Tag: United States

Categories
Middle East Published Articles Relevant Magazine

Who Should Christians Support in Egypt?

Obama Egypt

From my recent article in Relevant Magazine:

When push comes to shove, as it has in Egypt, who should American Christians support? The recent military move to oust an elected president was almost universally backed by Egyptian Coptic Christians, which make up roughly ten percent of the population. But the move, called by many a military coup, also violates our profound democratic sensibilities. With forty-two dead today at the hands of the army – which claims it was attacked first by armed terrorists – basic issues of humanity are also in play.

‘Our citizenship is in heaven,’ writes the apostle Paul, seemingly elevating our Christian brotherhood above national ties or ideological convictions. But, he writes elsewhere, ‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.’

President Muhammad Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, was removed from office on July 3 following massive protests against his rule. The proximity to America’s Independence Day only heightens the tension of this question, demanding an introspection we are often loathe to consider. Before we sit in judgment on Egypt, was our own revolution contrary to God’s teaching?

But does not the Bible also demand a commitment to justice and solidarity with the rights of the oppressed? Certainly, and Egyptian Christians would be quick to assert the necessity of the putsch, not just for their own cause, but for millions of Egyptian Muslims beside.

The article then summarizes the situation in Egypt, and concludes:

Perhaps the most important question is this: No matter their fears, would aggrieved non-Islamists have done better to work within the system, no matter how flawed?

This last question is of political strategy, and Egypt’s Christians have clearly answered ‘no’. What now of American Christians?

It is important to note that American democracy – though also flawed for much of our history – has peacefully rotated power for over two centuries. Egypt is still trying to find its feet after a revolution. The American constitution, after all, followed thirteen years after independence.

Egypt currently is a political mess; within chaos, minorities are vulnerable. Christians have been used by all sides as a talking point. Liberals highlight their difficulties, the Muslim Brotherhood pays lip service to their equality, Islamist allies scapegoat them in conspiracies, and the old regime propaganda – ever present – erects the extremist boogeyman to maintain order.

Within this picture, American Christians have little to identify with. Our two options mirror our dual identity: As Americans, esteem the democracy; as Christians, condemn the persecution. Unfortunately, neither option correctly describes Egypt. Either one is a false choice.

What then, is the Biblical choice? Consider these words of Paul, perhaps to balance his advice given above: ‘But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”’

The American Christian responsibility is not to take sides, nor to assert abstract principles. It is to find out what is happening, and support the light.

Whether through influence in Washington, or through influence in prayer, American Christian hope must be that Egypt will rise from the dead.

Does this latest episode help or hinder? Make Egypt visible, and then judge accordingly.

Please click here to read the whole article at Relevant Magazine.

Categories
Excerpts

A Brotherhood Upbringing, Christian Compared

From EgyptSource, a personal testimony of growing up in the Muslim Brotherhood:

The Guidance and Light School, in which I spent my third year of preparatory school after our return from Kuwait, was a Brotherhood school which my father helped establish. Since the 1980s, schooling and educational services had become a key aspect of Brotherhood activities and a means of proselytizing. We followed the same curriculum as the public schools, except that we took two additional courses twice per week; one was entitled ‘The Holy Quran’ and the other was a mixture of Islamic stories and proverbs. The only other change was that Music class was replaced with another class titled ‘Hymns.’

Except for drums and tambourines, musical instruments were banned and discouraged. Flyers and posters hung on the school’s walls warning about the dangers of listening to stringed instruments. The hymns which we were forced to memorize consisted of the most widely known nationalist melodies and songs except any mentions of ‘Egypt’ were replaced with ‘Islam.’ The school was of course populated with the children of local Muslim Brotherhood leaders in addition to other Muslim students of diverse backgrounds.

Only now do I realize that until the age of fourteen, I had never once met a Christian. I was in an exclusive world with its own moral values, worldviews, and perspectives on what it meant to be a good person.

There are many similarities to traditional Christian upbringing in the United States. I never found it to be as insular as described here, but there are parallels. It is important to remember that there is a good and proper place for the inculcation of values, which should happen early before being balanced by a broad and diverse education. Of course, it matters what values are being inculcated.

Here is an example of what the author learned, and why he finally broke from the group:

A Brother brought several copies of the newspaper Elshaab and placed them beside him. Like any other meeting, that day’s session began with one Brother reciting from the Holy Quran, followed by a second interpreting a hadith, and a third explaining an aspect of Islamic jurisprudence. Then the Brother opened the newspaper and read it aloud to the group.

He read that the Egyptian Ministry of Culture had published a novel by the Syrian writer Haidar Haidar. Aside from sexual references, the novel contained heretical insults directed at God and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In response, preparations for public rallies were made which would protest the publication of the novel and demand it be burned.

Word for word, this is what the Brother demanded, and I instantly objected. At that time I was the group’s writer, and I refused to write any chants which called for the burning of this book or any other book for that matter.

To this day, I do not know what compelled me to take this firm stance.

I showed one of them some excerpts from Haidar Haidar’s novel which were published in Elshaab. From what I read, I found his writings ridiculous, but I insisted that this in no way justified it being burned. I entered into a long discussion with the Brothers which developed into shouting. The argument between me and the group’s leader grew increasingly sharp, and in an angry outburst he forbade me from taking such a stance. The argument grew even more hostile, and he told me, “Either give up these books you read and your stance on them, or do not meet with us!”

I left the room, and never went back.

I remember growing up in a culture where the ‘secular humanists’ were out to destroy religion, where popular music was a tool of the devil, and I felt like a rebel because I did a report on Jean-Paul Sarte in high school.

Looking back, I am very thankful for my upbringing, which was full of love and nurture. I went to youth group, memorized Bible verses, attended Christian summer camps, and idealized Ronald Reagan. I recognize in my adult worldview many shades of agreement with the pronouncements of danger I received growing up. I can only imagine many of the Muslim Brothers have similar experiences and warm memories. I’m sure this author does.

There are many points to compare and contrast, and I hope to do so later on in a full essay. But I’m glad to read this very human picture of what it is like to grow up in the Brotherhood. Please do read the whole article.

Related Posts:

Categories
Aslan Media Middle East Published Articles

Voting Behind Barbed Wire

It is usually not an easy process to vote overseas. And then, all of a sudden, I had.

Weeks ago we printed out our internet registration form, necessary to secure a ballot sent from America. We also heard we could drop this off at the US Embassy in downtown Cairo, but delays – including a few days of rioting you may have heard of – kept us away.

But even then the process was complicated. Even after we received the ballot and sent it back, it was still necessary to physically mail an official registration form, even if it arrived late.

It has been a while since I voted in America, but basically all I recall is signing my name and pulling a lever. There is much I took for granted.

This includes, apparently, not having to walk through a war zone.

I exaggerate. Everything downtown is calm and has been for weeks. But the earlier riots only ended when the army intervened to impose its staple post-revolution solution: Build a wall. The main street of access to the embassy from Tahrir Square is now barricaded completely, forcing a five minute walk around the corner.

Didn’t I just lament taking things for granted? Now I complain about an extra five minute walk? The sign on the wall shows those who have a right of grievance. The shop owners outside the embassy and all along the now barricaded road are pleading with the government to take it down.

Once around the corner, however, the second security step is visible. During the original demonstration against the film protestors scaled the embassy walls and took down the US flag, replacing it with a black flag of Islam. The rest of the evening they stood atop the wall, holding placards but doing nothing in particular.

Now, barbed wire lines the embassy wall in its entirety.

Getting in was nearly as simple a process as usual. There was a line outside, ID, phone, and camera to leave at the desk, a metal detector to pass through, and then… that’s when things were different.

Normally the American Services Center of the embassy is calm and orderly, waiting in turn for your number to be called. The embassy advertized two days, however, to assist the absentee voting process, which was held outside regular visiting hours.

The line outside was due to the great crowd, let in by smaller groups to ease the congestion. There were few instructions given on what to do upon arrival. Forms were everywhere – mostly organized – but only one very helpful and very patient embassy employee inside. I had figured I only needed to drop off my ballot request form, so I was a bit confused.

And then she handed me my ballot.

I wasn’t quite prepared to vote on the spot. The main problem is that my attention is given almost entirely to Egyptian politics. Outside the headlines, I haven’t followed the US race much at all.

Basically, I hadn’t done my homework, nor had I reflected sufficiently. The only solution was to pray quickly, swallow hard, and write down a name.

With that, it was over. My envelope was sealed and placed in embassy mail. I don’t even have a hard copy registration letter for later, as they mailed that too.

Really, it was wonderful facilitation by the embassy, and a good reminder of the blessings of our system. It was a responsibility to cast a vote, but it was also a privilege.

Even behind barbed wire.

Related Posts:

Categories
Personal

My First Deodorant Purchase in Years

It’s not as bad as it sounds, but for this first time in I don’t know how many years I asked my wife to buy me some deodorant.

This does not represent a confession of guilt for failing to fit in. My Egyptian friend tells me most men on the street do not use deodorant; after many rides on the crowded summer Metro I can attest there may be validity to his words. Deodorant seems to be available only in pharmacies, and imported brands predominate, at a cost of three or four American dollars. It is simply beyond the price range for many Egyptians, over 40% of whom live below the poverty line. Besides, if everyone smells, your personal odor is a non-issue. In many ways, it seems a better, less self-conscious way to live.

But my sense of belonging does not stretch so far as to offend a neighbor’s nose. Rather, it is a shared sense of frugality.

The last time we enjoyed an extended stay in America we made liberal use of the Sunday coupons, clipping every one on basic personal hygiene. If timed well with regular sales and double or triple value coupon weeks, it is a relatively simple matter to obtain deodorant, toothpaste, and other items at no cost or a few pennies.

The last of my accumulated stash ran out yesterday.

We hope to spend some time in America this upcoming summer. Coupon donations are gladly accepted. Feel free to keep your deodorant.

Related Posts:

Categories
Personal

Building a Nation: America, Israel, and the Sins of History

Modern Israel suffers from the fact it started too late.

Israel, the Zionist project, was created as homeland for the Jewish people. Otherwise known as Israeli nationalism, it reflects the primary concept upon which modern international relations are built. Mostly homogenous populations in a given territory live within agreed upon borders.

There are messy points on the world map, but for the most part, the nation-state system has worked very well.

The messiest point, unfortunately, is Israel.

The problem with the nation-state system is that it was designed and enforced by the established powers of the world. These nations moved through a long evolution of subduing native populations, often by force. They forged borders through wars against the ‘other’, and instilled a master narrative of identity grounded in the togetherness of ‘us’.

Africa was outside this system, as its borders were drawn by colonial powers who exploited tribal identities. Once independent, these new nations rushed headlong into the effort to create a broader sense of nationalism. In some cases it worked, in others, it still does not even today.

More important with Israel, however, is the case of the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans were an Islamic empire ruled by Turkish blood. They presided over a vast swath of land; to preserve their dominance they allowed local communities a great degree of self-rule. These were not on the whole territorially-defined communities, however, they were ethnic groups living here and there, often inter-mixed with the local population of whatever area they dwelled in. It was, especially in the cities, a diverse and cosmopolitan system. It was an empire, and it attracted businessmen and craftsmen from around the world.

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire ushered in the already developing but not yet codified nation-state system. Following World War I the various ethnic communities lost their system of sponsorship, as newly freed lands adopted the ways of nationalism, stressing homogenous population.

The modern state of Turkey was attacked by Greece; having failed, Greeks in Turkey repatriated, and Turks in Greece did the same. This is also the era of the Armenian massacres; minority populations around the region suddenly found themselves without a home.

The unsettledness continued in the interwar period, and began afresh when regional states acquired greater degrees of independence following World War II. Nasser’s nationalism – well suited for displacing the last vestiges of British imperialism – also resulted in the exodus of Egypt’s Greeks and Jews. Egypt became for the Egyptians (Copts included) just as France was for the French and Germany for the Germans.

Egypt became like the nations of the world.

Israel, however, only began its national project at this time.

With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire emigration of Jews to Palestine increased steadily, as Zionism became a political concept. Aided by the horrors of the Holocaust, the world acceded to the concept of a Jewish homeland. Between the two world wars the tension of Jewish immigration was mitigated somewhat by colonial control. After WWII, however, the British wiped their hands of the problem and gave it to the United Nations.

The UN sought a partition plan, but amid Arab objections sanctioned Israel as a nation in 1948. It was only then that Israel could begin the process of entering the world system – crafting a mostly homogenous state in a given territory with agreed upon borders.

Only the territory was not homogenous – Arabs outnumbered Jews in the land as a whole. And today, post-1967, the territory has no agreed upon borders.

Though the nation-state system has been largely successful, this is why Israel is one of its messiest challenges.

The United States of America, meanwhile, is one of its top successes. Borders are well defined. There is little colonial baggage. Not only is the population mostly homogenous, but minorities within have adopted the overarching national narrative and identity. All are Americans, equal in rights and duties.

Except it is not true; the narrative blinds many to the historical reality of how America became a nation-state.

It is not true because Indians, Native Americans, can live within special jurisdictions scattered throughout the fifty states. This provision is part of assuaging the national guilt which systematically appropriated their lands for a rapidly growing native and immigrant population. Many Americans realize this, of course, but it is too late to change anything, and it is best not talked about much. Why bring up the sins of the past?

But with Israel, these are the sins of the present.

Americans might be able to ask themselves what they would have done differently if they lived in the days of Manifest Destiny and ‘Westward Ho!’ The moral compass presently lauded might have made a difference in securing justice for Native American peoples, if history could be revisited.

Israel is not America, of course. Americans have no right to lecture, let alone interfere, in Israeli-Palestinian issues.

Yet given the great groundswell of American support for Israel, especially among those who consider themselves moral, it is fair to ask if a review is in order.

Again, Israel suffers only from timing.

The United States and other great countries in the nation-state system were not hampered by thorny issues of human rights and UN resolutions. These countries formed their states far from the eye of a critical press and universal declarations. Today, reformed, they issue their moral pronouncements on the conduct of others.

Hypocrisy aside, Israel’s conduct is worthy of question. Israel proper, largely, can lay claim to having built its nation. Arabs will cry foul over the historical process of native displacement, but today Israel is a mostly homogenous population in a given territory. As such, it is a member in good standing of the international community.

Except for its borders.

In contravention to the rules of the international community, Israel maintains its firm control of the occupied territories of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. In contravention to the rules of the international community, Israel maintains its policy of transferring settlers into these territories and appropriating land.

Both Jews and Palestinians, as people, should have the right to a secure life and self-governance.

At issue is that the system of the nation-state has now outlawed the means of creating a nation. Israel is only imitating those who have gone before; perhaps Palestinians would do similarly if given the chance. Certainly some Arabs wish for the Jews to all go back to where they came from.

But for those watching of moral compass, these are the days of Manifest Destiny and ‘Westward Ho!’ If we can imagine what we would have done differently then, we must consider what we will do differently now.

Otherwise, history will repeat itself. Native Americans and Palestinians will weep together.

Note: This essay was written following the viewing of the documentary ‘With God on our Side’. Click here to watch a three minute clip from the film exposing the Separation Barrier. It was built ostensibly to prevent terrorism, and perhaps it did. Yet it was built not on the border, but on occupied territory, nudging the still-undefined boundaries of Israel further to the east. Produced mostly for Christians, the film is highly recommended.

Related Posts:

Categories
Atlantic Council Middle East Published Articles

Misunderstanding Plagues the US Embassy Protest over anti-Muhammad Film: A First-Hand Account

As clashes continue in the areas surrounding the US Embassy, I have had opportunity to publish my account and analysis from the original incident on EgyptSource. Please click here for the article in full, and excerpts follow below:

The sad spectacle on display at the US Embassy in Cairo on September 11 shows nearly everyone in a poor light. Sadder still is that most parties involved acted from a sense of virtue, but misunderstanding and prejudice corroded the good intentions.

I next proceed to describe some of the background events as well as the misunderstandings on the part of the US Embassy and US media. Next follows perhaps the most crucial observation I gained:

The stranger inference is that the embassy was not surrounded from the beginning. The protest was announced in advance, and yet Egyptian riot police were present throughout the demonstration. Yet it was the army, absent the entire time, which secured the premises.

The US Embassy complex is surrounded by a high wall lining almost entirely the adjacent street. The entrance is located in the center of the wall. Black clad police with helmets and shields lined the wall to the right of the entrance, but yielded the left side to protesters. Essam, an older Salafi protester, told me the police deferred to the ‘Islamists’ to keep the youth under control.

Next follows viewpoints expressed by some of the participants, including these:

Consistently the crowd shouted, ‘With our lives and blood we will redeem you, oh Islam.’ Muhammad, another son of the Blind Sheikh, explained, “For any offense against Islam, the Muslim has the right to defend himself against the one who says it, and this slogan displays his love of his religion.

“Everything has its time and place. It makes no sense to issue simple good preaching during jihad. If someone is attacking you, you resist and fight back, you do not just say a good word.”

Another participant in the protests, Mustafa, who had returned to Egypt after living fifteen years in Brooklyn, commented further. “Those Copts making this film should be killed.”

The sad fact is that so few involved in this episode, whether gathered at surrounding the embassy or abroad, exhibit a will to understand and appreciate the other. For his part, Muhammad Abdel Rahman acknowledged the legitimacy of debate. “A Copt in Egypt may stand publically and state he does not believe in Muhammad. But there is a difference between discussion and insult.”

Yet where is the line to be drawn? What Muhammad might allow Mustafa might murder. Both act from the virtue of principle, yet each is open to the condemnation of fellow Muslims. Such difference in interpretation is witnessed in all actors.

The transition to conclusion involves weighing each actor on the basis of their motivation from virtue, only to be spoiled by misunderstanding. Of course, the virtue of each may be completely false, which is also considered. I end looking ahead to tomorrow, a day seeming increasingly ominous:

The test will come on Friday, when Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, have called for more demonstrations against the film. Meanwhile, their political arm the Freedom and Justice Party, described the film as “a failed attempt to stir strife between Muslims and Copts.”

These rallies will only cement the ill image many Arabs and Westerners have of one another. The former see the latter as irreligious libertines, while Muslims get labeled as oversensitive fanatics. It is a sad exchange, overcome only through awareness, acceptance, understanding, and respect. Will wiser heads prevail? Humankind is capable of great virtue, but it is easily marred.

Perhaps nothing of significance will take place, but the fear is that there is significant political capital to play with. Demonizing America has long been a feature of Egyptian domestic policy, even while official relations are maintained, even strengthened. President Morsy and the Muslim Brotherhood again face the choice to imitate Mubarak, or change the political culture of Egypt.

But if they change, in what direction? Better, or worse?

Please click here for the full text.

Related Posts:

Categories
Lapido Media Middle East Published Articles

Copts Split over Boycott of Clinton over Support for ‘Islamo-Fascism’ in Middle East

This article was originally published at Lapido Media on August 1, 2012.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared religious freedom in Egypt to be ‘quite tenuous’ following the releaseof the 2011 International Religious Freedom Report. Despite chronicling several instances of sectarian violence against Coptic Christians, their community finds itself increasingly divided over its longstanding support for America.

At issue is Clinton’s alleged support for the nation’s first Islamist president, Mohamed Morsy.

The Orthodox Church and Coptic politicians boycotted a recent meeting with Clinton as she visited the fledgling democracy. Some Copts, meanwhile, demonstrated at the US Embassy against her visit.

Bishoy Tamry

‘We believe there is an alliance between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports fascism in the Middle East,’ said Bishoy Tamry, a leader in the primarily Coptic Maspero Youth Union, formed following post-revolution attacks on Cairo churches.

‘The US thinks the Brotherhood will protect their interests in the region but it will be over our bodies as minorities.’

President Morsy won a highly contested election rife with rumors of fraud and behind the scenes negotiation between the Brotherhood, Egypt’s military council, and the United States.

‘We knew the next president must have US support,’ said Tamry, ‘because the military council rules Egypt and the US pays the military council.’

Egypt receives $1.3 billion annually in US military aid, compared with $250 million in economic assistance.

Yet, according to Youssef Sidhom, editor-in-chief of the Coptic newspaper Watani, Copts have been disproportionately affected by these rumours.

‘Copts fell victim to the conspiracy theory that said Morsy did not win and Shafik [his opponent] was in the lead. I found no compelling evidence of this conspiracy.’

Nevertheless, Copts find reason to believe the US is taking sides in an Egyptian political question. Muslim Brotherhood deputy leader Khairat al-Shater stated his group’s priority is a ‘strategic partnership’ with the United States.

Clinton, meanwhile, urged President Morsy to assert the ‘full authority’ of his office. Egypt is currently undergoing a struggle between the Brotherhood and the military council over the political transition to democracy.

Bishop Thomas

Bishop Thomas of the Coptic Orthodox Church told Lapido Media, ‘We did not meet with Clinton because of the unclear relationship with the Brotherhood and the support they have given it.

‘Things are not settled in Egypt,’ he said. ‘Why was she in such a hurry to come?

‘The current administration does not understand the agenda of the Brotherhood which has been clear for decades – to revive the caliphate and apply shariah law.’

Emad Gad is one of two Copts elected to the now dissolved parliament. He received an invitation to meet with Clinton, but refused.

‘In exchange for Morsy’s being named president,’ he said, ‘the Brotherhood is expected to protect Israel’s security by pressuring Hamas – the Brotherhood’s branch in Palestine – not to launch military attacks against Israel, and even accept a peace agreement with Tel Aviv.’

Sameh Makram Ebeid

Sameh Makram Ebeid, the second Coptic parliamentarian, gives a different emphasis. Though not invited to the meeting with Clinton, he agreed with the refusal of Gad and other Coptic politicians.

He told Lapido: ‘There are two objections to her visit. The liberal forces say – true or false I don’t know – the Americans were in cahoots with the Brotherhood and handed them the country.

‘The second is that you should not meet with the Copts as Copts, but as part of the liberal movement, as the third way between military and Islamist.

‘She wanted to meet with individual liberal politicians, but they were all Christians,’ he said. ‘If you start segregating the country you’re making a big mistake.’

Segregating and dividing the country was also a concern of Revd. Safwat el-Baiady, president of the Protestant Council of Churches. In an interview with Lapido, he said the Orthodox clergy withdrew from the meeting only one hour before it started, but that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox laity attended.

Baiady told Clinton of Coptic fears of a repetition of Iraq, where Christians fled the country following American interference. He also spoke of Egyptian concerns the US would divide Egypt, especially the Sinai, using it as a solution for the problem of Hamas.

‘She is a good listener and took many notes,’ said Mr Baiady.

‘Clinton said we have to back the winners and those who lead the country. They have the best organization and power on the ground, based on the parliamentary elections.

‘We have to support the people, she said, and not oppose them.’

Raed Sharqawi, a reporter present at the Coptic demonstration, agrees with Clinton.

‘America has relations with every nation in the world,’ he said. ‘The US is also the shield for the Copts, and always will be. This protest is foolish.’

As Egypt’s transition muddles forward, there is ample room for confusion. The military and the Brotherhood emerged as the two strongest forces, making Copts wonder about their future. Within this mix, Clinton’s visit in support of Morsy has led to this near unprecedented rupture in Coptic-American relations.

‘The US will make us into another Pakistan,’ said Tamry as the protest continued. ‘We have come to say don’t interfere in our business.’

Related Posts:

Categories
Current Events

Friday Prayers for Egypt: Parliament’s Brief Return

God,

President Morsy caused a stir this week by recalling parliament in defiance of the Supreme Constitutional Court which ruled it was illegal and the military council which implemented its dissolution. Many were up in arms, though the president explained he was not violating the court ruling, only delaying its implementation. Morsy promised new elections would be held after the new constitution is formed.

There are too many ways to view events, God. Give Egyptians the wisdom to know who tells them the truth, and who is working on their behalf.

It may be that Morsy is defending democracy against a recalcitrant military. It may be Morsy is angling for Islamists to control all state institutions in violation of the law. It may be Morsy is playing along with the military to present the president as a man of the people. Or it may be they agreed to give Morsy a chance to save face publically while submitting privately to ongoing military behind-the-scenes dominance.

For its part, parliament met for only fifteen minutes, taking action only to refer its legal standing back to the courts.

There is a place for play acting, God, but to symbolize an otherwise untenable situation. There is less place for spin, manipulating opinion, or outright deception.

Egypt deserves a parliament, God, and it also deserves the rule of law. But is this parliament what Egypt deserves, and is this rule of law one that is honest and just? These questions are harder to answer, and the balancing of principles is difficult.

Amidst this confusion, God, bring Egypt forward. Keep Egypt from conflict between the military and the Brotherhood, but keep Egypt’s future out of their backroom negotiations. If the United States is involved, may she be a neutral arbiter and not a further manipulator.

Guide President Morsy, God. May he make stands from right principle and defend the right of the people to rule. Guide the military council as well, God. May their stands also be right and good, guarding the democratic transition to democracy from the power of any one element, even their own.

Guide also those who are unaffiliated, God, whose numbers are many. May they find a voice and a worthy leader, to keep this struggle from being defined along two poles only. May they know with whom to take sides, when, and how to switch as necessary. May they be guided also by principle and what is right and best for Egypt.

Bless also the ongoing work on the constitution, God. May this document honor the nation.

Bless Egypt, her people, and her leaders – all together. Chasten as necessary, but spare them from harm.

Amen.

Categories
Aslan Media Middle East Published Articles

Morsy Reinstates Egypt’s Parliament

Military Council head Tantawi (L) and President Morsy

That was fast.

After only one week in office, President Morsy has picked his first fight – he issued a decree to reinstate the dissolved parliament.

Shortly before the run-off election the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled parliament to be unconstitutional based on procedural grounds, and the military council issued a decree to dissolve it.

Morsy, now with the executive power of the presidency, has undone the decree of the council.

Moreover, he threatens the legislative power the military council afforded itself in the interim period between the dissolution of parliament and the writing of the constitution after which new elections will be held.

Morsy promised the return of parliament from his victory speech in Tahrir Square. He used language, however, which left him wiggle room to fulfill this promise simply with new, eventual elections.

When he took his oath of office in front of the constitutional court, however, it seemed he was accepting the court decision and military prerogative to set the path of transition until a new constitution was written.

When he was seen repeated hobnobbing with the generals, it gave the impression a deal, or at least an understanding, had been reached. That is, Morsy made his ‘revolutionary’ speech, but now was getting down to business in cooperation with the military.

He is certainly getting down to business now.

The ruling to dissolve parliament was questionable, but it was issued by the ‘independent’ court. Whether or not it is, of course, is also questionable, but Morsy pledged to uphold the law and respect the judiciary.

On the other hand, many observers see the court ruling and subsequent constitutional declarations by the military as a power grab, or at the least as an effort to balance the power of the president and an Islamist parliament. Yet both president and parliament were elected democratically – though perhaps this is also among the questionable issues of Egypt’s transition.

This statement is not necessarily to cast doubts on the results, only to reflect the common perception that Egyptian’s votes are only an aspect of the power struggles underway in the country.

Morsy’s move comes one day before the High Administrative Court was set to issue a ruling on the legality of parliament’s dissolution. It is unclear if this case will docket as scheduled. The military council is holding an emergency meeting at present.

Two items to cast shades of conspiracy. One, some suspect this is a continuation of play acting between the Brotherhood and military council. A few months ago they railed against the performance of the government and threatened to withdraw confidence. They never did, but used the episode to justify going back on their promise not to field a presidential candidate. Under this theory, the crisis was engineered then, and is engineered now to present the Brotherhood as a revolutionary force deserving of popular and international support. The military, it is posited, is simply being a foil for the emerging power, with which they are fully in cahoots.

Two, it is noteworthy that in the last day or two President Morsy received a letter specially delivered by the undersecretary of state, William Burns. Its contents were not made public, but the timing is suspicious. The released text, incidentally, narrates the parliament before the constitution.

‘It will be critical to see a democratically elected parliament in place, and an inclusive process to draft a new constitution that upholds universal rights.’

According to conspiracy, however, ‘secret’ instructions could either supplement the theory above, or, more deviously, could be telling the Brotherhood the US has your back in a move against the military.

Away from conspiracy, the next moves may be telling. Morsy’s move is a definitive challenge to the military’s authority. If there was a deal, it seems clear he is violating it.

The military’s position is difficult. It will be hard pressed to go against the executive authority of a popularly elected leader. Indeed, it is the right of the executive to implement – or ignore – administrative aspects of the state.

It was assumed, if there was a deal, that the military possessed a number of cards which could be played against Morsy, with which to hold him in check. There is a court case pending, for example, to dissolve the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization. There may also be challenges to the legality of his campaign. He, like all other candidates, violated rules. He may also – though this is speculated popularly – have received foreign funding.

After all that has transpired, it would be difficult to imagine any of these legal measures unseating a president, but Egypt has had surprise rulings before.

And at the end of the day, a coup d’etat is ever on the table.

It was not imagined Morsy would move against the military so quickly. The expected path was to accommodate and slowly squeeze them from power, as in Turkey, and to a degree, in Latin America.

It seems Morsy will play his cards now, however. Coming days will reveal either his flush or his bluff.

Related Posts:

Categories
Lapido Media Middle East Published Articles

As President Morsy Preaches Peace, Muslim Brotherhood Sanctions Jihad

Morsy hailed at Tahrir Square

In both his presidential campaign and inaugural addresses, President Mohamed Morsy has assured the world of Egypt’s commitment to peace. Yet in the run-up to the final election on June 14, the Muslim Brotherhood published an Arabic article calling this commitment into question.

‘How happy would Muslims be if the leaders of the Muslims … would make recovery of al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] their central issue – to cleanse it from the filth of the Zionists and impose Islamic sovereignty over all quarters of Palestine,’ wrote General Guide Mohamed Badie, the group’s top leader.

Furthermore, he referenced a fatwa given by ‘Muslim scholars’ without further designation, ‘Jihad with life and money for the recovery of al-Aqsa Mosque is an individual duty incumbent on every Muslim.’ The article was published on IkhwanOnline, the official website of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This message is very different from the public statements of Morsy, who emerged from the Brotherhood to win Egypt’s first free democratic presidential election.

‘We will preserve all international treaties and charters,’ said Morsy. ‘We come in peace.’

Though Israel was never mentioned by name, the inference was obvious.

The international community is watching closely as importance lies in what Morsy does, not in what he says. Still, his assurance is understood as one of the necessary guarantees to the Egyptian military as well as the United States to not stand in the way of a Brotherhood presidency.

Yet the principle of action over rhetoric is necessary also concerning domestic Brotherhood politics. As US-MB delegations were in continual contact, Badie’s article sanctioning jihad betrays little intention to honor a peace treaty. On the other hand, at this point, they are just words, not actions.

Which words should be believed?

According to Sheikh Osama al-Qusi, an Egyptian Salafi scholar with no love for the Brotherhood, the word jihad does not necessarily imply fighting. ‘The term with life designates that one must be ready to give his life for the cause of Islam. It may include engaging in battle, but this is not demanded.’

Even so, al-Qusi links ‘jihad with life and money’ to its Qur’anic source, where God instructs the Muslims, ‘Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.’

Speaking with Lapido Media, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan makes a different distinction. ‘As a citizen I am different from the state or the presidency,’ he says.

‘Just because we have gained the presidency should we give up on our principles concerning Palestine, including that Jerusalem is for us?’

Ghozlan then reiterated Morsy’s assurances that Egypt would respect all international treaties. Indeed, the rest of Badie’s article references non-violent methods to expose Israeli occupation of Palestine, such as the ‘Miles of Smiles’ aid convoys from March 2012 to break the blockade of Gaza.

Dr. Nadia Mostafa, professor of international relations at Cairo University, agrees with this non-violent interpretation. ‘We can make jihad,’ she told Lapido Media, ‘in a different way.

‘It does not mean to make a suicide bomb. Jihad with life means we must offer everything in our life for the just cause, even to the last extent in which I die.’

Badie’s article, indeed, does not call specifically for jihad. It urges patience on the Palestinian people and a focus on reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

Yet it also urges persistence, that they should make their ‘motto and starting point the confrontation of the Zionists’. That is, perhaps, it is a Palestinian struggle, even if they should be encouraged that ‘every sincere Muslim mujahid in every nation of the world stands with you’.

For Mostafa, Palestine is the issue which will decide the presidency of Morsy. But it must not be allowed to distract from critical domestic issues, including overcoming the secular-Islamist divide. She expects, however, a firm rejection of the Gaza blockade.

‘The Brotherhood will say what they have to say, but we must separate between them and the presidency, and I believe Morsy understands this well.’

Mohamed Morsy formally ended his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood following his official declaration as president.

As president, however, he is not expected to have much love for Israel, no matter his international obligations. Political analyst Sameh Fawzy expects a zero-tolerance strategy towards Israel.

‘Egyptians have had a very limited margin of normalization with Israel over the last decades,’ Fawzy told Lapido Media. ‘This margin is expected to be even narrower than before.’

Therefore, while the Muslim Brotherhood may well continue its strident rhetoric, Fawzy believes the Israel file will remain in the hands of the foreign ministry and security apparatus.

While these cabinet positions are still being negotiated, many analysts believe these ministries will remain firmly under military supervision, if not direct control.

This combination is not predisposed to result in war, but the consequence may well be a continuation of the status quo. For Fawzy, the bilateral outlook is bleak.

‘Cold peace is the expected option.’

 

Published first at Lapido Media.

 

Related Posts:

Categories
Aslan Media Middle East Published Articles

Cultural Imperialism: Egypt, America, and Sudan

Salafi campaign banner in the shade of a church

Egyptian Salafi parliamentarian Mohamed al-Kurdi created a minor stir last week while testifying before the education committee. He declared his opposition to a USAID program to encourage English language teaching in government schools, beginning in grade two as opposed to grade four. Kurdi found this to be an example of ‘cultural imperialism’ and urged the government to cancel the grant.

The Salafi Nour Party, for its part, distanced itself from Kurdi, consenting to their member’s referral to a disciplinary hearing.

Amina Nossair, professor at the Azhar University, criticized:

‘We definitely should not neglect our mother tongue but I would remind Mr. Kurdi that learning foreign languages was advised by Prophet Mohamed.’

Nevertheless, through conversations with many Muslims in the Arab world, I have felt there is a palpable discomfort with the dominance of Western culture. Many of these conversations were conducted in English, so few would argue the language itself should be stricken from education.

Many other conversations, often in their language, have flipped the sentiment arguing Arabic is the language of God. Exasperation at Western culture is often awkwardly articulated as a desire for the reassertion of Islamic cultural dominance. In these cases the issue is seen as one of struggle, rather than respect for the uniqueness of each cultural expression.

But really, why argue in any direction? After all, who can resist the flow of culture? It is above us all.

Such a statement threatens to undo the reality of education as a shaper of values. It is this which Kurdi is addressing in reality, and reflects why the Salafi Nour Party maneuvered to receive the education file in the distribution of parliamentary committee leadership.

An example more akin to Western sensibilities may help win Kurdi sympathy, along with others frustrated over ubiquitous Pepsi commercials starring scantily clad Arab women.

Rev. Emmanuel Bennsion is the pastor for Sudanese ministries at the Anglican Cathedral in Cairo. Sudanese himself, he has lived the past twenty-four years in Egypt. Unlike many of his parishioners, however, he did not arrive as a refugee. In fact, he was a privileged student selected to study in Zagazig University in the Nile Delta.

‘Privileged’, however, is adjoined to the word ‘politicized’. Bennsion is a non-Arab Christian Sudanese from what is now the independent nation of South Sudan. He explains the independence movement is quite old, and the Arab leadership in the north moved to diffuse it as standard policy.

Bennsion stated Sudanese officials targeted bright students from the south to study in Egypt so as to assist in soft, low-key Arabization. During the 1970s up to 300 students a year were selected for the program. They would learn Arabic, gain a picture of Arab civilization from friendly interactions with colleagues, and increase their sense of belonging to Sudan-as-Arab nationality, even though they were ethnically, linguistically, and in some cases, religiously different.

Is this wise policy to unify a diverse population, or cultural imperialism of the sort which Kurdi would decry if applied in reverse?

Consider how many university students from around the world come to the United States. While many come of their own accord, seeking the best preparation for their fields, US policy actively facilitates many programs to give the best and brightest minds a taste of America. If they stay, we profit from brain drain. If they return, they have gained insight into American freedom and values, winning, perhaps, their hearts and minds.

Cultural imperialism, generous welcome, enlightenment sharing, or mere education? It is not a simple question.

Bennsion continues, however, to give what would appear to be a more sinister Sudanese cultural manipulation. All students wishing to enter government elementary schools must first complete two years of preschool in the ‘Kharwa’. Education here, he maintained, consisted entirely of Quran recitation and study of hadith.

This requirement could be avoided if the student entered a private school, but this was cost prohibitive for many. To receive a free education, all students, Christians included, needed to learn the Quran.

In Egypt, all schools teach religion, but separate Muslims and Christians into different classes, taught by approved members of the religious establishments.

Even so, many Christians complain that it is always the Christians who must leave the room, while Muslims remain behind in the normal classroom. Furthermore, the secular curriculum – science, math, and especially Arabic – is laced with Islamic concepts which all are required to learn.

Of course, Islam is the religion of the vast majority and a major shaper of cultural values. In Sudan, this was subjected upon a non-Islamic geographical region. In Egypt, there is no ‘Christian’ area, though Christians are everywhere. Should not Egyptian Copts simply adapt to their cultural setting?

How might your opinion of such issues shape your response to these American questions:

  • Teaching of Spanish versus English-only educational systems
  • Mandatory inclusion of ‘intelligent design’ theories in school textbooks
  • Providing financial vouchers to poor students to attend private/religious schools
  • Allowing Muslims students to absent themselves during class for prayers
  • Sponsoring school prayers or moments of silence before football games
  • Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase ‘under God’

The parallels are not exact, but evaluation of the question shapes the search for consistency. What is the proper relation between culture, religion, and freedom? Must we allow for the other what we desire for ourselves? Or is this itself a sentiment derived from a particular cultural-religious framework?

Even if so, is the sentiment superior to cultural imperialism, whether in its Western or Islamic form? Or does appeal to the sentiment itself reflect a return to the zero sum ‘clash of civilizations’ narrative?

Kurdi, however lamentably, reminds us that while we may flail at unwanted cultural expressions, education plays a real role of determination. Egypt, much like America, is in struggle to set its course.

Sudan, meanwhile, has divided over the issue. Is this lamentable? So much depends on perspective, shaped by education, the common collection of which forms a culture.

 

note: This article was originally published on Aslan Media.

 

Related Posts:

Categories
Prayers

Friday Prayers for Egypt: Wrangling

God,

Egypt is gearing up for a push, though it is impossible to say in which direction. Presidential candidates continue to jockey for position, but the uncertainty will not last much longer. Candidacies open officially tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood hints and searches and denies – all over who their candidate will be. Are they unsure, or just posturing?

Make Egypt real, God. There is so much doubt over what truly takes place and what is engineered. It is not fair to the people, to those who labor for justice and right. Remove the intrigue and opaqueness and conspiracy from the routine of life. Egypt needs faith its government will represent the interests of the people. This faith must be founded on reality.

Perhaps a greater wrangling is taking place in parliament over the constituent assembly to draft the constitution. The law is vague, so each party contests its interpretation of who must fill the 100 seats. From parliament, or outside? Reflective of the elected majority, or equal representation of all sectors of society? Parliament does have the final say, and the Brotherhood promises it will select members from across the national spectrum.

Give Egypt a worthy constitution, God. It means so much, or at least it should. Choose good men of pure heart and clean conscience. Choose men who will listen to the voice of all and find consensus. Choose men of courage and conviction. Give Egypt a document to be proud of.

There is wrangling over the governing cabinet as well. The current administration has not succeeded in bringing stability. While many revolutionaries have called for its dismissal from the beginning, the Brotherhood is gearing to dismiss it now, if it can. It does not seem a vote of no confidence will result in replacement, but they want to govern now, and appear poised to try.

God, why now, when the president will be seated in three months, and choose his own cabinet? Why does their ambition surface so close to the close, when they have backed the military’s choices until now? Is their ambition healthy and laudable, or selfish? Try them, God, and know their hearts. Promote them, and any, of whom you would call a good and faithful servant. Give Egypt a good government, both now and in the days to come.

And lastly, there is wrangling on the street. A small demonstration met with clashes at the US Embassy. While it meant to protest over the NGO crisis, the location can greatly exaggerate its importance. Furthermore, it holds potential to become worse.

Too much fighting, and too many deaths, God, in the past several months. May this forgettable episode not be a sign of more to come – at the embassy, or anywhere. There is pressure building on all the fronts mentioned; the street is often the place of release.

Give peace, God, to weary Egyptians. It is wrong, even so, that they are weary. By all rights they should be overjoyed at the transformations before them. A parliament has been elected, and a president is to come, along with a constitution. These should be good days, God. Please make them so.

Make Egypt real.

Amen.

Categories
Prayers

Friday Prayers for Egypt: NGO Confusion

God,

If Egypt is a mess, is the whole world with it, America in particular? It seems impossible to discern between outrage and playacting. With the curtain now drawn, is it simply a bad ending or an interlude before a coming act? Or does corruption truly mix with conspiracy to make the stomach churn?

US citizens accused of fermenting chaos in Egypt have now departed, with the sudden lifting of a travel ban against them while under investigation and trial. From reports, one chose to stay. It is so hard to imagine these NGO workers are guilty of the crimes accused in the media. Does the US plot the division of Egypt and encourage street battles against police? There is evil in this world, God. Wherever it is found, expose and distinguish it.

But if not guilty of this – no matter how guilty of administrative trespasses – must then all who joined in the chorus against them also be exposed? Rebuke all who seek political points at the expense of civility, truth, and transparency.

But there is a political crisis now, God, and solutions are not simple. Give grace and wisdom to Egypt’s leaders – both those officially so and whoever may be calling the shots in this issue, if different. Honor the true principles behind this struggle. Give Egypt sovereignty, free her from manipulation, and enable an independent judiciary.

Give justice, God, to those who remain – Egyptians especially – now that the Americans have left. Give wisdom also to her leaders. How should the United States engage Egypt in these changing times? Perhaps power rules all in international relations; if so may such power be used for good. Make America a righteous friend. Free her from the temptations of militarism, and expose all posturing and propaganda.

Yet within Egypt, where posturing and propaganda is rife, settle accounts. Bring to power, God, those who will aid Egypt and her people. Those of good conscience and clean hearts. Those who act according to principle even at personal loss.

So many in Egypt are claimants, God. You know who fits the above description. Men scheme and plot and set their path. Even the wicked can do your will; even the righteous can stumble and fall. Men are confused in their goodness; they are mixed with all evil.

Yet beyond it all, God, you are sovereign. You will bring Egypt that which serves your will. May this be according to your mercy and blessing. May it result in freedom and prosperity. May it honor the Egyptian people.

May men repent, God, wherever they are found. May Egypt grow strong in humility, and avoid humiliation.

Perhaps one is necessary for the other. If so, God, then be gentle.

Amen.  

 

Related articles

Categories
Personal

Rethinking Iran

English: President of Iran @ Columbia University.

Three reports related to Iran came across my attention this past week. All three cast doubts upon the common American narrative of Iran as an evil Islamic nation bent on destroying Israel through a developing nuclear weapons capability. There may be ample reason for the United States to oppose Iran as a geopolitical opponent; care must be taken, however, that American public opinion not submit to manipulative propaganda or self-deceit over assumed righteousness.

An example of this last sentence may be viewed here on YouTube, in which a TV commentator argued the US has the ‘moral authority’ to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, which ‘deserves to be annihilated’ because they are ‘evil’.

This rhetoric is parallel to the statement of Iranian President Ahmadinejad to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the earth’. Lest the tit-for-tat be accepted and dismissed as the voice of two extremists, however, the first report suggests Ahmadinejad’s statement was never made at all.

Shortly after his election in 2005, the New York Times quoted Ahmadinejad in a conference entitled ‘A World without Zionism’, ‘As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.’

In a full translation, the NYT issued a slightly different version: ‘Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map.’

Perhaps this translation, however, also took liberties.

In analyzing the speech and providing a word for word translation, Arash Norouzi states Ahmadinejad said: ‘The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.’ Click here for his further analysis, including a survey of how this quote transformed itself in the media into ‘from the face of the earth’, as well as the context in which the quote from the Ayatollah Khomeni – not Ahmadinejad – is utilized.

The brief story, interestingly, does not simply blame Western powers with outright invention. Rather, it was the Iranian IRNA news agency which (mis?)translated his statement as ‘wiped off the face of the map.’ From here the story has become well known, and Ahmadinejad has been compared to a new Hitler desiring a new Holocaust.

Only God knows what is in his heart. Yet from his words he is not arguing for a nuclear strike to demolish Israel as a nation. He is wishing the removal of the Israeli government which according to international law illegally occupies Palestinian land. As Arab revolutions have called for the fall of the regime – Mubarak, etc – he was not specifically calling for the destruction of the state, let alone the Jews as a people.

There is a more than fair possibility Ahmadinejad views Israel, like many Muslims, as an illegitimate creation of Western dominance, and would wish to see its disappearance as a political entity. Repetition of ‘wiped off the map’ or ‘from the face of the earth’, however, must not be utilized in a campaign to demonize him or the Iranian regime.

He did not say it.

Could he do it? Well, this is the focus of the continual focus on Iran’s purported efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. This second news item was widely reported, so it is likely to have already entered American consciousness. While the UN’s atomic energy watchdog has reported that Iran is taking credible steps to enrich uranium, the New York Times released a report doubting Iranian efforts to make a bomb.

The NYT report relies on what it terms ‘the consensus of American intelligence agencies’. That is, our people tasked with determining what is happening on the ground do not believe Iran is undertaking steps to develop a nuclear weapon. Read the whole article for what uranium enrichment might entail, as well as the Israeli intelligence opinions which doubt the American consensus.

As above, the truth of the matter may be difficult to obtain. The point is to take note of all evidence which runs counter to a rush at demonization, and worse, a call to war. The call has not been issued yet, but some are certainly arguing for a pre-emptive strike, at the least.

The third news item is not as geopolitically important as the first two, but serves similarly to call into question established conventional wisdom. There is palpable fear, much of it reasonable, that the Arab revolutions opened the door to the rule of a backwards and inflexible sharia law. Of the Muslim nations in the world, Iran is one of the few to actually seek its full implementation.

This is why it is noteworthy to recognize the Iranian parliament amended all laws to forbid the penalty of stoning, whether for adultery or other offenses.

That this is a debate at all will lend evidence to common Western opinions about the backwardness of Iran and the nature of Islamic sharia. The more nuanced point to take away is that Iran – far removed from any need to polish its reputation to the West – decided to reinterpret sharia. The linked article details the internal controversy this has sparked, but gives evidence that a legal reference to sharia, demanded by many Islamist parties, does not necessarily entail draconian provisions cemented during the Middle Ages.

None of the above argues in favor of sharia, only that in all cases, what is accepted as the law of God can only be implemented by the hands of men. Men can be just or unjust with any legal code, not all of which are equal.

A fourth news item, however, serves to reinforce the common narrative. Christian pastor and Muslim convert Youcef Nadarkhani still faces the sentence of hanging for his apostasy.

Does Iran hate Israel and desire its destruction? Is it seeking to produce a nuclear weapon? Does it enslave its people through medieval codes of justice?

The answer to each of these questions is maybe. It is the task of diplomats, intelligence agents, and human rights activists to answer this question more definitively, and it is the task of media to convey their answers to the public.

What I fear is that some media has also taken upon itself the task of simplification at the least, obscuration perhaps, and manipulation at the worst. Many paint Iran as the chief obstacle to world stability, yet this map – however disputable in detail – paints a different picture as to which nation is under threat:

American Military Bases Surrounding Iran

It is a given that every nation must pursue its interests, and these are often at odds with one another. Yet the United States suffers from the inconvenient reality that the majority of its population holds to a sense of morality vis-à-vis interests. In order to take decisive steps in the international arena, the government must assure the public it is an issue including right versus wrong.

In the case of Iran, the United States may well be ‘right’. America has strong and legally enshrined traditions of freedom, human rights, and respect for national sovereignty. Yet we must be aware not only of the above counter-interpretations concerning Iran, but moreover the reality of this American truism. We are not free to simply impose our will, we must remain a defender of freedom and justice for all.

Were this not so we could simply be an empire.

Therefore, when the truism is summoned, it can also be doubted. Is our Iranian policy determined by freedom and justice, or are these principles manipulated to support a more interests-based global agenda? I don’t know, and the problem is the vast majority of the public does not know either. But at the very least, we must ask the question, and not allow misrepresentation when it is discovered.

 

Note: One posited explanation can be found here, defining the issue in terms of global energy and currency. Common tropes, to be sure, which also deserve to be questioned.

 

Related Posts:

Categories
Personal

Friend’s Brother Killed by US Drone

Translation: Conference of Supporters for the Imprisioned Scholar, Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman; No to killing civilians or innocent; No to persecuting Muslims or religious scholars; On the 10th Anniversary of September 11, 2001

I should take care with a word like ‘friend’. It may well be this line of work promotes a false intimacy between the subject and the interviewer. My goal is to learn, to honor, and then to share. A friendship, however, is self-contained; others may be invited in, but there is never an inside-out. If the subject has a message to share, he is inclined to be friendly, that it be given justly. I know this. All the same, the power of this line of work lies in the crafting of relationships. They may be false; I aim for them to be true. I aim also to maintain objectivity, while seeking to incline my heart.

Ahmed Omar Abdel Rahman was killed in Afghanistan on October 14, 2011, by an American drone. One of thirteen sons of the ‘Blind Sheikh’, he and his brother Mohamed followed the encouragement of his father to travel to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet occupation. Ultimately successful in league with a chorus of such mujahideen, both foreign and local, the Egyptian contingent discovered they could no longer go home. In absentia, Egypt convicted them of plotting to overthrow the Mubarak government, at least in association with groups like al-Jama’a al-Islamiya, of which the Blind Sheikh is the spiritual head.

Mohamed was captured by the Americans when the superpowers passed the baton, and was extradited to Egypt in 2003. He spent four years in a secret underground prison in Nasr City, Cairo, with all communication between him and his family halted. Afterwards he was transferred to a public prison in Tora to the south of Cairo, current home of former Mubarak regime figures deposed since the revolution. Mohamed, however, was never a fellow inmate, as his release was granted in August 2010. He reentered society and decided to continue his education, pursuing a degree in historical literature at Cairo University.

Mohamed joined in the events of the revolution, but thereafter dedicated himself to a further goal – gaining the release of his father, the Blind Sheikh, from an American prison. It is within these efforts I met him, as well as his brother Abdullah, at a sit-in protest outside the American Embassy in downtown Cairo.

Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh, was imprisoned in 1993 as part of the plot to blow up the World Trade Center. He is kept, at least some of the time, in solitary confinement, though he is able to communicate with his family in Egypt. He is now old, and perhaps dying. His family sits-in day and night on the pavement outside the embassy asking the United States to allow him to return home, and for Egypt to help plead his cause.

Mohamed and Abdullah not only ask his release on humanitarian grounds, but also because they maintain his innocence. Abdel Rahman freely criticized the government of Mubarak during his residency in America. Fearing America might facilitate a triumphant return home as France allegedly did with the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Mubarak regime sent agents to the United States to incriminate Abdel Rahman. His sons argue their father never advocated violence against civilians, and is wrongly charged. In exchange for doing away with this political menace, Mubarak promised to toe the American line on Israel and other issues of concern.

I have not yet investigated these claims, nor the original case. Neither am I fully aware of the activities of Mohamed and the now deceased Ahmed in Afghanistan. Mohamed tells me they stood on the sidelines during the internecine conflict that enveloped the nation after the Soviet pullout. He states as well they were never in league with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and that their father condemned the attacks of September 11. I will need to have further conversations on these matters, as well as do my homework.

Originally, I had planned on holding the content of these early conversations until I was more fully prepared. Then the newsflash: Their brother was dead.

I have been long troubled by the use of drones, which have increased significantly during the administration of President Obama. The issue surfaced in American political consciousness when al-Qaeda strategist Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was killed by a drone in Yemen. Meanwhile a Reuters report revealed the existence of a secret government council connected to the National Security Council, which places American citizens on a ‘kill list’ to be submitted to the president. Additionally, Turkish President Erdogan states the United States has agreed to give drones to his nation, and Saudi Arabia has asked for them. Currently, Israel flies drones over its border with Egypt.

Few Americans would lodge complaints against the nature of person killed so far in drone attacks. The profile is of the terrorist, al-Qaeda member, dedicated to killing innocent civilians. I will inquire if this was true of Ahmed.

Furthermore, there can be a logic to the use of drones. Scattered in caves in far away, unfriendly nations, such militants oversee operations that directly threaten American soil. Drones are cheaper in both expense and human lives. Our soldiers need not risk the operation necessary to apprehend the criminal.

Yet I argue this is exactly why the use of drones is dangerous. A virtue of democracy is that it is less likely to promote war, as the nation’s citizens must commit to bear the cost of its own sons’ lives. The use of drones breaks this link, placing the decision to kill squarely in the hands of the government. Yes, the government is still accountable, but it is a step removed from requiring a popular mandate. Elected representatives, we trust, are judicious in who they label an enemy, or at least in their appointment of military and intelligence officials bequeathed with this task, however extra-judicial it may be. Is there adequate monitoring? Is there transparency? If the public is largely separate from decision making, are their checks on who may be killed? Without a contingent of American troops also suffering casualties, who will care, or even know, that Ahmed is now dead?

To some degree at least, I do. Upon hearing the news I called Mohamed and Abdullah and offered my condolences. They were not grieved; they believe he died in the path of God and is now a martyr in paradise. All the same, I will render my social duty and pay them a visit soon.

The question is, will I be rendering a duty of friendship? Am I being played? Was Ahmed a terrorist? Was Mohamed? Is he still? I don’t yet know, but neither do I yet feel it.

All I have experienced so far are two men among many, with families and children, who have sat outside the American Embassy since August for the sake of their father. This is a noble act, whether or not they and their father are ignoble men. I hold the questions above as a check for my objectivity. I write with this in mind, but also with an inclined heart. I have not yet fully learned, so I cannot yet fully share. But I can honor, and I wish this plea against the use of drones to be a mark of what may become a friendship. It may be false; I aim for it to be true.

Categories
Personal

Misnomers and Idealism in the Palestinian Question

As the Palestinian Authority prepares to request statehood from the United Nations, this essay will highlight a few terms which serve to obscure the public debate, as well as idealize the best way forward. It will not propose an answer to the ‘yes –no’ question faced by the United States at the UN, as either answer falls short of what will be offered as ideal.

The Right to Exist

This expression is often put forward to explain Israeli difficulties in securing peace with the Palestinians. To be sure, the official proclamation of Hamas to seek elimination of the Israeli state is an overwhelming obstacle to relations. Yet by seeking ‘the right to exist’ Israel overreaches.

Part of the difficulty this expression causes Palestinians and Hamas in particular is that the phrase not only establishes the Israeli state, it provides it positive moral approval. Before the prevalence of Zionism as a world Jewish movement there were limited numbers of Jews in the current geographical territories in dispute. There were also limited numbers of Palestinians, but this should not overshadow the fact the vast majority of current Jews in Israel came from elsewhere. Some of their land was purchased, some was taken through violence, terrorism, and displacement, and some was conquered through war.

Palestinians assert, rightly, that the majority of this land used to belong to them. That it does no longer is a political fact, but Israel does not simply demand recognition of their state, but also the right of its existence. Such moralistic language is a slap in the face to the thousands of Palestinian refugees forced from their homes.

Furthermore, the ‘right to exist’ expression is not the language of diplomacy and international relations. Do the Kurds have a right to exist? Do the South Sudanese? Do the French? Awkwardly, in light of American ‘Manifest Destiny’ history, does the United States? Countries come into existence through political norms of various means, and sometimes disappear. Israel is constituted among the number of legitimate states by the only organization with jurisdiction to declare in the nation-state system – the United Nations. Palestinians should admit to this reality and recognize Israel. They should not be forced to admit the morality of its existence.

Negotiated Settlement

It is right and proper that the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be decided through negotiation. The basis for peace rests upon mutually agreed decisions taken to bring parties closer together. Ultimately, there is no substitute for this inevitability.

Yet the popular discourse in discrediting the Palestinian effort to achieve UN recognition in favor of a ‘negotiated settlement’ overlooks certain realities in the equation. First and foremost is Israel’s own status as a sovereign nation. This was not accomplished through a negotiated settlement, but by Jewish immigration, their armed militias, and ratification by the United Nations. Arab nations stood opposed to the decision, which was forced upon them by the international community. Improperly, they responded in war, which only hurt their cause further. Israel achieved its recognized status through the international means available. It is now seeking to deny Palestinians access to the same means.

Yet a further aspect of ‘negotiated settlement’ obscures the issues at hand. Israel has treated its settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem as a topic for negotiation. It similarly treats the issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In doing so, however, it seeks to negotiate two items which stand patently against international law. Yet during recent ‘negotiations’ not only has Israel sought to balance its expropriated settlement territories with traded land elsewhere, it has continued expanding its settlement claims. It is fair enough for Palestinians to consider land swaps if they so choose, but they should not be forced to. The settlements are illegal, however much they may be facts-on-the-ground. Yes, human Jewish lives reside there, and after all this time their displacement would be problematic. Yet Israeli culpability in establishing the settlements should not be a subject of negotiation, but of condemnation. How can Palestinians negotiate over that which is illegal to begin with?

If Palestinians gain access to UN membership, they will have access to file suit against Israel in the International Court of Justice. Israel has successfully resisted UN resolutions to withdraw from the occupied territories. It has successfully resisted negotiations with the Palestinians to cede full control over the territories. Israel does face the thorny issue of Hamas-led resistance to mutual recognition, but it should also be noted that only sovereign nations can recognize each other. Recognition of Israel is a proper negotiating carrot for the Palestinians, one they cannot even offer until they receive a state of their own. Member status at the United Nations, even on observer basis, may achieve this through the international court.

De-legitimize Israel

This phrase has also been utilized in the rhetoric to discredit the Palestinian effort at the United Nations. Closer examination, however, reveals the exact opposite to be true. This explains the reticence of Hamas to support the UN process initiated by the Palestinian Authority.

If anything, the creation of a Palestinian state immediately legitimizes Israel. No longer will Palestinians be able to refuse recognizing Israel without threatening their credibility in the international community. Hamas and others still maintain international justice should discredit the very establishment of the Israeli state. With a UN recognized Palestine, this claim goes by the wayside. In all likelihood, with it will go the right of return for Palestinian refugees as well. They will now have their own state to return to, even if their original home was on the other side of the 1967 border.

What the Palestinian bid at the UN does do, however, is de-legitimize Israeli policies in the occupied territories. This, though explained above, includes also disproportionate Israeli access to West Bank resources and criss-crossing the territory with settler-only lines of transportation. By moving these issues to an international forum, Palestinians do bring into question issues of legitimacy. Their overall message, however, legitimizes the Israeli state, as is proper and good.

The Arguments for No

If the above reasoning is correct, it is difficult to imagine why Israel is opposing the measure, unless it wishes to annex the territories of Judea and Samaria entirely. By granting Palestinians their state, it wins the international community as a partner to resisting any terrorism which issues from it, which would now be state-sponsored unless rigorously opposed. Perhaps more importantly to many, it also safeguards the status of Israel as a Jewish state, as the overwhelming Jewish majority would not be threatened demographically by the inclusion of additional Palestinians, either refugees seeking return or original residents in the occupied territories.

Should then the United States, with enthusiastic Israeli support, vote yes? There are a few problems lingering to suggest no. The ideal solution offered as well aims beyond it, however much it might threaten the advantages of yes.

In addition to the intransigence of Hamas, the Palestinian people suffer from a lack of true representation on the part of all their leaders. While a recent poll does suggest that 83% of Palestinians favor the move for statehood, neither Fatah nor Hamas has received a mandate through elections in quite some time. The only protests in Palestine during the Arab Spring have been against their nominal leadership, refusing their stridency in maintaining a political division. If Palestine receives statehood would the people be able to transcend this division? Would Fatah and Hamas allow them to? It remains to be seen.

Secondly and more seriously, immediate statehood would likely cement the animosity between Israel and Palestine, establishing a cold war even if there is official peace. Such a war could quickly get hot as the new Palestinian government would face the question of what to do with the Jewish settlements within its borders. Would it consider them Palestinian citizens? Would it violently uproot them? Would the settlers institute violence to seek maintenance of their now bygone privileged societal position? It is a thorny issue.

Thirdly and problematically, how do the West Bank and Gaza represent a functioning state given the lack of geographical congruity with Israel in between? As a tiny, landlocked entity save for the Gaza strip, Palestine would be barely a political district in the makeup of many countries. How could it function as an independent nation?

To vote no in the UN would throw these questions back to the negotiating table, and it is not certain a solution would be found there, either. Yet which outcome is more dangerous, yes or no?

An Ideal Solution?

It is admitted that the move away from negotiations is a move away from the ideal. A unilateral action towards statehood threatens to put the Palestinian question into the hands of the international court. While this step may greatly improve the Palestinian negotiating position, it hardens hearts and relationships, as true peace can only come from mutual embrace.

Calling for an ideal mutual embrace, however, moves the discussion from the realm of geopolitics into the realm of morality. Does the current situation in Israel/Palestine represent morality? Certainly not, on all sides. Would an imposed two-state solution represent morality? Sadly, no. Could a negotiated settlement represent a moral position? Perhaps, but these efforts have been underway for decades, and the political will seems to be lacking on both sides.

A mutual embrace, for now, purposely sidelines the fact that two peoples are largely in hostility. A solution of mutual embrace will assume the very difficult work of reconciliation. Yet the core of this idea is the undoing of two mutually contradicting narratives: A state for the Jews, and a state for the Palestinians. Roughly speaking, it calls for a one state solution.

Label this state what you want, though in fact its name will be one of the contentious issues to solve. ‘Israel’ – ‘Israelistine’ – ‘Paliel’ – ‘Israel-Palestine’ – ‘Palestine-Israel’. The very exercise of naming demonstrates the deep ethno-centrality of both sides. It is good for a people to have their own state. Is it better – more ideal – for an intermixed people to live together in one state, peacefully?

Admitting to this notion would require Zionist-inclined Jews to give up the idea of a Jewish state. Though deeply challenging, not all Jews are Zionists, and for most of history many Jews believed it a sin to seek reestablishment of a state before the appearance of the Messiah. That there is a current Jewish state is a political fact, may be the will of God, and is not immoral. But is there something better?

Admitting to this notion would require anti-Semitic Palestinians (and other Arabs) to give up the idea of a Jew-free Middle East. Though deeply challenging, not all Palestinians are anti-Semites, and for most of history many Arabs have lived peacefully side-by-side with Jews. That there are Palestinians who question Zionism-as-racism is a political fact, may be the will of God, and is not immoral. But is there something better?

What is better is the ideal of a civil democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens. Jew, Christian, and Muslim would each contribute to the success of the nation. Significant biases and economic disparities would need to be overcome. This was challenging with the reunification of Germany; it would be doubly so in this case. Yet as an ideal – that men might live together and form a representative government accountable by law – this is a more sublime goal for which to strive. In contrast to the current clamor at the United Nations, it is nearly heavenly.

Alas, ideals fall easy prey to politics and reality. Yet men of ideals can change both their politics and their reality. What is necessary is vision and commitment. Few so far have adopted the vision of one-state reconciliation; perhaps in the outcome of the UN process, if the United States does indeed vote no, more will find it.

I myself lack the full vision and courage to advocate the ideal. Even the attempt to define an ideal is subjective and often naïve. Problems in application are myriad and obvious.

Yet resistance to an ideal is often a refuge in the baser instincts of human nature. No ideal can come to be in willful ignorance of human depravity, yet the human struggle calls for virtue and sacrifice in pursuit of worthy ideals. Peace between Jews and Palestinians should certainly qualify. This is but one solution, perhaps more hopeful, in the path to its reality.

 

Related Post: 1967 and the Right of Return

Categories
Middle East

Erdogan in Egypt: Teenage Turkey Tests Her Limits

Erdogan with his image of prominence, popularity

I had the opportunity to witness the keynote address of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on September 13. Beginning a tour of Arab Spring nations, he met with military, political, and business leaders in Cairo, and then spoke generally to the nation from the historic Opera House, in a session hosted by Cairo University. The following are a few highlights from his speech, concluding with some personal observations:

  • For a lecture scheduled to begin at 4pm, Erdogan began speaking at 6:45pm. Attendees had been asked to arrive no later than 3pm for security.
  • The audience chanted continually during the speech, lauding Erdogan for his regional politics.
  • Erdogan praised Egypt and her revolution, as well as historic Egyptian-Turkish ‘sisterhood’.
  • A devout Muslim, Erdogan laced his speech with Quranic references, though in a different setting he praised the virtues of a ‘secular’ state which values religion.
  • He believed the spirit of liberation in the Arab world was spreading to America and Europe to sensitize the whole world against injustice.
  • Turkey and the Arab world will dismiss orientalist myths that the region cannot support democracy or strong economies.
  • In a nod to protestor concerns and as a prod to military leadership, Erdogan stated the coming elections should be held according to a set schedule.
  • Erdogan highlighted the dramatic increase in trade between Turkey and Egypt, and pledged it would only increase further in the future.
  • He declared that Egypt is Turkey’s key to Africa, just as Turkey is Egypt’s key to Europe.
  • Erdogan spoke of his efforts to get Syrian President Assad to reform, but stated he can no longer trust him in his pledges.
  • Alarmingly and surprisingly, Erdogan predicted that Syria will now face sectarian problems, which are played upon by foreign forces.
  • He stated that the illegitimate policies of Israel are the biggest obstacle to peace in the region, especially in her disregard for international law.
  • Erdogan prompted the greatest applause when he reiterated Turkey’s diplomatic efforts against Israel will continue until an apology is received for Turkish deaths aboard last year’s flotilla.
  • He also condemned as illegitimate the deaths of Egyptian officers in an Israeli raid across the Sinai border; he also offered his condolences to their families.
  • He expressed hope the Israeli people would realize their settlements are illegitimate, and that they are leading the nation into difficulties.
  • Erdogan pledged to hold Israeli leaders accountable while expressing he bore no ill will against the Israeli citizen, who like all must be respected on account of their creator.
  • He promised to always stand side by side with Palestine, hoping for an independent state in the framework of the United Nations.
  • Erdogan counseled the United States to reconsider its stance toward Palestinian statehood, to better accord with traditional concerns of justice in American foreign policy.
  • He believed Fatah and Hamas needed to keep from being divided and to love each other.
  • Erdogan predicted the Egyptian economy would rebound after elections, and promised that Turkey would stand by Egypt’s side forever.
  • Erdogan closed by announcing he cannot forget, and will never forget, what was accomplished in Tahrir Square.
Erdogan addressing the crowd

I have few strong opinions on Turkey. The nation has done well to craft for itself a strong economy and independent foreign policy. All is not perfect, of course: Turkey has major problems with her Kurdish minority, and human rights organizations complain about a lack of journalistic freedom and other issues. The Armenian massacre and the division of Cyprus are long unresolved issues still staining Turkish public image. Yet there is little denying the accomplishments of her democracy as well as her emergence from supervisory military rule.

I wonder, however, if Turkey in recent weeks has become like a teenager in an adult body seeking to assert his newfound power. Sometimes bravado is found right, as in Turkey’s early calls for Mubarak to heed the will of protestors. Sometimes bravado is found empty, as in Turkish impotence to stand up to Syria. Sometimes bravado takes on unwise enemies, as in Turkey’s threat to freeze EU relations if the presidency – assigned by rotation – is awarded to Cyprus. And sometimes bravado can be for its own sake, as in Turkey’s increased tension with Israel.

To be sure, Turkey’s diplomatic row with Israel is a matter of principle. Turkey opposes the Gaza blockade and the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Turkish citizens were killed by Israeli commandos in international waters, no matter how much provocation may have been directed at the soldiers. Yet the feeling is that Turkey’s response to Israel is measured and calculated. Is Turkey using her Israel policy to enhance her regional power?

Certainly Turkey is placing Israel in a no win situation. An apology conveys guilt, and admission of guilt can precede liability. Israel’s soldiers, though the initiators of overt hostility (as opposed to the symbolic hostility of breaking the blockade), were severely attacked. No nation will sell out its military to appease a demanding neighbor, unless her soldiers were clearly at fault (which remains disputed, of course).

Yet Turkey’s announcement of downgrading diplomatic relations came immediately on the heels of Egyptian outrage at her military leadership for failing to take a hard line with Israel following the death of her officers in a cross-border Israeli military raid. Turkey had already been lauded by many liberals and Islamists alike as a possible model for democratic transition. Shortly thereafter the Arab Spring diplomatic tour begins.

Beyond rhetoric, the main substantial element of this tour is the promotion of business. This seems shrewd. While the West and the IMF offer loans and the Gulf States offer cash influx, Turkey seeks job creation. It remains to be seen how much capital remains in Turkish hands, but this is the appropriate action of a growing economy, and may well serve to buttress Egypt’s economic needs as well. Is there more behind the courtship, however?

Though Egyptian populism celebrated Erdogan’s arrival, political leaders – both liberal and Islamist – were more cautious. Despite claims to historic ‘sisterhood’, Arab-Turk relations have not always been rosy. Is Turkey carpet-bagging on Arab Spring gains?

It remains to be seen if the Turkish teenager is ready for adulthood. Turkey has been an ally to the West, while maintaining relationships with Syrian and Iran. She has been an Islamic model, while maintaining relationships with Israel. Turkey’s efforts to craft a ‘Zero Problems’ foreign policy are coming apart at the seams, but this could simply be the teenager outgrowing his clothes (after significant muscle flexing).

Can Turkey stand as an independent actor on the world’s stage? Can she continue to risk offenses against entrenched Western positions? Is Turkey too big for her britches, or has she reached geopolitical maturity? Perhaps like a teenager, the only way to know is to test her limits.

 

Categories
Personal

Principled Foreign Policy

… defining it, of course, is difficult.

Most Arabs I have met have been quick to distinguish between the American people and the American government. That is, while much criticism exists toward American foreign policy, this does not prevent most Arab people from having positive relationships with the American individuals they meet. We, of course, can be the beneficiaries, even in the times we seek to make understandable the policies in question.

Arabs will ask, however, why do the American people allow US foreign policy to go unchecked? There is not a lot of anger behind this question, since they live under governments which take little regard for the will of the people. America, though, is different, and most wish they enjoyed the freedom Americans have to influence national political choices. The solution they propose is that the average American must not know, or be concerned about, what goes on outside US borders, beyond the impact it might have on the American economy.

Fair enough; it may or may not be true. I, however, counter with the idea that while the average American may or may not know the details of the impact of US foreign policy in the nations affected, most are concerned to believe that the US is a force for good in this world. That is, we care about democracy, human rights, and the economic improvement of impoverished areas. As long as US policy can be explained in this light, it can enjoy popular support.

There is now statistical evidence to support my assertion.

The University of Maryland administered a poll surveying American attitudes toward the recent uprisings in the Arab world. 65% believed that increasing democratization in the region would be mostly positive for the United States, and 76% believed it would be so in the long run. Perhaps most telling is the fact that 57% ‘would want to see a country become more democratic, even if this resulted in the country being more likely to oppose U.S. policies.’

It is worthy to note that these opinions focus on the principle – democracy – rather than on the events themselves. Only 51% believed the recent uprisings were likely to lead to increased democracy. Americans can be appreciated for their realism; the outcome in the Arab world is far from clear. Yet the results of this poll demonstrate that we are, at heart, a people that care for the good of the world, even if interpreted through the lens of our own values. Policy makers must determine first and foremost the national interest, but if they fail to convince the people their decision is also beneficial for the foreign nation in question, they are unlikely to win popular support. As the poll suggests, we desire the prioritization of our principles over our interest. Undoubtedly there were many reasons to enter World War I, but the rallying cry was ‘to make the world safe for democracy.’ This sentiment is still pervasive today.

Our reality may not always match our rhetoric, but the fact of our believed benevolence should be noted, both in Washington, and on the Arab street.

Categories
Personal

Time Away

Since we left Egypt during the demonstrations our time in the United States has had its ups and downs, and we have not yet decided when to return. It is always fun to return to family and friends, and we have taken great encouragement through times of sharing about our experiences. It has also been difficult to watch events in Egypt from afar, lacking interaction with the people who give depth and reality to the news.

It has also proven difficult to write. Our blog has suffered during this time away. Throughout the world people are familiar with the disruption and disorientation of transition. On the one hand, this blog should continue no matter our location. ‘A sense of belonging’ has no bearing on GPS. Rather, it is our hope to belong to the society in which we find ourselves. For the past year and a half, it has been Egypt. Over the past decade it has been various different Arab states. Why should it not now be America?

Perhaps we taking belonging here for granted. The familiarity level is such that no attention is given to the newness of experience or the lessons learned in life. If so, it is a dangerous warning. Soon, Egypt will also grow familiar. Will we then stop appreciating or learning from life? Will there be no reason to write and share?

On the other hand, transition is time consuming in ways that escape a normal accounting. Routine is disrupted and reflection is shortchanged. This is another factor that has caused our blog to go blank for a short while.

Your patience is appreciated, and we hope it will soon be satisfied. I have been working on a piece for work to describe the recent Egyptian military activity undertaken at three Coptic Orthodox monasteries. It has been a very controversial matter in Egypt, especially among Christians, and has caused a minor stir in the West as well. Tomorrow I will post part one of the report, which will outline the basic story. Part two will establish context to understand deeper issues which influenced each actor. Finally, part three will critique two news reports which were circulated in the English speaking world, revealing how headlines – and perhaps bias – can misrepresent a situation.

It felt good to be writing again; we hope you enjoy following along with our lives and perspectives once more. Thank you.

Categories
Personal

Twenty-One Days in America (part two)

For Part One, click here.

Emma and Hannah had been excited and preparing for this wedding for months.  They were to be the flower girls, later deemed, “wedding princesses.”  They were excited about wearing white dresses and pink bows and dancing.  Granted, they had never been to an American wedding before, so didn’t know what to expect, but they love their Uncle Aaron, and were eager to participate in his big day.

All went well for the beginning of the trip, in fact, we may have gotten to DC without incident, if I remember correctly!  We didn’t even stop once on the three-hour trip.  That’s not bad with three little ones, but it helps that they are willing to wear diapers, just in case.  We met up with everyone in Old Town Alexandria, VA on the banks of the Potomac River for the rehearsal.

It was a lovely night, and all were ready to do their part … except the two flower girls.  Now they realized what was in store and weren’t excited about all eyes being on them.  Oh well, they enjoyed playing with their glowsticks that Tayta brought and still had a night to prepare their role.  We enjoyed a nice time and good dinner after rehearsal and the girls enjoyed playing with one of the bridesmaids who gave them special princess crowns.

The day of the wedding dawned beautiful and sunny … a perfect one for an outdoor event.  I, unfortunately, didn’t sleep well the night before and got sick during the night.  Maybe Emma’s bug had finally gotten to me.  I spent the day in the hotel room while grandparents entertained the girls for awhile.  They took a good afternoon nap which we thought necessary for success later in the evening.  I was feeling decent in time to go down to the water to grab dinner, but since we needed another adventure, Hannah got sick in the car on the way to the wedding.

Of course I wasn’t going to let them wear their white dresses very long before the wedding, so thankfully, that wasn’t involved in the clean-up process.  We returned to the hotel, and I washed up Hannah while Tayta cleaned up the car as best she could.  Sorry again, Michael.  Then we headed out and enjoyed a wonderful dinner with family before reporting for duty on the green.  The whole ceremony was flawless.  Aaron looked great and very happy.  Megan was beautiful and beaming.

Even Emma and Hannah rose to the occasion as they both carefully dropped flower petals along the path, and slightly off the path, before sitting in their assigned seats.

The weather was perfect and the service was enjoyable as two lives joined together.  Emma was a little antsy as she was waiting for the dancing, and Hannah just wanted to play with the seat decorations, but even Layla stayed quiet for most of the ceremony.  When it was over, we had a short jaunt over the cobblestones on the way to the reception.

I had been looking forward to this reception since I heard about it.  It was a “dessert reception.”  I would take dessert over dinner any day so I couldn’t wait to sample everything.  However, the way my stomach was feeling, I barely wanted to eat anything!  Oh well, I’m glad I was well enough to attend.  The girls enjoyed some dancing, and sampled most of the desserts.  Everyone appeared to be having a good time dancing, laughing, talking, and getting to know one another.  But since we have young children, we had to leave before it was quite over, so we headed back to the hotel around 10pm, and poor Hannah, once again, graced Uncle Michael’s car and her white dress with the “dessert reception.”  It seems she may have picked up the bug.

We mostly slept well that evening, although Jayson was starting to feel the sickness creeping over to him, so in the morning both he and Hannah were down for the count.  This was the day we planned to spend alone as his parents took the three girls home to New Jersey where we would join them tomorrow.  We decided to stick with the plan … even if we weren’t feeling well – it would still be time together.  The girls and I joined all four grandparents at IHOP for some breakfast before everyone headed back North.  We packed the girls into the van to be driven home by grandparents. They had a bucket and some bags along with some snacks, drinks and diapers, for what I hoped could be an uneventful trip.  From the sounds of it, though, it was anything but that.  Hannah threw up before they stopped at the McDonalds across the street from the hotel!  A four-hour trip took about nine hours as they made numerous stops for food and bathroom for two preschoolers, an infant, and a dog, not to mention two adults who drank their share of coffee.  We’re grateful for their perseverance, but sorry it had to be such an experience!

Meanwhile, we enjoyed a leisurely afternoon as Jayson was still not feeling too great.  We sat at one of the parks on the waterfront for awhile, met up one last time with Jayson’s brothers, and finally, around 8pm, headed over to the Lincoln Memorial with some bagels from Dunkin Donuts.  This is the spot where we got engaged over eight years ago.  The view was quite different then as our memories took place at sunrise and we were just about the only ones present.  On this night, the steps were full with tourists, not a huge number, but a steady crowd coming in and out.  We sat and talked and enjoyed our bagels, which was about the only things our stomach wanted at that point.  It may not have been the day we originally planned, but it was special just the same, with no thought of children.  Okay, well, almost no thought of them.  We knew they were in good hands.

The next morning we got to actually sleep in without waking for three active girls! We grabbed some food to eat at the Teddy Roosevelt Island memorial and were happy tohave the energy to loop that trail which we also walked the day of our engagement.

Our trip home included a stop for Rita’s Water Ice which was on our wish list before returning to Egypt.  We returned to the Casper’s house and found two sick adults and three active children.  Fortunately, there were also two healthy adults as some relatives were staying for a few days.  We were doing a pretty good job at sharing our sickness with the whole crew.  We found out soon after that at least four others were hit with the bug as well.  Our one hope was that the bride and groom did not catch it!

Well, our time was just about up.  The last couple days for me meant packing everything we had accumulated, from clothes for the girls to peanut butter to new toys to the toiletries we brought with us … everything had to fit in our eight 50-pound suitcases.  It took a solid day to pack everything we had gathered, and this was with the gracious help of grandparents taking the girls out for an outing.  Fortunately most everyone had recovered and could enjoy a ride on the Staten Island Ferry for a morning.  The day of our travel arrived and we packed up the suitcases right to the last minute and boarded the big van with the four grandparents for the return to Cairo.  By that point, I was tired and ready to be back in Egypt, but we still had two days of travel ahead of us.

I’d have to say that the return trip went very smoothly.  Although we arrived at the airport with plenty of time, we somehow managed to be one of the last people on the plane.  The flight attendants were able to rearrange people to give me an empty seat next to me to put Layla for most of the flight.  The girls enjoyed the in-seat entertainment systems and some of their dinner before the lights went out.  And amazingly, they went to sleep for the duration of the flight at that point!  Of course, with the time it takes to get airborne and serve food, there was only about four hours left of the flight when they went to sleep, but we were glad for any hours they could catch.  Our layover in Amsterdam was nine hours … longer than either flight … so we checked into a hotel room for that time.  It was wonderful to have a bed to lay down on if needed, a place to keep our stuff, a shower to clean up in, and internet to stay in touch with the world!  The girls enjoyed the extensive play areas in the wonderfully designed airport and we stayed entertained all day, until they crashed on the bed about one hour before checkout.  This means we took two crying girls out of the hotel room and down to the gate as they struggled to wake up.  We were glad their crying was not in the enclosed space of the airplane.

Almost on our final leg of the three-week journey, the flight to Cairo was short and sweet.  Again, the movies entertained the girls and us, Layla ate and slept, and by the time dinner was served, it was too late to turn out the lights before landing.  We got off the plane, through customs, and to our luggage around 3am local time (which was only 8pm body-time) and were in our own beds by 5am that morning.  Twenty-one days in America.  The to and fro was rough at times, but would we do it again?  Most certainly.