Here’s a very interesting BBC article on the future of Egyptian politics.   It makes some very important points:

Ahmad Hamam and I have a new article on Salafi Media in Egypt in the new edition of Arab Media and Society:

……Yet outside of these dramatic claims – usually made by non-Islamists writing in opposition newspapers – there has been little in-depth study of the issue, and nothing in English.  We attempt to rectify this situation by addressing two questions: To what extent, if any, is the popularity of Salafi television a reflection of the rise of a distinctly more puritanical form of Islamism in Egypt?  And to what extent, if any, are these stations a tool in a competition between Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood?  We base our study on extensive interviews with Egyptian and American experts, a survey of the available written Arabic language material and our personal viewing of the stations. [4]   Given our research limitations, [5] we do not believe that the presence and popularity of Salafi television is causing Egyptians to become more conservative in their religious beliefs nor is it part of a government strategy of cultivating Salafism as a counterweight to the Muslim Brotherhood, as Aswany claims.  Rather, its popularity is best viewed, mundanely, as reflecting a logical shift towards more puritanical interpretations of religion, across broad segments of society, in response to specific economic, cultural and political developments……

I recently wrote a review of “Kill Khalid: The Failed Mossad Attempt to Kill Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas” in Daily News Egypt.  It is a very good book which I highly recommend.   And given that the Obama administration has pledged to make a strong effort to revive negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the publication is timely: 

…“Kill Khalid” is a model of what journalism should look like. Leaving no stone unturned in his quest to get his material directly from the horse’s mouth, McGeough interviewed nearly every Hamas political leader, including 50 hours with Mishal. Because of this extensive reliance on primary-source interviews, the level of depth goes way beyond what is usually written on the topic and the book must-read for anyone interested in Israel-Palestine. ..

I have an article in World Politics Review covering Egyptian reactions to the Obama speech:

….Starting with last year’s presidential campaign and up through yesterday’s speech, there have been three basic attitudes in Egypt towards Candidate and President Obama: a small, relatively affluent group of enthusiastic supporters; a much larger group maintaining a cautious, wait-and-see attitude; and a third, equally large and somewhat hostile group that believes that U.S. foreign policy interests are fixed and outside an individual president’s control.

The announcement that Obama would be coming to Cairo was generally applauded by always-patriotic Egyptians, reflecting a commonly held belief that their country has a “special role” in the region.

Beyond this, however, reactions were mixed. The most enthusiastic tended to be members of the upper-classes and those affiliated with the ruling National Democratic Party. Government-sponsored media outlets, for instance, praised Obama’s effort to reach out to Muslims.

Among those seeking to change the status quo, opposition parties — such as the Muslim Brotherhood — worried that the visit would essentially be an endorsement of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Mohamed Habib, deputy supreme guide to the Muslim Brotherhood, dismissed the speech as window dressing, saying his group would await actions and not words. (That essentially echoes his reaction to Obama’s election victory when I interviewed him last November.)

The speech itself went as expected. The president emphasized that the United States is not an enemy of Islam, and spoke of the need for mutual respect between the two religions. He was more vague when it came to specifics, especially regarding the issues local Egyptians care about the most, such as democracy promotion and Palestine.

It is still too early to speak authoritatively about the speech’s impact. However, initial Egyptian reactions can generally be divided into two groups. One school of thought says that, given the intense hatred of George W. Bush in Egypt, the call for dialogue was good enough as a first step, with the expectation that it will be followed with specific policy actions. …

The Obama Administration’s refusal to condition Egypt’s military aid on political and human rights reform is congruent with Bush Administration’s policy. It is a good move, aimed at maintaining the strategic relationship.
In interviews in Egypt, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates have both gone on record as opposing conditions as a matter of policy. Secretary Rice stated the same policy during her term as Secretary of State in an October 2007 letter to Nancy Pelosi, arguing that “Conditioning any portion of FMF could cause grave damage to U.S. national security interests.”

The Bush Administration lobbied for political reform in Egypt in a very public manner. Unfortunately, its lofty rhetoric produced unrealistic expectations among Egyptians that only highlighted the Bush Administration’s eventual failures. It also alienated the Mubarak regime. Notably, the political dissident Ayman Nour was released only after President Bush left office. That was no coincidence, as President Mubarak became only more intransigent on the reform front as Bush continued to vilify him in public.

The Washington Post, therefore, may want to rethink criticism over the Obama Administration rejecting conditions on military funding. Conditioning military aid will harm the military relationship and make the Mubarak regime dig in its heals against reform. But they are right to lament an accompanying reduction in democracy funding. The best way to support long-term liberalization in Egypt is to support civil organizations quietly from below and pressure the government privately from the top. Let’s hope that President Obama does so, privately and forcefully, when President Mubarak visits Washington at the end of this month.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates arrived in Egypt today in the first stop on a week-long tour of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I suspect that Gates will make some unannounced stops in the region (to Iraq, perhaps), but I can’t verify that.

Gates set out three goals for his meetings in Egypt: (1) encourage stronger diplomatic ties with Iraq, (2) offer assurances that Washinton’s policy shift to engage Iran will not come at the expense of the region’s security, and (3) discuss progress and joint US-Egypt efforts on interdicting weapons smuggling into Gaza. These three topics are primarily political, even the Gaza border, which ultimately comes down to a political solution that solves the “demand” side of the problem. Gates will no doubt assure Mubarak that the Obama Administration will stand firm on its determination for a two-state solution, and if necessary, exert poliitcal pressure on PM Netanyahu to make it happen. Regarding Iraq, Secretary Gates brought the same message to Cairo when he last visited in April 2007. President Mubarak responded with some increased bilateral activity, including minister visits. [Of course, Egypt is always happy to host multinational conferences in Sharm el Sheikh. It's an easy play.] I expect that President Mubarak may provide assurances that he will support efforts in Iraq, and perhaps express some surprise that Maliki is still around. Iran will be a more difficult conversation. The Government of Egypt is seriously concerned over Iran’s growing influence in the region, and would like to see the United States continue its negative pressure. Tensions boiled over in recent weeks as Egypt prosecuted an alleged Hezballah cell in Egypt and blamed Iran for meddling.

What’s conspicuously absent from this visit by the US Secretary of Defense, however, is conversation about defense. Threats have largely cooled in Congress to reduce $100 million of Egpt’s $1.3 billion in annual military aid. That’s good news for the bilateral relationship. But there are still major differences between the American and Egyptian militaries over how Egypt spends that money, over the weapons that the US provides to the Gulf countries but denies to Egypt, and over the diverging missions of the militaries themselves. As American forces gird up for unconventional warfare, Egypt remains decidedly conventional. But Egypt has some serious defense threats to contend with, including bandits kidnapping tourists in its southern borders and pirates hijacking ships bound for the Suez Canal.

For a truly useful trip that goes beyond the banalities of strengthening the relationship, Secretary Gates, President Mubarak, and Defense Minister Tantawi may want to have a real discussion about defense.

It’s no surprise that the residents of Egypt’s Manshiyat Nasser (also known as “Garbage City), the vast majority of whom are poor Copts who make a living in part by raising swine (as well as sorting and selling garbage), did not take well to the Egyptian government’s recent decision to slaughter the country’s 300,000 pigs because of fears of swine flu (pardon me, H1N1). Egypt’s actions have been characterized by the vast majority of the international health community as “entirely unnecessary” as the virus is spreading through humans and not through pigs.

Residents of Garbage City clashed with police sent there yesterday to prevent pig farmers from smuggling out their livestock before the government could come in and slaughter it. According to the independent newspaper Al-Dustour, the protesters threw rocks at police and initially pushed them back, blocking a main road and attempting to demolish cars and street signs until reinforcements were sent and arrested fourteen people. Twelve were injured, including seven policemen.

The government has promised to reimburse the pig farmers, and apparently some of them have already received their payment.

A suspected Egyptian case of the flu turned out to be negative while the Egyptian government seems to be taking intensive precautionary measures to prevent the spread of H1N1 in the country. According to the Daily News Egypt,

Minister of Health Hatem El-Gabaly announced that the ministry is coordinating with the airports authority, deploying physicians to accompany flights coming from infected areas. There are plans to equip airports with thermal detection devices as well.

The government’s measures against the flu should be welcomed, but while thermal detection devices will certainly be useful, there are many other steps the government could take to better protect its citizens, against the flu and in general. Though government officials have said that they fear the poor living conditions in Garbage City could enhance the virus’s ability to spread, the area has historically been largely ignored by the government. Its residents live literally in garbage, and it is the site of a landslide that killed upwards of 90 people in September 2008. It took hours for government emergency services to arrive on the scene.

In addition, Egyptian Chronicles reports that the Minister of Health has accused “elements within the Parliament,” i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood (there are “independent” government MPs with ties to the Brotherhood), of taking advantage of the epidemic in a supposed attempt to rid Egypt of swine, the eating of which is prohibited in Islam. There is certainly a religious element at play here, whether by coincidence or not. Tensions between Muslims and Copts fluctuate in Egypt, and most recently the country has seen a spate of revenge killings between the two groups.

The Egyptian Minister of Agriculture was quoted as saying that “After culling all the existing pigs, we plan to take veterinary procedures to sanitize existing farms and reestablish them according to international health and environmental standards.”

Maybe H1NI will be a blessing in disguise for the people of Manshiyat Nasser as the government will be forced to pay more attention to the terrible living conditions there.

Here is a translation I did of a March 2009 article by Salaama Ahmed Salaama (of Al-Ahram fame, now at Al-Shorouk) about recent US policy in the Middle East and America’s relationship with the Israel lobby. It’s no surprise here that despite Salaama’s comfortable relationship with the Egyptian government, he is disappointed with Egyptian policy towards the Palestinians and is irate over US policy, claiming that “American policy also remains, despite everything, hostage to the Zionist pressures from which it is incapable of breaking free.”

Salaama is a respected, widely-read, and thus influential Egyptian commentator. It wouldn’t be far off to say that his opinion has influenced and/or is representative of a large part of Egyptian popular opinion. I have aimed in this translation to keep Salaama’s tone and employ the specific expressions he uses, which do not always translate perfectly to the English speaker’s ear. The article in its original Arabic can be found here.

Barren American Policies
Salaama Ahmed Salaama
March 16, 2009

After fifty days in the White House, American opinion polls have shown that President Obama has lost a portion of his popularity, and that he has softened some of his campaign promises as he is faced with a political power that has long branded American policy, especially in regards to the Middle East. This is whereas many in the Arab states had cheered him believing that he would pursue a more moderate and balanced course regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict in comparison with his predecessor, Bush.

The first battle that Obama lost in the face of the overarching power of the Zionist lobby was when he was forced to abandon his choice of Ambassador Charles Freeman for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, a choice that was based on Freeman’s vast experience in the Middle East where he served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and in security and intelligence fields. This took place under pressure from certain leaks that described Freeman as a controversial figure because of his criticism of the Zionist lobby’s influence on American policy and its rejection of any criticism of Israeli officials.

However, what deserves more attention in this regard, is that despite evidence that indicates that the region is about to begin dealing with a racist government in which the foreign ministerial-ship is held by a person such as Lieberman, the leader of “Israel Beytanu,” which does not recognize a two-state solution and which does not negotiate with the Palestinians, Washington has nonetheless proceeded with enthusiasm with the implementation of the American-Israeli memorandum of understanding which Livni and Rice signed just hours before the end of Bush’s rule. It focused on what they called the prevention of “smuggling” of weapons and military equipment to the terrorists in Gaza, that is, to Hamas and to the Palestinian resistance organizations! Washington then commenced rallying a number of its partners in NATO to oversee and prevent the smuggling of weapons across the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and East Africa, despite the opposition and reservation Egypt displayed regarding this agreement, which is considered a course of action that is outside the scope of international law. Not to mention the memorandum’s complete lack of comprehensive goals in keeping with the peace efforts, or an account of the extent of Israel’s commitment to the Quartet’s conditions regarding the cessation of aggression and settlement activity.

The meeting was attended by Israeli envoys in London. But Egypt, which certain parties would have had play a role in the tightening of the siege of Gaza, refused to attend the conference. Observers from the Palestinian National Authority did not attend the conference either.

There is no doubt that these initiatives come at a time of profound sensitivity vis-a-vis Egypt’s enormous efforts towards reconciliation between the Palestinians. Such moves have been a stab in the back of the endeavors to solve the controversial issues between the factions in regard to progress towards peace, by way of striving to come up with policies that will permit the Palestinian Authority to continue efforts towards a peaceful settlement, yet without aborting the Palestinian people’s right to resistance, especially in light of the latest brutal Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Among the contradictions that mark these devious Western policies is the influx we are seeing of Western parliamentary and political delegations and personalities that are holding meetings with Hamas representatives to convince them to recognize Israel, to accept the Quartet’s conditions in exchange for recognition as a political party in negotiations, and to commit to abandoning violence. This at the time when Israel has unveiled its right-wing extremist face being led by a government that acknowledges not one of the Quartet’s principles thanks to the vague and unjust policies Washington is adopting and which countries like France, Germany, and Britain go along with, even though they claim to be acting for the sake of peace and stability.

Despite everything, Obama is taking a chance in trying to solve the issue in Afghanistan by pursuing secret communications with Mullah Omar through Saudi mediation. But American policy also remains, despite everything, hostage to the Zionist pressures from which it is incapable of breaking free.

Check out Matthew, Nathan’s, and my interview on Egypt with the FPA here. You can also check out the FPA Great Decisions video, “From Pharaos to Facebook: Egypt Today” here.

“Opportunity in crisis” isn’t so much rhetoric in the first days of the Obama Administration. The financial meltdown that began in Wall Street and spread to America’s working class has knocked top-ranked financiers out of a comfortable context where risk was appropriately and indefinitely hedged. Most of middle class America is suffering and feeling the uncertainty that most lower class Americans who work two or more minimum wage jobs without benefits have felt for years. The crisis, however, has provided an opportunity for a progressive president to push a progressive economic agenda that he likely could not have passed in happier times.

The same is likely true in the Middle East, and Obama, fortunately, seems to be taking advantage. He is tackling the regions most difficult problems head-on with a fleet of respected special envoys - Mitchell for Palestine/Iraq; Holbrooke for Afghanistan/Pakistan; Gration for Sudan.

Although prospects for a resolution in Israel/Palestine seem dim I am recently optimistic. First, the issue has presidential engagement and a respected envoy who speaks on his behalf. This should settle disagreements among senior foreign policymakers in Obama’s Administration and reassure Middle East leaders that when they’re speaking to George Mitchell they’re speaking to the President. Second, Obama seems to be standing tough on his dedication to a two-state solution in the face of Israeli disagreement, which is not inconsequential. Third, a hardliner has come to power in Israel. Though Netanyahu has said he sees dim possibilities for a two-state solution, hardliners are likely the only leaders capable of bringing Israel’s factious politicians in line for a difficult agreement, as Begin did by making peace with Sadat thirty years ago. And again, American presidential engagement is key. Fourth, Arab leaders would like to resolve the conflict. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the two Gulf leaders most active in regional diplomacy, are ready and have supported feasible proposals in the past. Egypt, as Michelle Dunne points out here, has a two-year window of elections where it will seek US political support. Jordan is always in, and negotiations with Syria are not out of the realm of possibility. Remember, Netanyahu initiated them quietly during his last premiership in 1998. The Palestinians are in crisis and divided but eager for peace with security. Now is the time.