can own multiple media organizations across the country and even globally, passing information among themselves, often at the insistence and assistance of "editors" who, in a way, acted as the continuing "salesman" for these ideas. The same can be said for ideas born in think tanks that are inter-related or political organizations, etc, through the meeting of people in real spaces, exchanging ideas. Baring out Gladwell's theory that it is in the physical, real time meeting of people that works to move ideas and, in the case of "high risk" activism, like revolution, move it out into the open.

What the new paths of "social media" allow people and ideas to do is leapfrog over these conventional paths of inter-connectivity. All it requires is a search engine and a keyboard. Someone can virtually search for something of interest, find it and latch on without ever having first shared those ideas with anyone else in the physical world. Allowing these ideas to take on a power of their own.

Eventually, these groups or ideas become so large that they "meet" in cyberspace as one anonymous person leaves a link here or a link there, driving people to these sites and bringing them together. Where, in the virtual world, they develop these close friendships and the strength and courage to act upon it in the real world. Hundreds and thousands who never personally met.

In the case of Egypt, that is how the protesters were first able to pull in enough people to begin the movement. What was first the leapfrog of ideas to groups, became the impetuous for numbers to come out, on their association in the virtual world alone. In some cases, their actions mirror Gladwell's concept that personal association, face to face, helped motivate people. Certainly, friends in the real world connected via Facebook and Twitter, shared these links and then spoke among themselves in the virtual world and real world to convince themselves of the necessity to act. On the other hand, there were many individuals who, out of fear of ridicule or reprisal from friends, family and the authorities, spoke not a word in the real world, but were motivated to act by their cyber-connection alone.

As Gladwell suggested in Tipping Points, eventually an idea takes on a power of its own, the shear numbers driving people to join and be part of this "something" that was going on. It happened both in the virtual world as well as in the real world. In the real world, those who had cooperated in the virtual were eventually forced to come to the streets, but it was their virtual connections that provided the numbers. As most observers have seen, the number of participants becomes a power of its own: strength in numbers, building courage to act by the shear momentum of "the mob". It was these numbers that then called down the masses of working poor to join them, people they did not know, but seemed to share their own concerns.

Finally, the thing that is missed by observers such as Gladwell and others that Eltahawy says dismissed them as "Facebook generation" pressing the "like" button. Aside from the fact that this little button, if pushed enough times, can drag an idea to the top of the list of a search engine for any anonymous, unconnected persons to find, it was the speed of the connections, both in the speed of the internet as well as the speed at which people can connect, that gave rise to this revolution.

Gladwell is correct to say that Egypt's revolution did not need social media to have a revolution. Eventually. It would have found any number of paths to connect as was the case in the American Revolution through pamphlets, newspapers and groups of people. Or, the case of the Bolshevik Revolution that came together in the tea houses, read books, published newspapers and pamphlets, etc, etc, etc. Even the Polish Solidarity movement that found its path through meetings and sermons in the Catholic Church. The difference is in the speed at which the Egypt revolution grew and reached "the tipping point".

Eighteen days.

It took years, some reading history would say "decades", for the American revolutionaries to talk, connect and share ideas until they were able to reach a point of "revolution". Likewise, the Bolsheviks languished in their basements and tea houses, slowly gathering adherents and building organizations to take on the establishment, building numbers of ever growing dissenters, making marches and spreading their revolution.

In Egypt, the problems and base groups lingered in the background, disorganized and incapable of growing because they lacked the ability to get their message out and meet in real time with other like minded people. People who no longer reached for paper pamphlets and newspapers, but read and spoke on the "net". Social media allowed them to leap frog over their predecessors in revolution. It did not take decades nor even years to grow their numbers once they were able to connect. It took two years, if we look at Elataway's narrative. Starting in 2008 with the April 6 Youth Movement to build some numbers to begin the real discussion of ideas.

Then came June 2010 with the death of Khalid Said. It took only six months from that moment to create a network of tens of thousands. Leapfrogging their historical counterparts. Then came the call for the Jan25 protests that drew in nearly a hundred thousand "friends" on the site, not including the thousands of others who connected through the "friend" of a "friend" of a "friend" on the internet. A march, the size and plurality of which would have taken previous "protesters" months to plan, organize and act, took only a few days. The speed of that organization the establishment of "old men" could not match.

The regime fell eighteen days later. Yes, even after it had cut the internet because the "real world" connections that Gladwell suggests is necessary had been built, but not before the virtual connections had paved the way.

Could Egypt have had a revolution of the "youth" without social media? History tells us that, yes, they could have. Eventually. A youthful middle class searching for the path to improve themselves past their parents' station and into the environs of the ruling class who hold their power through restrictions, laws and regulations, will eventually find its way. However, Egypt would not have had a revolution now, in 2011, without it.

That is the power of the internet and Social Media. As some have suggested, dictators should fear it because what they do not allow in the open space of the real world, can move at lightening speed in cyberspace.

As in the way of Egypt when they cut the internet, there is always the cell phone.

Summary only...

Your Middle East Irony of the Day: Anti-Revolutionary Revolutionary

Ohhh, the irony!

Apparently, the daughter of ex-Iranian President Rafsanjani was arrested today in Iran:

Fars said she was arrested in the street while "leading a number of anti-revolutionaries and rioters."

News flash to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary government:

When you have been in charge of government for forty years, you are no longer the "revolution", you are the ESTABLISHMENT.

Baghdad Bob must have found his new home in Iran. There are no revolutionaries in the streets! We are the revolutionaries!

Summary only...

Libya Revolution: Not Peaceful At All

Just catching AJ in English on the Libyan situation. Seems that the peaceful protesters have decided that it is time to meet force with force. They overtook a security site that was being used to shoot at them (possibly killing a dozen or more from that position). They are saying they are going to kill the soldiers they captured.

And, just reported, the military base that the revolutionaries overtook when it "surrendered"...the revolutionaries are threatening to kill 150 soldiers if the government does not accede to their demands.

Of course, as Blackfive posted, peaceful revolutions are only really possible when the ruling opponent is constrained against violence due to their own morality or that fousted on them from outside forces. Libya has neither. Gadaffi's forces and various opponents of the revolt have been shooting, beating and blowing up whoever they can reach. It was just a matter of time before it went from a "peaceful" revolution to all out civil war.

Stand by.

Summary only...