What Red Means!

"It was night, and the rain fell; and, falling, it was rain, but, having fallen, it was blood. And I stood in the morass among the tall lillies, and the rain fell upon my head - and the lillies sighed one unto the other in the solemnity of their desolation.

Edgar Allen Poe, "Silence - A Fable"" 

I remembered those lines from Poe's - not so famous - fable. I don't know why I always endeared the imagery these few lines set. The grace by which lillies embraced their own destruction, the respect they had for their end. I remembered those lines as I set foot in Tahrir square on the 19th of November, 2011.

I will not recite a story I'm sure you witnessed  or  read about, watched videos about or at the very least, wisely, expected. The amounts of CS and CR tear gas fired at Tahrir square a day before and three whole days afterwards were covered by every single news agency from New York to Timbuktu, around forty five Egyptian patriots were killed and around two thousand injured. Many lost an eye or two including some renowned bloggers and activists. Malek Mustafa, Ahmad Harara and Ahmad Abdelfattah - amongst many others - lost their eye sight in one eye via rubber bullets. Only Harara has already lost an eye on the 28th of January during the first wave of the Egyptian revolution. 

I spent four days in Tahrir basically alone. Most of my fellow "rebels" were not around due to various personal or professional reasons  that vary widely from being out of the country to severe depression. Some preferred to run to the closest Mosque or Church, kneel in-front of a qibla or an alter and pray to God that SCAF would perish into oblivion others just ran to the nearest pub and got totally hammered. 

As I wandered around the midan, distributing masks, eye drops and running hopelessly whenever an attack by the CSF took place, I had enough time to ask myself if I really understand what's going on. I'm old enough to know and notice that things are not what they seem, that the first step in solving any problem is to "identify" the problem, that the MOI (Ministry of Interior) and the MP (Military Police) were committing murder on TV and in broad day light and that they didn't seem to care, that my gas mask leaked, that the MB (Muslim Brotherhood) are not in the midan and that Murphy's famous law was being applied every second for four days - yes things went really wrong and for reasons I did not fully understand.

The political scene in Egypt is really simple. It's the conspiracy theories and excess speculation that make things bizarrely complicated if at all - comprehensible. In Egypt, you have main players and minor players. The main players are: The people (Yes-all of them), SCAF, the old regime supporters, the Muslim Brotherhood and the US . The minor players are the Salafis, the MOI, the Egyptian national media, the MI (Military Intelligence), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, thugs, Israel and the EU (I know some of you want Iran among the minors or even the main players, but alas no Iran so far). When I say the people, I mean Tahririans, the silent majority and every other sympathizer with Tahrir who might or might not have joined during the early days of the revolution, yet their loathing to the old regime is authentic and intact. 

It's important to notice that non of the main powers existing in the Egyptian political scene work in conjunction with another main player. They only work together when their interests coincide, otherwise they work separately and act at times as if they were classical enemies. I do not believe SCAF is on the MB's side, they might have wooed them in the beginning of the revolution but its more like a tiger wooing a prey. For tigers as we all know kill for sport not for survival. The US is on the MB side when it comes to elections, on SCAF's side when it comes to excessive use of violence and criminal use of CR tear gas and on the people's side only when Obama wants to brag about democracy.

Now, every main player gets support from one or more minor players depending on the situation in which this support is needed. SCAF uses the MOI and the MI to carry out their despicable efforts to control if not annihilate the revolution. The MOI in turn may hire the efforts of thugs (civilians with the IQ of trolls and the viciousness of orcs). The MI may manipulate the national media -especially the national TV. The old regime depends heavily on thugs, finances from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman and again they depend on their supporters in the national media channels to fight the revolution as hard as they can. The Muslim Brotherhood gets their support from a considerable amount of the Egyptian people and the US and depend on the accumulation of wealth and successful businesses they run all around Egypt and abroad (each member of the brotherhood pays a percentage of their monthly income to the brotherhood up to 8%). The US of course uses any and all resources at its disposal from classical espionage to twitter.

But why do I say that the Muslim Brotherhood depends on the support of the US? well, for simple reasons: firstly, the US is prepared for a "moderate" Islamic entity to take over the power in Egypt provided this entity respects the peace treaty with Israel, fights terrorism and apply democracy. Any entity would do, the Muslim Brotherhood happens to be the most organised of all "other entities". Secondly: The Muslim Brotherhood knows that there is no possibility for any prosperity in Egypt unless the US is satisfied and is approving of "whoever" seizes power. The brotherhoods thirst for power may force them to implement a hippie-Islamic model to satisfy the US and ensure people's personal freedoms, which by any means will be more profound than Mubarak's own understanding to personal freedom. At the very least, the brotherhood will follow legitimate routes and legal channels to grant or restrict personal freedoms - Mubarak didn't.

But who's on the People's side? If any of the players have their helpers, resources, finances, aspirations to power, or wealth - or both. Who supports the demands of Tahrir? Who will bring justice to a mother who lost her only son? who will put behind bars the torturers? the murderers? the corrupt? the rapists? those who did all sins known to man in the name of National Security? No one.

The Egyptian people are left alone to their noble dreams, legitimate demands and white revolution, probably too white that someone had to make it a little red, very red. The blood of thousands of Egyptians injured and dead, arms torn, eyes ripped off and faces mutilated has covered every inch of the spacious, courageous and demi-holly midan. But the dream is still young and intact. The dream to a better living under a state that respects and enforces the law. Was it a blessing or a curse that we chose our revolution to be white all the way? did we choose the wrong color in our flag? 

No. We made the right choice, they made the wrong choice. 

Now I know what red means!

Cognitive Dissonance: An Egyptian Saga!

They say Aesop was a Greek writer who lived some 600 years before Christ, they say he was credited for a number of succinct stories that feature animals or mythical creatures and that his stories or "fables" almost entirely held moral lessons. Yet, Aesop's existence remain uncertain, so does the existence of Shakespeare, Swedish trolls and the monsters of Loch Ness. But, it doesn't matter, his fables survived and are a vivid proof that someone must have written them, be it Aesop or a bunch of Aesops! 

Historians tend to doubt the existence of many historical figures and events, but what do they know, they even doubt the existence of Orcs claiming they are just a fragment of J. R. R. Tolkien's imagination: Bollocks, I have seen many Orcs in Egypt during the early days of the revolution, mostly in uniform, some even wore shades and spoke in Arabic, but it's not within the scope of this article to prove that Orcs exist! I saw them and 3arabawy has a full set of pictures of them in his famous Piggipedia!. 

Bottom line, some of humanity's most doubted figures (like Aesop) must have existed. It's what they left behind that matters the most. Maybe they had different names or different personas, but the smell is always the same wherever they landed, the smell they enforced on time and place: The smell of hope. On the other hand some of humanity's worst nightmares (like Tolkien's Orcs) exist, maybe with different names, different ears or a different lingo but the smell is always the same wherever they land, the smell they enforce on time and place: The smell of fear, and mind you, both hope and fear have very distinctive smells!

One of Aesop's fables: "The fable of the Fox and the Grapes" reads as follows:

"Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves."

The fable discusses what's known in social psychology as cognitive dissonance, which is simply the state of agitation caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The fox is hungry and would have loved to reach the grapes and satisfy his hunger, yet Alas he couldn't and his only way out was to discredit the grapes thus relieving his mind from the agony caused by holding those two equally strong yet contradicting thoughts: Hunger and the inability to reach the grapes. Falsely claiming the grapes were sour resolves the conflict and the fox can move on with his life.

Prior to January, 25th 2011, Aesop's fox dominated the Egyptian political scene. To the majority of Egyptians, ousting the regime seemed impossible, the NDP were taking all the leading positions in the country, the police were brutal, resilient and apparently invincible and the choices the nation had for a valid successor of "he who must forever not be named" were limited only to his son or a bunch of unknowns who lacked both the popularity and the vision to run for office. (Ayman Nour might be an exception but again Ayman Nour was/is not Saad Zaghloul). The cost of a revolution -if ever- is dire and therefore the nation resorted to Aesop's fox's logic: A revolution is sour grapes!

The revolutionary individuals (hardly "forces" back then) lost hope and therefore had nothing else of value to lose. Years of brutalization, suppression, wire-tapping, web-tapping, arbitrary detention, torture, fake trials and false imprisonment  has left the majority of them with no other option but to revolt. The question was when. They were the least of all the parties in the Egyptian political scene to  suffer from cognitive dissonance simply because they already suffered too much for nothing, suffering for the sake of a revolution sounded logical and maybe poetic. They knew that freedom had a price and were willing to pay it, if you won't count what they have already paid in advance. The grapes are not sour at all!

The rest of the nation suffered cognitive dissonance with varying degrees of acuteness. Though freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the ousting of "he who must forever not be named" were legitimate demands, the price was too high and they preferred to await an "impossible" reform from "within" rather than help or take part in enforcing a reform to take place. The grapes were very sour!

Today, cognitive dissonance still characterizes the Egyptian silent majority, probably for different reasons and on different issues. But, day-by-day the confusion is lessening, the fox has already reached the grapes and no matter how hard it was to reach it, the fox can eat and satisfy his hunger and the day will come when he will look back at this particular period of his life and smile. The grapes were worth every drop of sweat and every drop of blood and "three pairs of sneakers in my case!". The Muslim brotherhood are probably the only political group not suffering from cognitive dissonance, their pragmatism and ability to enjoy the taste of someone else's grapes or even claim the grapes to be their's makes them delusional rather than anything else!

As for SCAF, Cognitive dissonance is bound to harass them for a while for they still believe they own the vine, the grapes and probably the fox!

On Decency!

"woman is the nigger of the world" is a song written and recorded by John Lennon and Yoko Ono in 1972. The shocking title and bitter lyrics didn't qualify the song to rank higher than a humble #57 on the billboard hot 100 ranking. The song was withdrawn from the British charts and the song's title was a cause for apology by those who wanted to play the song on radio stations. John -as always- was proud of the song and it's shocking "politically incorrect" title and was proud of Ono's participation in the song's lyrics and the coining of the title. Yet, no matter how much I agree or disagree with the song's lyrics or title, it's "his Lennonness" who co-wrote this song, the same man who wrote "Imagine" and "working class hero", I remain bedazzled and perplexed at his boldness and earnestness and I can't help but admire the man and his daring piece of work. I can't disagree with John: I'm only human you know!

In Egypt, women are not happier than women in other areas of the world, in fact, Egyptian women suffer discrimination, prejudices, judgments, harassment and violence, probably like many other parts of the world yet, what makes the Egyptian situation bizarrely flamboyant is the fact that women throughout Egyptian history were treated as equal to men, some were even goddesses and queens, history books are loaded with female figures who ruled, governed and (literally) got worshiped by Egyptians. We hear of Isis, Nefertiti, Hatshepsut, Virgin Mary, Aisha, Khadija, Fatima Al-Zahra'a, Shagaret Al-dur, Safeyya Zaghloul ...  


Yet, something went wrong on the way to the twenty first century and suddenly we stand helpless in a rare moment of hopeless self realization, blogging about sexual harassment and trying to figure out the causes and the cures for such a shameful social disease.


In my humble opinion, sexual harassment in Egypt is a byproduct of the social perception regarding "decency"! As a rule, if a specific human act is not fiercely condemned by the society at large and is therefore not harshly punishable by law, it (the act) is considered acceptable and at some point logical. In Egypt, the first set of questions that are being asked once a sexual harassment account is told are: what was she wearing? where did this take place? why would a "decent" woman walk by herself there? when did this happen? why would a "decent" woman walk alone that late? the general consensus of the society is willing to acknowledge and admit a sexual harassment case only if: the woman was "decently" dressed, was walking in a fairly inhabited area and before 9:00 pm! otherwise, it's her fault. 


I'm willing to accept that every event is identified by two universal measures: time and space. But, adding "decency" to an event's universal characteristics, defies all the rules of nature from quantum physics to the theory of relativity not to mention the Newtonian laws of motion! Decency is a very subjective, hard to measure, hard to define human quality and it's due to this "decency" factor that many policemen engage in sexual harassment and its also due to this decency factor that the law enforcers fail to justly and fairly deal with various cases of harassment.


Yet "decent" women get sexually harassed all the time. Some would argue that the vast majority of sexual harassment victims are "decent" women. Kids, teenagers and even elderly women are victims of sexual harassment. It's sick to imagine or even discuss: but, how indecent can a 9 year old girl be? how sexy, hot or arousing can a 7 year old girl with golden ringlets on a bus or in a park be? What's so indecent about a girl laughing loudly, or a girl wearing tight clothes or even a girl walking by herself on a deserted road drunk at 3:00 am? Where is the Universal   declaration of human rights? What happened to: We are here to protect and serve? Where did all the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad go? What about Batman, Spiderman or Zorro? Why do the teachings of our idols fail to exist when we need them the most!?


It's our consensus of "decency" that needs to change simply because this consensus is: indecent!


Applying the law, harshening the punishment and dedicating a special police force to track down and incarcerate harassers may help control the saddening phenomena but my opinion is that sexual harassment will not cease to exist unless we change our definition and accordingly our perception regarding what's decent and what's not.


You want a proof to my debate, think of SCAF, think of the military police then think of the excuses they gave for performing the most bizarre act in the history of harassment: Date: March 10, 2011. Time: Sometime before noon. Place: A makeshift detention facility at the Egyptian museum in Tahrir square. Act: Virginity tests being performed on 18 women. "The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine," an anonymous general told a CNN reporter.


The general's possibly meant: "The girls who were detained were not as decent as your daughter or mine"

Image by Rong Jiaojiao

What White Means!

After someone called for blogging on May-23-2011 to criticize the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), I found myself obligated to join the initiative. Not that I will add anything new or uncover a hidden treasure of unique ideas that's never been revealed, discussed, refused or agreed upon before. rather, I find it a good opportunity to state my opinion about the current situation and SCAF, in prose as I usually express myself in rhyme. 

The main topic of this article reminds me of a story I once heard, it's relevance to the current events in Egypt and to SCAF maybe deduced through out the lines of this article, read on.

They say that Albert Einstein was once asked by a blind man to explain what does the relativity theory mean, Einstein told the blind guy: "relativity is close to a glass of milk."

"Glass," replied the blind guy, "I know what that is. But what do you mean by milk?"

"Well, milk is a white fluid," said Einstein.

"Now fluid, I know what that is," said the blind guy. "but what is white ? "

" Oh, white is the color of a swan's feathers."

" Feathers, I know feathers, but what is a swan ? "

"A swan's a bird with a crooked neck."

" Neck, I know what a neck is, but what is "crooked" ? "

Einstein seized the blind guy's arm and stretched it. "There, now your arm is straight," said Albert. Then he bent the blind guy's arm at the elbow. "Now it is crooked."

"Oh," said the blind guy. "Now I know what white means."

To many, myself included SCAF is an unknown entity! A group of twenty army generals appointed by Mubarak, representing the different branches of the Egyptian armed forces, whose highest commander used to be Mubarak himself until he was allegedly given an ultimatum to "leave or get prosecuted" during the seventy-two hours prior to his stand down, handing his authorities to SCAF.

This - though celebrated by the masses - has put Egypt in a delicate, perplexing and devastating constitutional situation. Mubarak, according to the constitution can only hand his resignation and therefore his authorities to an elected parliament which represented by it's own head would lead the country through a transition period until a new president is elected. Handing power to SCAF is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The parliament itself was a big fraud, many of its members were instated via a forged election using fake votes, thugs, switching boxes and bribery. 

SCAF, more than anyone involved in the grim Egyptian political scene knew the situation and sought acknowledgement in a legal, constitutional and public manner. But, which constitution? the 1971 constitution in action has already fallen the moment Mubarak stepped down. The only legitimacy SCAF can rely on is the legitimacy imposed by the revolution and none of the rebels of Tahrir would ever acknowledge the appointees of Mubarak to rule. Not to mention that those appointees are men in uniform!

SCAF also knew that a vast majority of Egyptians didn't join the revolution, their silence may reflect sympathy with the revolution's goals, sympathy with Mubarak, Indifference or simply ignorance. Yet, no matter which category this silent majority belonged to, their approval on SCAF being handed power would give SCAF the legitimacy they were seeking. The rebels of Tahrir though righteous are a minority of intelligentsia supported by crowds of a sympathetic mob and some Islamic movements who jumped on board once the revolution was on a roll. SCAF would raise the question: "do those in Tahrir represent the whole nation?", "do we need to derive our legitimacy for being in power from Tahrir alone?", "who of those many groups, coalitions, parties, entities can authorize our existence in power?": none and therefore the answer to all the previously mentioned questions was a loud No. 

The answer to those confusing questions came in the form of some legal consultation provided "probably" by Tareq Al-Beshry (a muslim brothers aficionado) and Yehia Al-Gamal (a man craving for a role) among other  constitutional experts who advised SCAF to conduct a referendum for 9 constitutional amendments concerning articles (75, 76, 77, 88, 93, 139, 148, 179, 189). The Amendments, if approved would legalize SCAF's existence in power, re-instate the fallen 1971 constitution, enforce a form of superficial stability especially amongst the politically illiterate and the previous NDP members who would do anything to restore the country's political scene to what it was prior to January 25. It would also legalize the position of the restricted Islamic groups if they supported the referendum, for apart from legalizing SCAFs position, the referendum drew a clear path for any organized group to take over a considerable portion of the coming parliament thus becoming the new "in-inaugurated" yet actual ruler of Egypt. The Muslim Brothers wouldn't miss this historic chance even if they had to literally betray the demands of Tahrir: after all, this is what politics is all about in their opinion - history says. 

On the other hand the amendments didn't reflect the revolution’s demands. One of the main demands is the formation of a new temporary constitution that would dictate the authorities of a temporary government and a civil presidential council, but who cares? If all the organized powers in Egypt supported by the illiterate masses in the delta and upper Egypt along with SCAF approved of the referendum then to hell with a bunch of of educated bloggers, liberals, leftists and social justice seekers. Electronic media might be imperative in countries like Japan or Sweden where the illiteracy rates are below zero, but Egypt? Guess not.

Furthermore, SCAF does not approve of a presidential council, how do we expect it to? handing power willingly to the likes of Baradei, Nour or Bothaina Kamel? are you insane? SCAF has always stated their firm adherence to applying the law, they did apply it in some occasions and failed in numerous occasions to even get close to concepts of justice or fairness. Any "political" opinion that criticizes SCAF is considered a "crime" punishable by Military Laws. 

Applying the law is a "theme" favorable to many, It saves SCAF from being criticized by the US and EU who praised this "theme" since day one. It is also a theme that would guarantee minimal punishment to major crimes. The judicial system requires documents, proofs and witnesses that may not be available thus making it very hard to establish justice the way the revolution wants.

When we joined the demonstration in Tahrir on Jan 25, we wanted the president to step down, we wanted the regime to fall, we wanted social justice, we wanted freedom and we wanted to restore our long lost dignity. Our demonstrations evolved into a breathtaking, "white" revolution and the world watched us as we elegantly and persistently marched to grab our long denied rights. We made every other revolution in the recorded human history seem barbaric and uncivilized, we reduced what took Gandhi decades of preaching into a mere eighteen days, we discovered who we are and what we can do when united. All in a "white", peaceful and intense rebellious act that would surely make John Lennon, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Saad Zaghloul and every other peace activist proud.

Four months later here is what we've got: we got SCAF instead of Mubarak, we got national security instead of state security, we got military courts instead of civil courts, we got a slow legal process and above all we got this heavy feeling that justice will not be served. 

Now I know what "white" means!