ТОП просматриваемых книг сайта:
On the State of Egypt. Alaa Al aswany
Читать онлайн.Название On the State of Egypt
Год выпуска 0
isbn 9780857862167
Автор произведения Alaa Al aswany
Издательство Ingram
Second, by closing the Rafah border crossing, thereby preventing Arab and international relief convoys from reaching Gaza, and then by building the steel wall to starve the Palestinians, the Egyptian government is regrettably committing heinous crimes against our brothers as Arabs and as fellow humans. Arab solidarity and Egypt’s duty toward the Muslims and Christians in Palestine are no longer considerations that count for anything for Egyptian officials, who openly ridicule them. But the Egyptian regime, in its enthusiasm to please Israel, has not taken into account that it is tarnishing its own reputation throughout the world. The Gaza massacre a year ago has already destroyed what remains of Israel’s international reputation and the voices of condemnation have grown louder in western countries to an unprecedented extent. In October, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went to make a speech at the University of Chicago and found himself surrounded by students shouting in his face, “Butcher of Gaza . . . child-killer.” Several western judges have issued warrants against Israeli leaders to answer charges of committing war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon. This has happened in Belgium, Norway, Spain, and recently Britain, where the British police were about to arrest former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who escaped at the last minute. It is true that most of these warrants were withdrawn because of massive Zionist pressure on western governments, but they clearly demonstrate an international mood of condemnation toward Israel that never existed in the past. The Egyptian regime, by building the wall, is not only risking its popularity in Egypt and the Arab world, which is already at rock bottom, but also staining its reputation worldwide.
Third, all the excuses the regime presents to justify building the wall would not convince a small child. It says that Egypt is free to build the wall as long as it is inside Egyptian territory, overlooking the fact that the freedom of any state, by custom, logic, and international law, is not absolute but restricted by the rights of others, and that Egypt cannot be instrumental in starving one and a half million human beings who live next door and then claim it is free to do as it likes. The regime says the tunnels are used for smuggling weapons to terrorists in Egypt. We say that weapons have been smuggled in from Libya and Sudan, so does the Egyptian government intend to build steel walls along its borders with all neighboring countries? If the Ministry of Interior, with its massive security apparatus, is unable to protect the borders, then what is it doing with the eight billion Egyptian pounds a year in budget money it receives from the Egyptian people?
The regime is now using the slogan, “Egyptian national security is a red line.” We believe in this slogan and do not contest it, but national security in our opinion starts by defining who is Egypt’s enemy. Is it Israel or the people of Gaza? If Israel is our enemy—and that is the truth— would it not be in Egypt’s national interest to support the Palestinian resistance? Didn’t anyone wonder why the Palestinians are compelled to dig tunnels underground? It has been the only way for them to survive. Would the Palestinians be digging tunnels if Egypt opened the Rafah crossing and allowed food and medicine to reach them? When Egypt builds this wall to starve Palestinians to death, should we blame Palestinians if they use force to stop its construction or try to destroy it? Or isn’t that legitimate self-defense? The officials speak much about the Egyptian officer who was shot and killed with a bullet fired from Gaza, and we, too, greatly regret the death of that martyr, but we also remember that there is not one piece of evidence that the bullet came from the Hamas movement and we remember that Israel by its own admission has killed several Egyptian officers and troops on the border. Why wasn’t our government angry for the sake of national security then? And where was this national security when the Israelis admitted to killing hundreds of Egyptians and burying them in mass graves during war, and officials in Egypt did not take a single measure against the Israeli war criminals? Officials in Egypt say they have closed the Rafah border crossing for fear of a mass influx of Palestinians into Egypt, but this is a foolish argument because what drove the Palestinians to break through the crossing was their pressing need for food. They bought with their own money what they needed from Egyptian traders and then went back where they came from. So what do we expect from the Palestinians after we shut off, with the steel wall, their last chance to live? Would anyone blame them if they poured across by the thousands, breaking through the Rafah crossing by force to escape death by starvation? This wall, besides being a heinous act and an indelible mark of shame on the brow of the Egyptian government, constitutes a real threat to Egyptian national security.
Fourth, what is driving the Egyptian regime to all this submission to Israeli policy? One factor is that the regime believes any victory for Hamas would help the Muslim Brotherhood and that this would threaten the Egyptian government. This is a big mistake, because victory for the resistance would greatly help Egypt and would not at all pose a threat to it. Besides, the Muslim Brotherhood, with its size and influence, is not a real threat to the Egyptian regime, which always promulgates that theory in order to justify despotism. The second factor is that the Egyptian regime knows that fulfilling Israel’s desires is the sure path to American approval. In the last few years Israel has obtained from Egypt more than it obtained after the Camp David agreements were signed: the release of the spy Azam Azam, agreements to sell gas and cement, the blockade of the Palestinians, and finally this disgraceful wall. That explains America’s satisfaction with the Mubarak regime. A few days ago the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Margaret Scobey, said she thought that democracy in Egypt was going well. This bizarre statement shows us the extent to which the Zionist lobby controls U.S. policy. The United States will remain satisfied with the despotic regime in Egypt as long as Israel is satisfied with it. After that, can Ms. Scobey wonder why Egyptians hate U.S. policy and accuse the United States of hypocrisy and double standards?
Finally, the crime of building the wall to starve the Palestinians is not unconnected with the question of democratic reform in Egypt, since the regime agreed to build the wall because it needs U.S. support for its plan to have President Mubarak pass on the presidency to his son, Gamal. Here we see a dangerous example of the consequences of despotic rule. The interests of the regime in Egypt have truly become contrary to the interests of the Egyptian people. If the Mubarak regime were democratic it would never dare to take part in the blockade and starvation of the Palestinians. Democratic systems alone are the ones whose interests are at one with those of the people and the nation.
Democracy is the solution.
December 27, 2009
Why Are We Falling Behind
as the World Progresses?
A few months ago scientist Ahmed Zewail was appointed scientific adviser to United States President Barack Obama, and when Dr. Zewail went to meet President Obama White House officials gave him an entry pass stating his name and his position, but he noticed that at the bottom of the pass they had written the word “temporary.” Surprised at this, the scientist went to a senior White House official and asked, “Why have they written the word ‘temporary’ on my pass?”
The official smiled and said, “Dr. Zewail, you’re working as an adviser to President Obama, aren’t you?”
“Yes.”
“President Obama himself is temporary,” the official said.
When Dr. Zewail told me of this incident, I thought it significant in several ways. The U.S. president, like the president in any democratic country, holds office for four years, extendable to eight if he is reelected, after which he cannot remain in office a single day longer. The president obtained office because the people chose him of their own free will, and he is liable to strict oversight in everything related to himself and his family. Because he owes his office to the public and is liable to oversight by the people, he does his best to fulfill the promises on the basis of which the electors voted for