Egypt

Former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik for president—not by a long shot

In a video statement from Abu Dhabi, which Reuters revealed to the world, former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik announced his intention to run in the 2018 presidential election race. He also said that he would be returning to Egypt in the “coming days.”

After the initial shock, I began to contemplate the pros and cons of such a move by former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik. I decided that Shafik’s running in the presidential race is a positive matter. He will bestow a democratic hue over the elections upping the general standard of those running against President El-Sisi and proving that the race is not a done deal but an actual fair and square race where the best man will win.

He is also a candidate worth listening to especially if compared to the only other candidate thus far, Khalid Ali, who also said he will run.

Shafik is no easy game; he will have followers, supporters, and advocates. He is definitely a candidate with a presence to be reckoned with. He is firm, stern, and charismatic, and he comes across as shrewd and astute.

However, I believe that Shafik has a ghost of a chance to win the elections. Many matters work against him.

If some dislike President El Sisi because of his military background, Ahmed Shafik is no better. Both men have military backgrounds and experiences. This, while in the video declaring his candidacy, Shafiq said, “Any success whether major or minor will not be achieved in our country without a good civilian, democratic, model and stable ruling system that is able to accept criticism.”

A “civilian” system does not apply to Shafik himself unless he considers retiring from the airforce turned him into a civilian. If it does, then El Sisi is a civilian, too, in that case.

Activists may choose to forget Shafik is still Shafik; a Mubarak era man.Those who didn’t vote for him in 2012 would still not vote for him in 2018 unless they ignore their high and mighty call against the military. If only to spite El Sisi, they may choose Shafik, but they would be going against their efforts in 2012 to have nothing to do with Mubarak or his men as they tilted the election towards Morsi.

Shafik’s fleeing to Abu Dhabi, the self-imposed exile, and the extended unnecessary stay there will remain a thorn in his side. Shafiq had faced various corruption charges, but a year ago his lawyer said that Shafik was acquitted or had the cases against him dropped. He was clear to return to Egypt. Despite that, he didn’t return.

Egyptians dislike those who flee from responsibility. In the minds of Egyptians, Shafik is no better than Mohamed ElBaradei, Ayman Nour, and all Muslim Brotherhood members who fled. It doesn’t matter if they had good reason to flee; they are still considered deserters.

Shafik’s staying in Abu Dhabi for this lengthy period of time will definitely be looked down on by most Egyptians who expect allegiance from their president, a person who is willing not only to stay the course and fight the fight, but also a person who never flees.

Did Shafik choose Reuters to announce his running for presidency or was Reuters the first outlet to pick it up? In any case, the fact that Egyptian media outlets were disregarded or didn’t receive notice of the announcement will work against Shafik, as much from the media as Egyptians.

And when the media go against Shafik, it will be a normal reaction. Again allegiance to Egypt is the name of the game, and Shafik isn’t following the rules to a T.

By evening another speech was aired from Aljazeera where Shafik told the world that the UAE is not permitting him to leave. Though Shafik denies his speaking through Aljazeera, to Egyptians it is what it is, again Egyptians found this quite offensive.

Even if Aljazeera fiddled with the footage to make it look like its own property, this is political suicide very early on in the game. It may break Shafik even before Shafik becomes a true candidate.

Though Shafik looks fit and robust, age may play a significant role in dimming his chances of winning the race. Shafik is 76. If he wins and goes for a second term, he would be in his mid eighties, and wasn’t Mubarak ridiculed for continuing as president as he turned 80?

David Kirkpatrick’s in the NY Times says, ”Shafik stuttered or faltered at times during his video statement on Wednesday, which may remind Egyptians that he has had a reputation for absent-mindedness.” He also reminded us of his popular goof up, “I fought in the war. I killed and was killed.”

Kirkpatrick also reminds us of Shafik’s hot temper. Shafik's “tenure as prime minister ended after just a few months in 2011 when he was forced to resign after losing his temper on a television talk show in a debate with a novelist, Alaa Al Aswany.”

Others have already commented on how the papers Shafik was reading from were shaking alluding to a tremor, even if moderate or slight, in his hands.

So, can Egyptians see in Shafik an alternative to President El Sisi?

I doubt it. You see running against El Sisi will not be an easy feat.

El Sisi is backed by the majority of Egyptians; his supporters view him as the cornerstone to stability, security, and development. Though he hasn’t declared officially that he will run for a second term, as we get closer to election dates, El Sissi's supporters continue to urge him to run, which most probably he will do.

True El Sisi faces many challenges: terrorists along all borders, soaring inflation, and years of stagnation. And yet, Egyptians are solidly behind him, realizing the hard work and effort he has given Egypt.

H.A. Hellyer says, “It’s hard to imagine someone like Shafiq running, unless he’s thinking he’s got backing from within the broader establishment, including the military, to do so,” which to me is absolute nonsense since it implies that the army and the broader establishment is not behind Sisi.

Under the leadership of President El Sisi and because its members believe in President El Sisi, the security apparatus has been fighting a war like no other. 

Hellyer also says, “Egypt’s 2018 elections just got more interesting.” This is absolutely true but a fait accompli nonetheless.

 

Separatism on the rise

Al Ahram Weekly, by Azza Radwan Sedky

In this day and age as yet more conflicts and wars devastate entire regions and terrorists wreak havoc across all corners of the globe, one might think that nations would seek empowerment in numbers, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Many nations are seeking autonomy and self-government, and many others want to separate. 

From Scotland to Punjab, from Kurdistan to South Sudan, from Catalonia to the Basque Country, such regions and nations have sought independence or separation.

A main cause for such moves is the holding of a distinct ethnicity, language or culture. When a region is not the same as the rest of a country in such significant terms, its citizens may become alienated and seek separation.  

If marginalised regions feel alienated, and if citizens are considered second class, they may seek secession. As history tells us, when the former colonial powers clustered regions haphazardly with other regions that did not belong together, or intentionally splintered ideological units into factions instead of sustaining a single society, people may seek secession.

In other cases, economic burdens and possibly economic benefits may be why some regions seek separation. One region, wealthier than the rest, may be expected to support adjacent, less wealthy regions. Due to its wealth, it may be confident it can handle separation.

When the sense of belonging ceases to exist, or when it wasn’t there in the first place, calls for separation may engulf society.

Quebec’s call for breaking away from Canada, for example, is not only a call for autonomy, but also a case of linguistic and cultural difference. In 1995, a referendum failed to secure Quebec its sovereignty, with 50.58 per cent voting against secession. But the separatist movement in Quebec never died away, even if it has dimmed compared to other separatism movements around the world. 

Hardly anyone, even the British themselves, expected the vote on the UK’s leaving the European Union to turn out the way it did. Today Britain is leaving the European Union, but it is still grappling with the change. 

Scotland has had its own calls for separation, though in 2014 the independence referendum on separation from the rest of the UK did not succeed. The no side won with 55.3 per cent of the vote. However, after Brexit Scotland is once again contemplating its independence.

Catalonia, along with other Spanish regions such as the Basque Country, maintains its ethnic differences, even as it remains within Spain. In 1977, Catalonia was granted a degree of autonomy, but complete independence remained an aim. As the economy suffered in Spain, the calls for separation increased. 

In September 2017, 2.26 million votes were cast in a referendum on secession in Catalonia with the majority in favour of independence. To Spain, this was an act of rebellion, and it hit back. It has issued arrest warrants for the former president of the region and for four other ministers and detained nine others who were freed on bail later.  

The Kurdish conflict in the Middle East has been going on for decades since Britain and France divided the Kurdish population over the four countries of Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran. The Kurds have never had their own state, and they have suffered persecution at the hands of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and others. 

So when the independence referendum took place in September, the majority of the three million Iraqi Kurds voted overwhelmingly to secede. The results of the referendum, however, were rejected by the international community and Iraq. Israel was the only exception. 

Whether due to ethnicity or economics, many citizens of these areas believe that they are better off severing ties with the states to which they belong and moving on alone. But would these regions be better off as independent entities? I doubt it. 

Regions wanting secession are often dependent on the rest of the country to which they belong, lacking sea access and airport facilities. They often don’t produce many commodities and are dependent on importing goods from surrounding regions. Armies to protect them and a security apparatus to safeguard them may be non-existent. 

Yet, the existence of different languages enriches and discrete ethnicities enhance nation-states. Heterogeneous societies are more accepting than homogeneous ones, and coexistence is what more advanced societies aim for.

It is to be hoped that people will prefer to live together rather than apart, but equal rights for all should be the name of the game. Non-partisan laws should rule. Only then can different groups feel that they belong and that they are living amongst their own people. 

---

The writer is a political analyst.

via weekly.ahram.org.eg

Tourists are returning to Egypt after years of staying away

PRI, by Salma Islam 

Visitors walk around pharaonic artefacts inside the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, Nov. 8, 2017. Credit: Amr Abdallah Dalsh/Reuters

It’s around midday in Cairo’s Khan el-Khalili bazaar and Ahmed Ashour is tending to two tourists who are trying out a range of Egyptian perfume oils that he sells in his shop. In the end they walk away without buying anything, but Ashour doesn’t look particularly concerned.

That’s because the day is still early for Ashour who doesn’t close the shop he runs with his brother until very late these days — past midnight.

Ashour has extended his opening hours to accommodate the extra customers, especially tourists, who walk through his large shop in search of rugs, local instruments, shisha pipes and various souvenirs to take home.

It wasn't always that way. “I would come here and close very early,” he said. There were “no customers, no business, anything.” But now Ashour gets about 20 customers a day, sometimes more. That might not seem like much, but it’s a big improvement compared to past years, when there were days without any sales. “It was very difficult."

Since the 2011 Arab Spring revolution, the tourism industry, so central to Egypt’s economy, has been devastated by years of political turmoil and a series of disasters, including the suspected bombing of a Russian plane over the Sinai peninsula in 2015.

But after years of hardship, it seems the fortunes of Egyptians like Ashour who rely on tourism for their livelihoods are finally turning around. Tourists appear to be coming back to Egypt’s plethora of attractions — from the Great Pyramids of Giza, to its ancient temples and tombs in the southern city of Luxor, its beaches and internationally renowned dive sites.

Between January and September, 5.9 million tourists visited Egypt, up from the 3.8 million who visited during the same period in 2016, according to figures from the Ministry of Tourism. The United Nations' World Tourism Organization, which ranked Egypt the second-fastest growing tourist destination of 2017, said Egypt is on course to welcome 8 million tourists by year's end.

That's still a far cry from what Egypt was used to before the revolution. In 2010 Egypt attracted 14.7 million visitors — the tourism sector employed more than 10 percent of the country’s workforce and it accounted for a tenth of the country’s GDP.

Egypt hasn’t fully recovered from the Russian charter jet crash two years ago that killed all 224 on board. The flight had departed from the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh and, after the attack, several European countries banned flights to the popular tourist town.

Most airlines have since resumed flight, but, much to the frustration of the Egyptian government who say they have tightened airport security procedures with the help of a British aviation security firm, British airlines are yet to do so.

There are other concerns for would-be visitors, too.

The Egyptian military has been fighting an Islamist insurgency in the northern Sinai since 2013. Since the end of last year, Egypt’s Christians have been targeted by ISIS in four deadly attacks on mainland Egypt. In October, a devastating ambush by militants outside Cairo killed at least 16 police officers and security officials. Last week, militants killed more than 305 in an attack on a mosque in the capital of North Sinai province, El-Arish.

That attack is the deadliest terror attack in Egypt's history and, though it's too early to tell what impact it will have on tourism, some in the tourist sector are concerned tourism might nose-dive again — like it did after the Russian plane crash.

Related: Egyptian branch of ISIS suspected in Friday's deadly mosque attack

But European countries traditionally deemed safe, like France, Germany and the UK, have also seen an increased number of terror attacks on their soil over the past two years. At the end of last year the US State Department even issued Christmas travel warnings for all of Europe — but none for Egypt.

Swedish tourist Emilie Eriksson, who was visiting the Khan el-Khalili bazaar earlier this month, said this may have contributed to changing in attitudes toward safety in Egypt among European tourists. “At least you’re aware that at least the attacks can happen anywhere,” she said, after admitting that she did still have some reservations about security in Egypt before she arrived.

Most recent incidients have happened away from tourist hotspots, insisted Luxor-based tour guide Ragab El-Motgalye. “Everyone can see the news, so they know,” he added.

Motgalye has seen an increasing number of tourists coming through since September, when Luxor’s peak tourist season starts. “The occupancy rate for Nile cruises between Luxor and Aswan are about 50 percent now. In previous years it had dropped to 5 to 7 percent, so this is a huge improvement,” he said.

The growing confidence in Egypt’s tourism sector is evident outside the country too.

Earlier this month, Hilton Worldwide’s vice president for North Africa, Mohab Ghali, told Reuters that Egypt’s hotel occupancy rates had risen this year by 20 to 25 percent on average. He said the American company, which manages 17 hotels in Egypt, planned to increase the number of hotel rooms it managed there by 40 percent by 2022.

And while the suspension of flights to Sharm el-Sheikh has impacted British and Russian tourism, Egypt’s tourism board has been promoting the Red Sea resorts of Hurghada and Marsa Alam as alternative destinations.

This strategy seems to be paying off. Thomas Cook a spokesperson for the British tour operator told PRI, “We’ve seen bookings to Egypt nearly double year on year as customers are attracted to the quality and value in resort. Following this demand we introduced Marsa Alam from winter 2017 as well as additional routes to Hurghada.”

The government has been providing incentives to tour operators like Thomas Cook and to airlines to bring in more tourists. It has also flown in celebrities, like Hollywood star Will Smith and soccer star Lionel Messi for photo-ops in front of the pyramids to help publicize the country.

The Egyptian government will see the tourism revival as a vindication of its economic policy. The cheaper Egyptian pound has helped bring in tourists looking for a low-cost destination.

Expectations are high in Egypt’s tourism sector and while they don’t expect tourist figures to return to the pre-2011 levels anytime soon, there is renewed optimism. “We’re expecting a double of tourists next season,” said Motgalye.

So long as last week's terror attack doesn't send tourists for the exits once more.

Salma Islam reported this story from Cairo, Egypt.

Some thought the terrorists were after Egypt's Christians. Turns out, they are after everyone

The National, by HA Hellyer 

Relatives of victims of the explosion wait outside Suez Canal University hospital. Reuters

On Friday, Egypt fell victim to the worst terrorist attack in its modern history. What happened was an act of brutality of the highest proportions by any standard. What happens next, however, depends on the lessons reaped by the region and the international community.

A few points ought to be made clear. The first is that extremist Islamists in Egypt have now shown that anyone can be their target. As BBC Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark and other security analysts pointed out on Friday, we have seen militant groups in the Sinai Peninsula target state officials, security apparatus and Coptic Christians. On Friday, however, we saw them break any perceived pattern of their standard modus operandi when they decided to target a mosque and worshippers in this way.

While attacks on government and Christian entities are almost expected by cynical observers, attacks on mosques ironically symbolise a reality that we fail to fathom often enough. That is that the terrorists don't truly distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims in their campaign to cause instability.

Indeed, for too long, regional and international observers have erroneously analysed attacks on Egypt's Coptic community. Far too many in Washington, DC and other western capitals viewed the killing of Christian Egyptians as somehow distinct within their terrorist agenda (and more significant), playing into the interfaith strife the terrorists hoped to spread.

Still, the fact that many in the region have tried to downplay that many of the victims have, in fact, been Christian also fails to take into account why they were targeted.

Yes, Christian Egyptians are attacked for being Christian, but they are also attacked for being Egyptian. As such, both points must be taken into account.

The same type of analytical mistakes were made about Friday's massacre. In a month in which the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed is celebrated more than any other time of the year, a mosque was attacked as worshippers prayed. As they fled the carnage, more worshippers were attacked. And as people rushed to the mosque to help the injured, they, too, were attacked.

The message cannot be clearer: groups such as these will target anyone who they deem to be an obstacle to their objectives.

Some will say that the mosque was targeted because it was affiliated with a Sufi order. Others will say there is a tribal element to the story since the villagers may have rejected co-operation of any kind with radical groups despite repeated threats.

All of this may be true. After all, Sufism and Sufis are rejected by extremists despite Sufism being an intrinsic part of Sunni Islam.

While all these points may be entirely relevant to understanding how and why this attack took place at the time it did, they are also a confirmation of a more fundamental issue, which is that there are no red lines for radical groups such as these.

Egypt is now in a state of mourning. In such a state, it will be difficult to think comprehensively about how to tackle a problem that requires a multi-faceted solution. It will be difficult to wisely assess how best to address all the different aspects of why Sinai is in the state it is today. It will be difficult to look at the deep socioeconomic issues that plague the peninsula in general and the importance of resolving these issues for the sake of a more stable peninsula - and a more stable Egypt. It will also be difficult to assess Egypt's security strategies and repercussions of security failures in recent years.

Still, such sobering evaluations are necessary and irreplaceable.

And yet, against the backdrop of this awful tragedy, there are two other points to take into account. The first is that radical extremists have long been suspected of trying to divide Egyptian society, looking for opportunities through wreaking havoc – which is partially why they targeted Egypt's Christian community in the first place.

If anything, the latest attack proves that terrorists targeted Muslims because they failed to evoke interfaith strife. Indeed, as history shows, they have thus far avoided targeting Muslims on such a large scale.

The second is that despite all of this, Egyptians, have, in fact, remained united against this scourge. All around the country, the Coptic Christian community sounded church bells yesterday in solidarity with their Muslim brethren.

This scourge of vile extremism will eventually fade away like the heresies of old. Egypt has suffered and overcome such acts of barbarism in the past and it will overcome them once again.

Lebanon's Hariri to visit Egypt on Monday: leader in Future Movement

Reuters

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Saad al-Hariri, who announced his resignation as Lebanese prime minister from Saudi Arabia on Nov. 4, will visit Egypt on Monday, a leader in Hariri’s Future Movement said.

Saad al-Hariri, who announced his resignation as Lebanon's Prime Minister while on a visit to Saudi Arabia, looks on after a meeting with the French President at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, November 18, 2017. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

Hariri has since Saturday been in Paris, where he met French President Emmanuel Macron, and has said he will return to Lebanon by Wednesday for its Independence Day celebrations.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun has said he will not accept Hariri’s resignation until it is delivered in person and all sides in Beirut have called for his speedy return.

The resignation sparked a political crisis in Lebanon and put it on the front line of a regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Hariri criticized Iran and its ally Hezbollah, a heavily armed grouping that is part of the Lebanese government, in his resignation statement, and said he feared assassination. Apart from a brief trip to Abu Dhabi, he remained in Saudi Arabia until he flew to France.

His stay in the kingdom led to accusations from Lebanese officials and politicians that Saudi Arabia had coerced him to resign, which he and Riyadh denied.

On Friday, Hariri tweeted that his presence there was for “consultations on the future of the situation in Lebanon and its relations with the surrounding Arab region”.

On Sunday, Arab League foreign ministers held an emergency meeting in Cairo, requested by Saudi Arabia, to discuss ways to confront Iran and Hezbollah over their role in the region. Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil did not attend.

 

Another Perspective: 'Journalist' Ayat Oraby: mainstream or extreme?

Baffled that she is still allowed to speak though all what she saying is definitely hate speech. 

The American Spectator, Samantha Rose Mandeles. Here is a link to the original story. 

The unfortunate side of a voice for Arab women.

On October 20, 54 Egyptian policemen were killed in a firefight with “militants” in the desert, 80 miles from Cairo. Local media reported the police were attacked by the Hasm Movement, a terrorist organization that the Egyptian government claims is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Governments around the world offered statements of sympathy to the Egyptian government over one of deadliest attacks against Egyptian security forces in many years. The U.S. State Department announcedthat it “condemns the terrorist attack,” “[offers] profound condolences,” and “stands with Egypt at this difficult time, as we continue to work together to fight the scourge of terrorism.”

But among some Islamist activists in America, there was jubilation. In a Facebook post, written on October 20, New York-based journalist Ayat Oraby applauded the killings, accusing the deceased soldiers and police of insolence and cowardice. In another post about one of the murdered soldiers, Oraby expressed “Joy at the death of that criminal!”

Oraby accused the deceased soldiers of having previously been paid by Egyptian General (and now President) Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to murder unarmed Muslims during the infamous Rabaa massacre in 2013, during which supporters of the deposed Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohamed Morsi, clashed with Egyptian police and military.

Oraby is a prominent figure. She serves as the editor-in-chief of Noon Al-Niswa, the “first Arab American Women’s magazine.” In 2013, Noon Al-Niswa held an event to celebrate its first printed issue after being an exclusively online publication. According to another Arabic-language online publication, the event was attended by self-styled “human rights activist” Linda Sarsour, former Deputy Secretary of Energy Randa Fahmy Hudome and New Jersey state senator Barbara Buono.

In her capacity as an editor, Oraby has won the Shirley Chisholm Award in journalism (awarded by New Jersey Assemblywoman Sheila Oliver), and been invited to speak on college campuses all over North America, including at Concordia University, University of Toronto, and Montclair State University. At her Montclair State talk, Oraby was billed as an “Activist, Journalist, Broadcaster & Advocate for Arab women.”

What sort of activism does Oraby practice? In a 2016 Arabic-language video on her Facebook account denouncing Egypt’s Coptic Christian population, she declared that “the Crescent must always be on top of the Cross” and urged her audience to “Boycott the Christians economically.”

Oraby’s Facebook posts, meanwhile, include virulent anti-Semitism. She claims that Israel has taken overthe Middle East, and that Egypt’s former president Gamal Abdel Nasser was “a Jew” and an “American Intelligence agent.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has a long history of commenting on hate speech issues. But when we asked CAIR’s national office and its New York branch to comment on Oraby’s extremism, they refused.

CAIR was founded and remains run by Muslim Brotherhood members. Its refusal to condemn this anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pro-terror rhetoric is explained by Oraby’s own history of involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood. Oraby’s Twitter profile lists her as a member of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council (ERC), a Turkey-based organization that supports Egypt’s ousted Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi. Although Oraby claims she is “not with Muslim Brotherhood,” Oraby’s membership in the ERC indicates otherwise.  When ERC first formed, at least one Egyptian English-language paper announced, “MB supporters launch revolutionary council.” Another Arabic-language paper describesOraby as an “active member of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Furthermore, Oraby has lobbied Congress alongside MB activists who endorse the boycott of Copts, later showing up in a photo with them displaying the four-fingered Muslim Brotherhood gesture. Oraby has praised Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb as an “intellectual” and a “martyr.” And, both of her Facebook profiles feature pictures of Muhammad Morsi as the cover photo. She even captioned her personal page’s photo of Morsi with the declaration, “We still consider you to be the legitimate president of Egypt.”

Ayat Oraby is no journalist or activist. She is an Islamist propagandist and an apologist for terror. She should be stripped of her Shirley Chisholm Award, disinvited from speaking on university campuses, and deprived of the credibility of senators and stateswomen. We contacted Assemblywoman Oliver, who runs the Shirley Chisolm Award, but received no response. It is time for political leaders to condemn Oraby’s extremism, and revoke her awards.  

2011 YEAR of the DUPE: One Year into the Engineered “Arab Spring,” One Step Closer to Global Hegemony

If only 1 percent of the information here is true, then, yes, we have been duped big time. 

Global Research, by Tony Cartalucci

 

dupe (dp, dyp)

n.
1. An easily deceived person.
2. A person who functions as the tool of another person or power.

tr.v. duped, dup·ing, dupes To deceive (an unwary person).

December 24, 2011 – In January of 2011, we were told that “spontaneous,” “indigenous” uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East in what was hailed as the “Arab Spring.” It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but “spontaneous,” or “indigenous.” In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” it was stated:

“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.”

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

“The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. ”

It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous foundations, organizations, and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. As we will see, preparations for the “Arab Spring” and the global campaign that is now encroaching on both Russia and China, as predicted in February 2011’s “The Middle East & then the World,” began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first “fist” was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

The Timeline – 2008-2010 Preparing the Battlefield

December 3-5, 2008: Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM’s various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared C0hen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO “Otpor” who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a “well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.” After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.

Photo: Serbia’s “Otpor,” a model for future US-backed color revolutions.
….

Foreign Policy Magazine would report in their article, “Revoluton U,” that CANVAS assisted protesters in the “Rose Revolution” of Georgia, the “Orange Revolution” of the Ukraine, and is currently working with networks from Belarus, Myanmar (Burma), all across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as with activists in North Korea, and 50 other countries.

2009: In a US State Department funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Libery (RFE/RL) article titled, “Exporting Nonviolent Revolution, From Eastern Europe to The Middle East,” it was stated, “Popovic then exported his nonviolent methods, helping train the activists who spearheaded Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003 and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004. And now, Popovic is deploying his new organization, called Canvas, even farther afield — assisting the pro-democracy activists who recently brought down despotic regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.”

Activists from Iran, Belarus, and North Korea were also confirmed by RFE/RL as having received training from CANVAS. The RFE/RL article places the activists’ meeting with CANVAS sometime during 2009.

February 2010: The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while awaiting for ElBaradei’s arrival at Cairo’s airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his “National Front for Change” and began preparing for the coming “Arab Spring.”

Clearly then, unrest was long planned, with activists from Tunisia and Egypt on record receiving training and support from abroad, so that they could return to their home nations and sow unrest in a region-wide coordinated campaign.

An April 2011 AFP report would confirm this, when US State Department’s Michael Posner stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” That ripple effect of course, is the “Arab Spring.”

The Timeline – 2011 Year of the Dupe

January 16, 2011: Al Arabiya News reported in their article, “Tunisian exiled reformist to head back home,” that Moncef Marzouki was returning to Tunisia (from Paris) amidst the chaos sown by US State Department trained, supported, and equipped mobs who were “triggered” by the convenient release of US State Department cables via Wikileaks. Quite clearly, considering the training Tunisian opposition groups received long before the cables were released, the Wikileaks cables were merely used as a planned rhetorical justification for long ago premeditated foreign-funded sedition. Since then, Wikileaks has been employed in an identical manner everywhere from Egypt to Libya, and even as far flung as Thailand.

Moncef Marzouki, it would turn out, was founder and head of the Arab Commission for Human Rights, a collaborating institution with the US NED World Movement for Democracy (WMD) including for a “Conference on Human Rights Activists in Exile” and a participant in the WMD “third assembly” alongside Marzouki’s Tunisian League for Human Rights, sponsored by NED, Soros’ Open Society, and USAID.

A “call for solidarity” by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) mentions by name each and every group constituting the Tunisian opposition during the “uprising” in January 2011 as “FIDH member organisations.” These include Marzouki’s “Tunisian League for Human Rights,” the “Tunisian Association of Democratic Women,” and the “National Council for Liberties in Tunisia,” or CNLT. FIDH, acting as an international nexus for various foreign-funded organizations carrying out sedition worldwide under the guise of “human rights,” is itself fully funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy, Soros’ Open Society, and many others with clearly compromised affiliations.

January 28, 2011: After a warning by journalist/activist Dr. Webster Tarply of World Crisis Radio, the alternative media began looking closer at the unrest in Egypt which began shortly after Tunisia’s growing crisis. In “All is not what it seems in Egyptian Clashes,” it was noted that protest leader Mohammed ElBaradei was in fact a devoted agent of the West, with a long standing membershipwithin the Wall Street/London funded International Crisis Group (ICG) along side “senior Israeli officials” including the current Israeli President Shimon Peres, the current Governor of the Bank of Israel, Stanley Fischer, and former Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami. The ICG also includes senior American bankers and geopolitical manipulators including George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Armitage, Samuel Berger, and Wesley Clark.

Photo: ElBaradei’s ties to the West go much deeper than merely play-acting within the ineffectual, genocide-enabling UN. He is also a member of the corporate-financier funded International Crisis Group.
….

Ironically, Western media outlets insisted ElBaradei was both anti-American and strongly anti-Israeli in a rouse best described a year earlier in March 2010 in the Council On Foreign Relations’ paper, Foreign Affairs’ article “Is ElBaradei Egypt’s Hero?”:

“Further, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States has become a critical and negative factor in Egyptian politics. The opposition has used these ties to delegitimize the regime, while the government has engaged in its own displays of anti-Americanism to insulate itself from such charges. If ElBaradei actually has a reasonable chance of fostering political reform in Egypt, then U.S. policymakers would best serve his cause by not acting strongly. Somewhat paradoxically, ElBaradei’s chilly relationship with the United States as IAEA chief only advances U.S. interests now. ”

The most recent manifestation of this came when Israel farcically called ElBaradei an “Iranian agent.” This latest performance further illustrates the immense level of duplicity with which world events are being manipulated.

February 17, 2011: The London-based National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) calls for a Libyan “Day of Rage” to match the US-destabilization rhetoric used in Tunisia and Egypt. The NFSL has been backed by the CIA-MI6 since the 80’s and had made multiple attempts to overthrow Qaddafi’s government with both terrorist attacks and armed insurrection.

Photo: Please note the “EnoughGaddafi.com” signs. EnoughGaddafi.com’s webmaster is listed on the US State Department’s Movements.org as the “Twitter” to follow.
….

February 18, 2011: In the wake of Hosni Mubarak’s ousting, it was revealed that the Open Society Institute supported  the NGOs involved in the drafting Egypt’s new constitution. These “civil society” groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by the Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED funded Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group was turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of US supported NGOs which were working out and implementing the details on the ground.

 

 

Wahat attackers inspired by al-Qaida: sole survivor

Egypt Independent, by Taha Sakr

        Shiekh Hatem group aimed to spread Islamic law: sole-surviving militant

In an interview broadcasted on Thursday evening on privately-run TV channel Al-Hayah, the sole militant who survived the Egyptian army’s counter-insurgency operation against the suspected perpetrators of the October 20 al-Wahat al-Bahariya attack identified himself as the Libyan national Abdel Rahman El-Mosmari, born in 1992 in the Libyan city of Derna.

He explained that his task with the Wahat attackers was to provide logistic support to the group, such as food and clothes. He added that the group’s leader was a former Egyptian army officer named Emad El-Din who was known in the group as Sheikh Hatem.

Regarding his first meeting with the leader, El-Mosmari said that Sheikh Hatem had been part of what is known as the Mujahideen Shura Council in Derna, an alliance of Islamist groups linked to al-Qaeda, established in December 2014.

“Sheikh Hatem decided to leave the Mujahideen Shura Council in Derna and establish a new militant group aiming to apply Islamic Sharia law in Muslim countries, and he decided to start with Egypt,” El-Mosmari explained.

In early 2015, El-Mosmari met Sheikh Hatem in Derna where he was working as a builder of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). There he found out that Sheikh Hatem had left IS after the July 2014 Farafra attack that killed 30 army personnel and was claimed by the Sinai-based Ansar Bait al-Maqdis group, which pledged allegiance to IS in November that year.

El-Mosmari explained that Sheikh Hatem established his own group, which adhered to al-Qaeda ideology, but had no official links to al-Qaeda’s central leadership, and consisted of 17 people.

On the group’s sources of logistic support when it moved its operations from Libya to Egypt, El-Mosmari said that it was depending on donations and spoils taken through confrontations with local tribes guarding the Egyptian-Libyan border.

Regarding the details of the Sheikh Hatem group’s entry into Egypt, the militant stated that it took nearly one month for them to enter the country due to technical problems with the vehicles they were travelling in.

“When we entered Egypt, we managed to penetrate desert areas close to Upper Egypt’s governorates such as Qena, Sohag and Assiut. However, we did not stay there for a long period and moved to the area of al-Wahat al-Bahariya in January 2017 till the occurrence of clashes with police on October 20,” he noted.

El-Mosmari also said that the Sheikh Hatem group was receiving logistic support from another anonymous militant group, adding that during their time in al-Wahat al-Bahariya, a number of the militants who were part of the IS cell that carried out the Minya bus attack last May came to them and declared their wish to join the Sheikh Hatem group.

During the time between the 20 October Wahat clashes and the Egyptian army’s counter-insurgency operation against the Sheikh Hatem group, El-Mosmari said that they spent 13 days moving between different parts of the desert surrounding the Wahat area until the Air Force targeted them.

via www.egyptindependent.com

At par with loving Egypt

Some of those who were against President El Sisi from day one are taking their antagonism a step further: towards Egypt.

After June 30th, these objectors came out and explicitly said that they were against how ex-President Morsi was ousted, how Rabaa was dispersed, and how an army man returned to the presidency.

That was then, and today they continue the assault. They criticize every move, achievement, and effort. They exaggerate matters to make them seem worse on purpose, they neglect mentioning any successes, again on purpose, and they welcome all ill news about Egypt for one sole reason: that it would reflect badly on President El-Sisi. This is the shocking and disturbing part.

Nothing seems to please them or make them rejoice. The Suez Canal expansion is a mediocre passage; the floatation of the pound brought nothing but misery; the World Youth Forum is a waste of money; those men who died in the El Wahat attack were not trained, equipped, or supervised; and innocent youths fill the prisons because they spoke their opinion.

They also resort to ridicule and insults; they make fun of those whom most Egyptians hold dear and look up to, creating animosity and a split amongst Egyptians. You see, other Egyptians don’t let such matters pass, but immediately respond, and a war of words ensues.

I won’t argue with them or try to rebuttal their notions. This is not my aim today.

Though they are definitely prejudiced in their views, it is their prerogative to criticize the work of a leader, a government, and authorities in general. No one denies someone’s right to speak, which is proven by the on-end tweets and Facebook comments surfacing everyday on social media.

However, sometimes, after I cringe, I worry about these objecting folks. Are they harming themselves in this defiant process? Even I am still under the impression that authorities will go after them if they speak against the regime, thinking they will pay the penalty of being too offensive with their words.

They don’t pay any penalty though. Indeed, authorities don’t go after these people. They are alive and kicking, and neither detained nor charged while they keep spewing ongoing venom.

But more importantly, their spite and hatred of the current regime has blinded them to the extent that misfortunes elate them. When Guilio Regeni was murdered, out came one to advise foreigners not to come to Egypt, “Coz this country is so bloody thirsty it’s feeding on people’s lives.” One gloated after the El Wahat ambush. “Endure Sisi; there’s more to come.”

To me, this is not against President El Sisi per se anymore; this is against Egypt.

I find this unsettling. You would think that these objectors are against President El Sisi because they love Egypt, but it isn’t so. They are contradicting themselves and come across as vicious haters of nothing more or less than Egypt itself.

All this has led to an intriguing revelation on my part. Those who believe in the effort made by the current regime love Egypt, and those against the current regime don’t care about Egypt.

Flip the coin and see the other side. Those who love Egypt see improvements and feel blessed. They demonstrate their devotion by focusing on what Egypt offers, by defending it unabashed, and by cherishing its hard workers and great achievers. It’s a genuine love story.

They cheer the Hepatitis C eradication success rate. They believe that the World Youth Forum depicted Egypt in the best way possible with thousands of youths visiting Sharm el Sheikh.

They highly regard International Egyptian athletes whether they are swimmers, Judo wrestlers, or football or squash players. They retweet stories of how well some Egyptian women have done for themselves abroad: Nemat Talaat Shafik, who runs the London School of Business, and Doreen Assaad, the first Egyptian mayor in Brossard, Quebec, Canada.

They find good in the Gouna Festival, the wonderful musical talents that were presented, and the impeccable organizational skills of all those involved.

They are ecstatic that Egypt will play at the FIFA 2018 World Cup in Russia; and they hurt profoundly whenever an Egyptian falls in Sinai or elsewhere.

They post photos of spectacular spots for Egyptians and tourists alike to visit.

And most of all, they defend Egypt rather than retweet western media’s repugnant surveys and analyses.

I recommend the former group be objective if they want others to understand their cause and accept it.

And despite the ebbs and flows that Egypt faces, objectors must remain loyal Egyptians. Their hate of a leader should never abate their love for Egypt.

Rights groups file case over French spy tech sales to Egypt

Truly, that's a first. Sure, let's not detect spies. Let's leave it an open field for those who want to ruin it. 

Financial Post

CAIRO — Egyptian and international rights groups have filed a criminal complaint with Paris prosecutors over the sale of French surveillance technology to Egypt.

The filing, announced late Thursday by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, relates to the potential role that the technology could play in widespread oppression in Egypt.

The French company, Nexa Technologies, was formerly called Amesys.

This request for a criminal investigation involves complicity to torture and carry out enforced disappearances. It supplements an investigation already underway on the sale of surveillance technology to Libya when it was run by longtime dictator Moammer Gadhafi before his 2011 overthrow and killing.

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has overseen a $10 billion military buildup in recent years, including French-made Rafale fighter jets and helicopter carriers.

via business.financialpost.com