Article asked on this date

You have found the article

Dagelijks archief 13 maart 2011

De fictie van de PVV over Links

Rechtse mythes ontzenuwd

Het zal velen wel duidelijk zijn dat de PVV zich weinig aantrekt van harde feiten. Beeldvorming is belangrijker dan de waarheid. De PVV begrijpt het verschil goed tussen gelijk hebben en gelijk krijgen. Het nadeel van altijd maar de waarheid geweld aan te doen is dat op je op den duur door de waarheid wordt achterhaald. Zo ook de hardnekkige mythes over de massaimmigratie.

In een recent kamerdebat met Tofik Dibi moest de PVV toch schoorvoetend toegeven dat er van massa immigratie al jaren geen sprake is. De wet Cohen heeft zijn werk goed gedaan als het gaat om het afstoppen van de grote instroom. De PVV betoogt nog wel dat er veel kansarmen binnenkomen, maar ook dat blijkt een duidelijke leugen te zijn. De kansarmen immigranten die moeilijk integreren blijken gemiddeld na 2-3 jaar al het land weer te verlaten. Het zijn juist de goedopgeleiden die blijven, aldus de integratie monitor.

Hoogleraar Leo Lucassen maakt via zijn website vijfeeuwenmigratie.nl korte metten met de mythes die de PVV constant verspreid over de oorzaken van de grote immigratie instroom:

1. Dat Nederland wordt bedreigd door massa-immigratie en dat massa-
immigratie per definitie slecht is voor een samenleving
2. Dat de ‘linkse kerk’ de deur wagenwijd heeft opengezet voor laagopgeleideimmigranten uit Moslimlanden
3. Dat het minderhedenbeleid in de jaren 80 en 90 een links cultuur relativistisch experiment was en Nederland in de greep was van een multiculturele psychose, waardoor de integratie juist ernstig is vertraagd.

Mythe 1

Sinds de invoering van de wet Cohen is de migratie gedaald van bijna 50.000 onder rechtse kabinetten naar een negatief saldo van 6000 in 2006.

Het rapport van onderzoeksbureau Nyfer nam een wel heel ruime definitie van het begrip migratie om toch vooral Wilders zijn rapport te geven waarmee hij andere partijen kon afbluffen. Zelfs Rutte nam in de verkiezingscampagne dit rapport als uitgangspunt. Wie echter kijkt naar de cijfers van het CBS, welke mede gebaseerd zijn op de gegevens van de IND, komt tot een geheel andere conclusie. Zowel Wilders als Rutte hebben de zaak bedonderd.

In de cijfers zitten namelijk ook asielzoekers. Daarvoor gelden andere procedures en wetgeving. Daarbij zijn we afhankelijk van internationale wetgeving. De resterende groep immigranten blijkt overwegend hoog opgeleid. Precies de groep die Rutte juist wilt binnenhalen.

De werkelijke massa immigratie is de instroom vanuit andere EU landen. Arbeidsmigranten zogezegd. Echter deze groep kan niet gebruik maken van sociale regelingen en vertrekt zodra het werk over is. Van werkverdringing door deze groep is nauwelijks sprake. Zij doen vaak werk waarvoor geen autochtonen werknemers te vinden zijn.

Dat immigratie slecht zou zijn voor Nederland is feitelijk nooit aangetoond. De PVV schermt altijd wel met allerlei bedragen zoals in het rapport Nyfer, maar die dit zijn wel heel eenzijdige doorrekeningen zoals Nyfer ook heeft toegegeven. Als je namelijk alleen kijkt naar inkomenspositie, dan valt het grootste gedeelte van de Nederlandse bevolking af en is onrendabel. Om even terug te gaan in de tijd. Tijdens de Gouden Eeuw heeft Nederland volop kunnen profiteren dankzij immigranten die onze schepen bevolkten en ook in de steden zorgden voor ambachtelijk werk.

Mythe 2

Volgens de PVV heeft de linkse kerk de deur wagenwijd opengezet voor immigranten. Een grotere verdraaiing van de werkelijkheid is er haast niet. Tijdens de jaren zestig en zeventig waren de PVDA en vakbonden totaal niet gediend van immigranten. Links was toen bang voor werkverdringing en had zeer strenge voorwaarden gesteld aan immigratie. Na 2 jaar diende de immigrant weer huiswaarts te keren. Ook speelde voor de PVDA dat zij een beleid van bestedingsondersteuning uitvoerden. [Galbraith] Daardoor was de nederlandse werknemer duurder geworden voor ondernemers. Het openzetten van de grenzen zou een enorme werkeloosheid onder de autochtone bevolking veroorzaken. Daar was Den Uyl zich van bewust en hield de deur dicht.

Het zijn juist de rechtse partijen geweest die onder druk van ondernemers deze regels hebben versoepeld[kabinet van agt – wiegel] De ondernemers waren maar al te blij met deze goedkope krachten en waren niet gelukkig met het feit dat een werknemer al na 2 jaar terug moest. Eventuele investeringen in de buitenlandse werknemer werden hierdoor teniet gedaan.

De confessionele partijen, de voorlopers van het CDA, drongen aan op het toestaan van gezinshereniging omdat het gezin heilig is. Het gezin is voor confessionele de hoeksteen van de samenleving en de vreemdelingenwet mocht dat niet beperken.

Zodoende werd op 2 manieren de deur opengezet door Rechts nederland. De VVD liet de immigranten langer blijven en het CDA zorgde ervoor dat de vrouwen en kinderen konden overkomen naar Nederland. Daarmee legde deze 2 rechtse partijen de basis voor het integratie drama. Met Links had dit allemaal weinig te maken.

Mythe 3

Dat de integratie is mislukt door Linkse experimenten berust ook al niet op feiten. Er was ten eerste sprake van brede steun onder de 2e kamer, waarbij het beleid vooral was gericht op het wegwerken van achterstanden. Ten tweede werd dit beleid ingevoerd door de rechtse kabinetten na Den Uyl. Dus de kabinetten van Agt/Wiegel waren hiervoor verantwoordelijk. Zo werd de Minderhedennota uit 1983, met de bekende slogan ‘Integratie met behoud van de eigen identiteit’ onder verantwoordelijkheid Hans Wiegel, destijds minister van Binnenlandse Zaken, naar de Kamer gestuurd.

Het liberaal manifest uit 1981 vertolkte het beleid waarop nu zoveel kritiek is: „De overheid dient aan culturele minderheden een zo groot mogelijke gelegenheid te geven tot integratie in de Nederlandse samenleving en daarbij dient hun recht op behoud van een eigen culturele identiteit te worden veilig gesteld.“. Dit is dus het standpunt van de VVD onder Wiegel. Deze verklaring werd opgesteld nadat al bekend was dat de immigranten niet huiswaarts zouden keren. Het is dus de VVD geweest die de multiculturele samenleving breed uitdroeg en aanmoedigde.

In 1991 verklaarde de toenmalige VVD minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen:

“Ik heb ervoor gestreden dat hiervoor extra geld beschikbaar kwam en regelgeving tot stand kwam. Ik was en ben erg vóór de minderheden. Ik heb destijds gezegd en ik zeg het nog, het mag voor de kansen van een kind niet uitmaken of het uit Alkmaar of Ankara komt.”

Gedurende zijn lidmaatschap voor de VVD in de 2e kamer werd het beleid van de VVD in deze, gesteund en uitgedragen door Wilders. Hoe anders is de opstelling van de PVV nu. Nu kan het zijn dat Wilders tot inkeer is gekomen, al vindt Bolkestein dat hij geradicaliseerd is. Het blijft verbijsterend dat meningen tot feiten worden verheven en er weinig tegengas is in de media om dit tegen te spreken.

Het stuk van Lucassen maakt zaken een stuk duidelijker en ontzenuwd haarscherp de mythes die door rechtse partijen krampachtig in stand wordt gehouden. Het nemen van enige verantwoordelijkheid voor het eigen beleid en handelen is voor rechtse partijen not done. Liever geven ze de schuld aan derden. In dit geval linkse partijen.

Lezing_leo_lucassen_feit_en_fictie_over_migratie
(www.joop.nl / 13.03.2011)

Dispatches From Tahrir

Inside Egypt’s revolution and the last days of Mubarak

By Ashraf Khalil
March 03, 2011

On Thursday January 27th, 2011, Safwat El Sherif, the secretary general of Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party, convened an abrupt press conference in the NDP’s headquarters along the Nile, just outside of Tahrir Square. 

Egypt had just witnessed its largest anti-government protests in a generation and more unrest was on the way. Protest organizers were calling for a massive turnout the following day, and everybody was feeling fired up by the sight of Tunisians hounding out their own longtime dictator Zine al Abidine Ben Ali earlier in the month. Clearly some sort of government response was called for.

President Hosni Mubarak’s government couldn’t have chosen a more appropriate spokesman. Sherif is a quintessential regime crony, a former information minister whose ties to Egypt’s military rulers date back to Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Sixties. With his jet-black dye job and pancake makeup, the guy just looks like an old-school fascist pimp.

He didn’t disappoint either, delivering a medley of NDP greatest hits – a 15-minute string of clichés that didn’t begin to approach the reality on the streets.

Sherif hailed the achievements of the NDP and Mubarak’s government – emphasizing socialized health care and education and the subsidized food and fuel. He made vague promises of “widening political participation” while simultaneously dismissing the street protesters as “a few thousand” and said that a loud minority shouldn’t be able to disrupt the lives of the happy majority. He never mentioned the word ‘Tunisia’ but made an apparent reference in saying, “We don’t imitate other countries. We are Egypt!”

At least five times, he unleashed some variation on, “The Party has its hand on the pulse of the youth.” Sherif concluded with a quote that should be engraved on his headstone: “Egypt is stable, God willing.”

Just over 24 hours later, the room that Sherif spoke from was in flames, and the historic Egyptian revolution was in full swing. If Sherif and his fellow NDP elders truly had their “hand on the pulse” of the people, they would have headed to the airport that night, because the people were baying for their blood.

The “Day of Rage” protests were the first nail in the coffin of Mubarak’s 29-year reign. On January 28th, protesters shattered the police state, defeated the Interior Ministry’s shock troops and took control of central Cairo’s Tahrir Square – pausing to gleefully burn down the NDP headquarters.

They wouldn’t relinquish their hold on Tahrir for weeks, turning the massive public space into a sort of militarized revolutionary utopia. Meanwhile Mubarak’s crumbling regime veered wildly between statements of arrogant defiance, half-assed concessions and, finally, increasingly beleaguered appeals for everybody to just go home.

Mubarak’s humiliating February 11th surrender, coming just one day after he pissed everybody off by publicly vowing not to leave, serves as a reminder of just how unstable these supposedly “stable” Middle Eastern societies can be. In the end, Mubarak’s regime was exposed as fragile, tone-deaf and intellectually bankrupt. At no point in the entire three-week whirlwind did the government seem to fully grasp just what was actually happening.

IF MUBARAK’S FALL was shockingly swift (given his tenure), the many seeds of his demise were years, if not decades, in the making. There were numerous forces that finally brought him down. But the short version is this: He and the people around him brought this on themselves. Mubarak’s apparently genuine confusion, and even hurt, at all the hatred being directed towards him served only to highlight just how completely detached he had become from the realities of the people living in the society he helped shape.

The various crimes of Mubarak’s era are still being unearthed; widespread low-level torture and rampant corruption will certainly top the list. But as modern dictators go, he would struggle even to make the Top 10.

He was never as violent or sadistic as Saddam Hussein, not even close. His longtime interior minister, Habib El-Adly, helped foster a culture of absolute lawlessness among the police and internal security forces. But there won’t be any post-Mubarak revelations of mass graves.

He was never as flamboyantly corrupt as some of his peers. Certainly, uncounted billions disappeared into the coffers of Mubarak and his cronies. But it all seemed to go to nice villas in gated communities outside of Cairo, beach houses on the Mediterranean coast and overseas bank accounts.

One editor called me recently to ask for examples of over-the-top extravagance on the part of Mubarak’s family and inner circle. He wanted something outrageous, on par with Imelda Marcos’s shoe collection, or Uday Hussein’s bizarre sex parties. There is really nothing to offer on that level.

Instead, Mubarak’s ultimate crime will be treating his people with contempt – openly disrespecting them for so long that many Egyptians lost both respect for themselves and their ability to change anything that was happening around them.

Mubarak’s 29 years in power had a genuinely corrosive effect on Egyptian society and psychology. He took a proud and ancient civilization and presided over the virtual collapse of its citizens’ sense of public empowerment and political engagement. He taught them how to feel helpless, then made them forget they had ever felt any other way.

Several successive generations were instilled with the belief that the system was indeed rotten to the core, but that there was nothing anyone could do about it. Anyone who tried to change that dynamic was regarded as a noble fool. Egyptians were taught to “walk next to the wall” – translation: Keep your head down, feed your family and don’t stick your nose in affairs of governance that are above your station.

Egypt under Mubarak, particularly in the last 15 years, became a more cutthroat place. Rule of law was replaced by the law of the jungle. The causes: economic desperation and the vivid daily reminders that there was one set of rules for most and a completely different set for a select few.

The end result was a dramatic erosion of public morality and the trademark Egyptian sense of community. The idea of justice or equal treatment under the law became laughable. In all disputes, big or small, the issue of right or wrong became secondary to the all-important wasta – connections or influence.

But if the first 29 years of the Mubarak era helped kill Egyptians’ self-confidence and sense of their own political empowerment, his last 18 days in power witnessed a dramatic resurgence of both. When the protesters took lasting control of Tahrir, something was unleashed. Reservoirs of confidence, creativity and empowerment emerged which some feared had been lost forever. Seeing the Egyptian people regain that sense of dignity, pride and ownership was arguably the most amazing – and important – aspect of the entire pressurized three-week Egyptian Revolution.

What was truly astonishing to observers – within Egypt and overseas – of the events that transpired between January 25th and February 11th was just how fast everything moved, and how quickly the mood and tone shifted from day to day and sometimes hour to hour.

January 25

A group of young activists, depending heavily on social media, announced a day of mass protests, partially in honor of the successful Tunisian revolution 10 days earlier. The date was mischievously chosen because it was a national holiday: Police Day.

A Facebook page announcing the protests had commitments to attend from 80,000 people. But nobody was really sure just how many would turn out and where.

Anticipation was high for days beforehand, due to both the Tunisian uprising and the recent string of public copycat self-immolations in Egypt.

Organizers originally called for crowds to gather outside the Interior Ministry, near Tahrir Square. That turned out to be a ruse; around 10.30 a.m., the word went out through Twitter and Facebook about a whole new set of gathering points and contact numbers.

The turnout exceeded all expectations. A series of scattered protests moved through different parts of the city, growing in strength as they joined up with other groups and induced onlookers and residents to join in.

I spent the day moving throughout downtown Cairo trying to keep track of a dizzying series of fast-moving events. One group of marchers, moving through the Boulaq area, seemed to make a point of recruiting as they went. Protesters openly appealed to the sidewalk gawkers to join in and chanted, “Raise your voice/He that shouts won’t die!” (It sounds better – and rhymes – in Arabic).

Even among those who didn’t participate, there seemed to be a high degree of emotional support for the marchers. One chubby young mother carrying a wriggling toddler stopped to give the protesters a thumbs-up. Down the block, a grandma sporting no more than four intact teeth gleefully clapped and chanted along.

At one point, more than a thousand people stood outside a building on the Nile belonging to Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party and chanted “Illegitimate” and “Oh Mubarak, your plane is waiting for you.”

The black-clad riot troops of Central Security dutifully deployed in their usual overwhelming waves. But, for the first time in recent memory, the troops seemed outnumbered by the protesters, who simply pushed through their ranks. The Central Security guys looked completely miserable. They weren’t used to a fair fight.

Around 4 p.m., the crowds converged on Tahrir Square, the massive public space on the edge of downtown that’s the traditional heart of the city. The protesters filled up more than half the square, but the riot police began using tear gas and water cannons. A tense stand-off lasted for hours. Around 1 a.m., police violently cleared the square using volleys of tear gas and baton charges.

The day ended in defeat for the protesters, but the turnout had already surprised all sides and officially taken Mubarak’s regime into uncharted waters. Organizers called for January 28th to be a massive “Day of Rage” protest.

January 26-27

The protests started out smaller and more manageable, and riot police succeeded in keeping demonstrators largely penned in. But, late in the evening, violent clashes erupted on Ramsis Street. Protest organizers on Twitter urged demonstrators to keep the pressure on the stressed and fatigued Interior Ministry cadres. Meanwhile, news and images emerged from the canal city of Suez where much more violent confrontations left several police stations burned and parts of the city under the control of the protesters.

The first steps of what would become a near-total communications shutdown became apparent. On the 26th, access to Twitter was blocked, but tech-savvy protesters and journalists generally found ways to access the service. Late in the evening on the 27th, the government took an unprecedented step – shutting down the country’s entire internet service.

January 28

Around 10.30 in the morning, the final hand of the government fell as all coverage for cell phones in the country – including those with foreign sim cards – went dead. There were high expectations of serious violence.

Organizers, aware of the massive security deployment, simply told protesters to begin marching all over the city immediately after noon prayers. From the start, it was obvious the turnout would be beyond all previous numbers.

I joined an approximately 8,000-strong march starting from Moustafa Mahmoud mosque in Mohandessin district, across the Nile from Tahrir.

Some of the protesters came clearly primed for a fight, wearing swim goggles or carrying onions and vinegar-soaked cloths: both well-known treatments for tear-gas exposure. But the overall mood was jubilant and studiously non-violent. At one point, a single hothead protester started vandalizing a roadside McDonalds advertisement; the others quickly dragged him away, shouting “peaceful.”

What was striking was just how diverse the crowds were, and how many female protesters were there. In the span of 10 minutes on the same stretch of asphalt, I interviewed a Westernized young woman in her late 20s with fluent English, an angry tubby veiled lady in her 50s, a 31-year-old executive at a multinational corporation, and an impoverished kid named Mido who makes about $55 per month and who had to drop out of college because his family couldn’t afford to have him not working.

The clashes began at the mouth of the Galaa Bridge in Dokki. Central Security had completely blocked the bridge to prevent access to Tahrir Square, directly across the river. For two hours, starting around 2 p.m., security repeatedly scattered protesters with indiscriminate volleys of tear gas that engulfed the Giza Sheraton. But the demonstrators kept coming back. Those returning from the front lines were treated with onions, vinegar and other tear-gas treatments that I had never even heard of. As I emerged gagging into a side street, a man splashed some Pepsi onto my burning eyes; it immediately alleviated the pain, and by the end of the day I was carrying a Pepsi bottle myself, tending to others.

One of the most remarkable things about the Day of Rage is that it took place inside an information vacuum. On the 25th, half the protesters seemed to be constantly on their smart phones, either Tweeting or checking for news on what was happening across the country. But on the 28th, nobody knew what was happening anywhere else – not even on the other side of the river.

It didn’t matter. Protest organizers basically bypassed the idea of coordination altogether and just told people “Protest everywhere.” The government’s desperate move to strangle the flow of information didn’t hinder the demonstrators. Nor did it stop the journalists from communicating what they witnessed to the world.

If anything, the information vacuum may have ended up sharpening the wills of the demonstrators. With no idea of the situation anywhere else, protesters had no choice but to fight like hell for whatever public patch of ground they were standing on – and then fight their way through to the next patch of ground.

All through that day and deep into the night, Cairo reverted to a word-of-mouth storyteller society. If you were walking in the street and you saw protesters coming the other direction, you asked them where they were coming from and what the situation was like there.

Around 4 p.m., something amazing happened. The phalanx of Central Security troops broke ranks and ran, leaving their paddywagons behind. For a while it was hard to even grasp what had happened. Protesters gleefully spray-painted slogans on the trucks – some of which still contained frightened Central Security guys.

It was a powerful moment – the exact turning point when the police realized the people weren’t afraid of them and that they were woefully outnumbered.

There was a surreal interlude when Interior Ministry officers gathered impotently on the small bridge, while the protesters merely ignored them and surged past. I walked past one group of officers huddling around a walkie-talkie and heard one of them say, “Nobody’s answering.”

In an instant, the fearsome and hated bullies of the Interior Ministry had become pathetic and irrelevant. One middle-aged officer carrying a baton still hadn’t figured it out. He started yelling at a group of young protesters photographing the remains of the paddywagons. One passing demonstrator simply stuck a finger in the officer’s face and loudly shushed him. The officer stopped for a moment, thought it over and meekly withdrew.

By early evening, after a particularly violent battle on Kasr El Nil Bridge, the final gateway to Tahrir, the Interior Ministry had officially been defeated. Mubarak called in the army, which deployed around Tahrir and throughout the city, but the army troops made no aggressive moves against the protesters – many of whom happily climbed up on the tanks and APCs to pose for pictures.

Around midnight, Mubarak made the first of what would become a string of unsatisfactory half-concessions that completely missed the point of what the protesters were demanding. In a televised speech, he announced the dismissal of his cabinet. In Tahrir, about 10 minutes after the speech ended, most of the protesters found this hilarious. It was too ludicrous to even make them mad. As one man said: “Have you heard anybody this week shouting ‘Down with the cabinet?’”

January 29-February 1

A holding pattern ensued. The protesters tightened their grip on Tahrir Square, with several thousand vowing not to leave until Mubarak departed. Supporters brought in blankets, food, medicine, tents and cigarettes. One of the most common chants became, “We’re not leaving/You leave!”

Cell-phone service returned on the 29th, but the internet remained blocked.

The concessions from Mubarak continued. He appointed intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as his first-ever vice-president and ordered him to “open a dialogue” with the opposition. Given the diverse, leaderless, nature of the protests to that point, it’s a valid question whether Suleiman had any idea who to even call to start that dialogue.

The collapse of the police infrastructure and a series of prison breaks sowed fear among the citizens. Neighborhood watches instantly sprang up through the city to protect their districts. On January 31st, an Army spokesman publicly stated that the soldiers would not harm peaceful protesters – a huge relief to the Tahrir demonstrators who had watched the steady buildup of tanks and concrete barricades in recent days.

On February 1st, Mubarak delivered a second speech, this time promising not to run in presidential elections scheduled for the fall, but vowing to remain in office until then. He presented it as a chance to “finish my work in the service of the nation” and head into well-earned retirement.

His latest offer was immediately rejected by the majority of protesters but gained some traction among many Egyptians. Several people throughout the city told me they were happy to see Mubarak go, but saw no need for the former war hero to be humiliated along the way.

February 2-3

The regime played one of its final, and nastiest, cards. A series of pro-Mubarak rallies sprang up throughout the city on Wednesday, February 2nd, and gathered near Tahrir – where they abruptly coalesced into a thousands-strong mass of rock-throwing men who began laying siege to the square. The Tahrir protesters, whose ranks had thinned a bit at that point, were caught by surprise and they struggled to respond. Violent battles went on throughout the day and evening, with heavy casualties among the anti-government forces. Bizarrely, internet service returned just a few hours before the attacks, enabling the Tahrir protesters to send a barrage of frantic Tweets from the center of the maelstrom.

I made it into Tahrir around 3 p.m., and found the protesters paranoid, enraged, and a little scared. Crowds of Mubarak supporters were probing the multiple streets leading into Tahrir, seeking a soft way in; dozens of people were returning from the front lines heavily bloodied. Organizers with loudspeakers were summoning teams of young fighters to this or that intersection.

The protesters were convinced that their attackers were largely made up of plain-clothed officers from the police and State Security Investigations – basically the revenge-seeking remnants of the police state that had skulked away the previous week. They were determined not to break ranks and vigilant against the threat of infiltration by provocateurs. Everyone approaching the square was repeatedly frisked and forced to show their national ID card – which would show on the back if the holder was employed by the Interior Ministry. I watched as one man was apparently unmasked as an Interior Ministry employee; the crowd nearly killed him before others dragged them off.

The army’s behavior was particularly curious. For the most part, the soldiers stood back and watched the violence, fueling doubts in the crowds as to their true intention and loyalties.

On February 3rd, the pro-Mubarak forces didn’t attack Tahrir as intensely, but they secured the perimeter and blocked desperately needed food and medical supplies from entering. They also attacked just about every foreign journalist they could get their hands on. Dozens of journalists were assaulted that day by either pro-Mubarak thugs or ordinary citizens driven to paranoia by a state media that had been screaming for days about shadowy “foreign elements” stoking the protests.

I was attacked, along with several other journalists, while doing innocuous street interviews in the middle-class district of Dokki. An enraged mob punched me in the face several times, and I’m convinced it would have been much worse if a nearby army soldier hadn’t intervened.

The two-day spasm of violence backfired badly on Mubarak and his henchmen. It prompted an angry escalation in the language coming out of the Obama administration. What was worse, for Mubarak, it failed to dislodge the protesters from Tahrir, and only sharpened the demonstrators’ resolve. By Friday, February 4th, the thug squads had disappeared just as suddenly as they formed and massive crowds were streaming in to reinforce the beleaguered Tahrir hardcores.

February 4-10

The golden age of the Republic of Tahrir. Somewhere along the line, protester-held Tahrir Square became a heavily fortified mini-state. Protesters of widely divergent political views and social circumstances combined to create something truly unique. They organized divisions of labor, arranged their own security details and diligently cleaned up after themselves. I entered the square more than a dozen times, and every single time it was cleaner than the street outside my apartment in Giza has ever been.

Every day seemingly revealed new (invariably funny) chants and fresh details. Multiple stages were assembled for concerts, speeches and poetry readings; tent cities mushroomed. Somebody set up a pair of wireless internet networks called Revolution 1 and Revolution 2.

Just getting into Tahrir required running a gauntlet of multiple redundant ID checks and pat-downs by volunteer security wearing their own laminated badges on lanyards around their necks. I have never been searched so often, so thoroughly or so politely. During that final week, Tahrir Square was more secure than most international airports. The buoyant mood had also returned, after a traumatic and violent two days. Once you made it through all the security procedures, you were greeted by a clapping and cheering crowd welcoming you to “liberated ground.”

The protesters had survived – just barely by many accounts – a harrowing experience and emerged battered but on their feet. There was a feeling that the regime had played one of its few remaining cards and failed. They knew at this point that (barring some sort of Army-led massacre) it was just a matter of time.

On the night of February 7th, there came an iconic revolutionary moment. Wael Ghonim, one of the secret planners of the revolt, was released after spending 12 days in detention. A Dubai-based executive for Google, Ghonim had anonymously created the Facebook page “We are all Khaled Saieed” in honor of a notorious victim of police brutality. He had come from Dubai to take part in the first demonstrations, but disappeared into the bowels of the police state on January 28th.

Just hours after his release, Ghonim appeared on a popular satellite talk show on the independent channel Dream TV. His raw, painfully sincere performance mesmerized the country.

“We are not traitors,” he declared. “We did this because we love Egypt.”

Ghonim, 31, wept openly when informed of the estimated 300 protesters – mostly young people – who had been killed. “It’s not our fault,” he sobbed before abruptly leaving the studio. “It’s the fault of all those who are clinging to power.”

Ghonim’s interview was particularly crucial because, for many Egyptians, it represented the first real mainstreaming of the protesters’ message. And their true face. My elderly Egyptian aunties, for example, generally don’t read anything but the state-run Al-Ahram newspaper. But they all watch Dream TV.

February 10

A flurry of early evening developments stoked anticipation that this would be the night that Mubarak would finally surrender and announce his immediate resignation. State television announced that Mubarak would address the nation at 10 o’clock, and several respectable news outlets reported that Mubarak would resign.

Tens of thousands of deliriously happy protesters gathered to watch the speech on a projection screen in Tahrir. They would all be disappointed.

Mubarak delivered a long, whiney, recap of his achievements in the service of the nation, and vowed once again to stay in command until his term finished. In short, he offered absolutely nothing new.

As the president’s speech went on and he failed to say the magic sentence everyone was waiting for, a sense of stunned realization settled over the crowd. Even the dozen soldiers clustered on top of a nearby tank watching the speech seemed grim.

About halfway through Mubarak’s message, One guy yelled out: “Does that look like someone who’s leaving? He won’t go until he’s removed. So we’ll remove him!”

The mood in the immediate aftermath of Mubarak’s speech was difficult to define – equal parts deflation, determination, and a mounting sense of pure rage.

“I feel hatred. I feel like we need to drag him from his palace,” said Mayada Moursi, a schoolteacher in her early 30s.

Twenty-five-year-old Mahmoud Ahmed, simply shrugged and said: “I feel like our president is stupid.”

February 11

Enraged and inspired by Mubarak’s enduring stubbornness, the protesters staked out new ground. One group moved to surround the Information Ministry a short distance from Tahrir – home of the state-run television channels. A second group of protesters made the several-mile trek to the presidential palace in the outlying district of Heliopolis. The army surrounded and secured each building, but made no move to disperse any of the protesters.

Finally, around 6 p.m., a grim vice-president Suleiman read a terse statement on state television. Mubarak had resigned and left power to the Supreme Armed Forces Council.

It was over.

ONE OF THE SAD FACTS of Mubarak’s final two weeks in power is that many of the concessions he offered under duress might have saved his regime and legacy, if only he had done so sincerely and years earlier. But by the time he was forced to deal honestly with his people, nobody trusted him anymore – and with good reason.

Mubarak had a chance to go out with grace, having genuinely placed the country on a road to true democracy.

Instead, his final years were marked by a regression so obvious that it was as though Mubarak and his government had stopped even trying to disguise it. Two of the most shameful moments of the Mubarak era came within its last year: the murder of Khaled Saieed in June 2010 and the ludicrous parliamentary elections in November.

Saieed, a 28-year-old small-time businessman in Alexandria, was dragged from a neighborhood internet café and assaulted by two plain-clothed police officers. The motivations for the attack are still murky, but Saieed’s family and friends claimed at the time it was because he posted a video online showing police officers dividing up the spoils of a recent drug bust.

Watching the video in question, you come away with more questions than answers. It definitely depicted a group of senior police officers jovially congratulating each other in front of a desk loaded with large bricks of hashish. Bizarrely, they all seem aware they are being filmed by what appears to be a cell-phone camera. But just why the officers allowed themselves to be filmed or how such damning footage ended up in the hands of Saieed remains unclear.

Whatever the motivations, the known facts of the Saieed case are this: on June 6th, just days after Saieed posted the video, he was forcibly dragged from the internet café and brutally beaten in front of multiple witnesses. He died from his injuries and images of his badly mangled face rocketed around the Egyptian internet, while several witnesses spoke out to the country’s independent press.

The ensuing furor touched off weeks of demonstrations around the country. That public anger was only magnified by a pair of shameful coroner’s reports that blindly backed the police claim that Saieed had choked to death on a packet of drugs he swallowed when he saw the officers coming.

In sweeping the Saieed issue under the carpet, Mubarak’s government helped lay the seeds for its own demise. Ghonim’s “We Are All Khaled Saieed” Facebook page became one of the main gathering points for organizers of the protests that eventually brought Mubarak down.

The incident also helped politicize untold numbers of Egyptians, touching a deep and powerful societal nerve and resonating among ordinary citizens who probably had never considered attending a demonstration before.

In late June, I attended a protest in Saieed’s name in Alexandria against police brutality. When I pulled out my notebook and identified myself as a reporter, I was literally engulfed by people clamoring to tell me their own personal tales of injustice and mistreatment at the hands of the police. I could have written down a dozen examples, ranging from harassment and intimidation of political activists to Mafia-style shakedowns and casual everyday humiliations.

Last month in Tahrir square, I met Amal, a young affluent mother who admitted she never cared about politics until the Khaled Saieed case.

“That really got to me. I have two boys and I felt he could be one of my sons,” she said. “That was a big turning point here.”

Just months after Saieed’s death came the November 2010 parliamentary elections, providing yet another glaring public reminder that the needs and desires of the people were irrelevant to Mubarak’s government.

After months of angrily insisting to the world that Egypt could conduct free and fair elections, Mubarak presided over one of the most widely decried votes in the nation’s modern history.

Paid civil servants were bussed in en-masse to vote for NDP candidates. Local election monitors and representatives of non-government candidates were barred from entering polling stations. In electoral districts across the country, the ballot boxes themselves were in the sole hands of the security forces – essentially making them the property of the NDP.

The final results were borderline comical and an international PR disaster for the NDP. No opposition party, even those regarded as close to the regime, secured more than a handful of seats. The powerful Muslim Brotherhood, which captured 88 seats (20 per cent of the People’s Assembly) in the 2005 elections somehow magically dropped to zero in the space of five years.

It was, for many Egyptians, the last straw – final, definitive, proof that this government was incapable of ever reforming itself. Mubarak’s legacy will be of a leader who cared so little about his people’s feelings that he felt safe actually showing them the game was rigged and daring them to do something about it.

Other authoritarian regimes are no doubt studying the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions for notes on how to better manage their people and avoid the fates of Mubarak and Ben Ali. But that approach will miss the true message of what happened here.

The real way to stay in power in the new Middle East is much simpler: Behave yourself, don’t get too comfortable and stop treating your citizens with contempt. Over the past month of interviewing protesters, I heard just as many calls for basic dignity and respect as for fuzzier concepts like freedom and democracy. Mubarak and his regime didn’t just take away his people’s freedom; he took their dignity. But the people, in the end, forcefully took it back – robbing Mubarak of his along the way.

(www.rollingstoneme.com / 13.03.2011)

Natuurgeweld in Japan

Namens de redactie van KhamakarPress willen we u aangeven dat we meeleven met de mensen in Japan, ons hart en hoofd zijn bij de overlevenden. Ondertussen denken we ook aan de overledenen van deze grote natuurramp die Japan nog steeds in haar greep heeft.

Military police clash with imams demanding Al-Azhar independence

Egypt’s military police on Sunday prevented a rally organized by mosque imams calling for the independence of Al-Azhar as well as investigations into charges of corruption leveled against the Ministry of Endowments, an eyewitness said.

The same eyewitness said that members of the military police prevented the imams from reaching the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and assaulted them with fists and electric batons. Clashes resulted between the two sides.

Nearly 1000 imams and preachers organized a rally on Sunday, which began outside the Nour Mosque in Abbassiya and marched towards SCAF. The imams had gathered at the mosque in the morning, and a delegation of ten imams headed to SCAF. They were told, however, that the issue would be discussed at a later date. The imams then consulted with each other and decided to head to SCAF once more, stressing that this was the second time in which the SCAF failed to fulfill promises of addressing their demands.

The imams demanded that the law concerning the position of Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh be changed to require elections and for the Endowments Ministry to be annexed to Al-Azhar to enable the latter to become self sufficient. Former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had decided in 1961 to change Al-Azhar’s laws so that its Grand Sheikh would be appointed by the president rather than elected. Nasser had also put Al-Azhar’s budget under state control.

(www.almasryalyoum.com / 13.03.2011)

Agnostic-turned-Muslim pushes for Tennessee mosque

September 13, 2010

Camie Ayash was raised in Brooklyn, the daughter of an agnostic nurse and a New York City cop with a skeptic’s approach to religion.

She is the last person one might expect to be pushing to build a mosque in middle Tennessee.

“My dad was always telling me to compare this with that, to read everything I could and find the discrepancies,” she said. “He would stay up into the night reading the Old Testament, the King James Bible, the Torah and look up translations of the Quran, pointing out conflicting statements within the same book.

“Question everything, decide with an independent, open mind, and be strong when you do,” said Ayash, now 32. “I was always like, ‘OK, Dad, fine.’ But now get it. I seriously get it.”

Earlier this year, she and her husband of 15 years, a Kuwaiti Muslim, announced plans to build an Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, a city of about 100,000 people 35 miles southeast of Nashville. The city has a burgeoning Middle East refugee community, many from Iraq.

For decades, a single mosque had served Murfreesboro, but its congregation has surpassed 1,000 worshippers. Ayash and her husband, a successful car dealership owner, thought it was time to expand. The new 52,000-square-foot structure would house a mosque, gym, playground, cemetery, walking paths and a meeting center.

Backlash was immediate.

The Islamic center was going to be too vast, some complained, and it would jam traffic on a nearby two-way road. Hostility grew as the summer dragged on. A woman stood at a public meeting and said Muslims were “trying to kill us,” The (Nashville) Tennessean newspaper reported. Marchers gathered at the construction site with signs saying “MOSQUE LEADERS SUPPORT KILLING CONVERTS.”

Then, in late August, equipment at the site was torched, and federal agents began an arson investigation. A plywood sign announcing the new center was spray-painted “Not welcome.” Another sign went up, but a vandal destroyed that, too.

Shortly after the blaze, Ayash and others hoping to build the site were standing at the mosque site. She and others heard gunshots and called the sheriff’s department. The Tennessean reported that moments after the shots, a vehicle drove by with its horn blasting “Dixie.”

“That was it for me,” said Ayash. “That really scared me.”

When Ayash came to Murfreesboro more than 10 years ago, she was not a Muslim. She felt no need to convert; her husband had never pressed her.

She always recalled what her father said. Read, seek, ask questions. “It was never an automatic — get married, believe this religion,” she said. “Belief, faith in God is more complicated than that.”

She remembers the summer, as hot as this one, that she was at home and picked up the Quran. Nothing big, nothing major. She had read it off and on for years. Except this time, she kept reading.

“I don’t want to insult the experience by saying that it was like a light going on, but I did just sit there, digesting it for hours, taking it in, understanding it like it was speaking to me,” she said. “I’m not sure I have words to tell you why.”

When her husband got home from work, she went to him like an excited child. “I want to convert!” she announced.

“He kind of laughed and asked, ‘Camie, are you serious? You don’t have to do that,'” she recalled.

A proper conversion ceremony happened. There was no “poof!” to it, just that she felt slightly altered, which is to say, calmer. For years, she wasn’t active at the mosque. She didn’t cover her hair with the traditional hijab.

Another summer came.

“One day I was sitting on our balcony with another woman, a Muslim who covered her hair with the hijab,” she said. “Someone came to visit and looked at her and said, ‘Assalamu alaikum.’ Then the guy turned to me and said, ‘Hey, how you doing?’

“I thought, ‘Wait a second!’ I’m Muslim. Doesn’t that guy know that?”

She began wearing a head scarf, and her practice of Islam deepened.

Another city, another mosque battle

Murfreesboro has become yet another city in America reflecting an apparent visceral mistrust between the nation’s increasingly visible Muslim population and those who see all Muslims in the context of radical Islam.

The tension is most visible in New York City, where opponents are fighting the construction of an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero.

But similar battles are going on in California, where a planned mosque in Riverside County prompted heated protests. Among the comments from residents in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, about a planned mosque: “I know they’ll say there’s the violent or jihad Muslims and there’s the peaceful Muslims, [but] to me it doesn’t make a difference because their goal is to wipe out Christianity around the world.”

And elsewhere in Tennessee, two other proposed Islamic centers have stoked controversy. A Crusaders’ cross was spray-painted on the side of a Nashville mosque, accompanied by, “Muslims go home.” In Williamson County, plans to build a mosque were recently quashed after residents complained a turn lane into the building would be too costly.

Laurie Cardoza-Moore lives in Williamson County. She is leading opposition to the Murfreesboro mosque with a group called Proclaiming Justice to the Nations whose Web site describes its mission statement: “to educate Christians about their Biblical responsibility to stand with their Jewish brethren and defend the State of Israel.”

Ayash said the two have never met, but that she’d be interested in talking to Cardoza-Moore face to face. “I’d love to answer any of her questions and have a civil discussion,” said Ayash.

Cardoza-Moore has appeared on CNN and on televangelist Pat Robertson’s show, “The 700 Club,” arguing that the Murfreesboro mosque is a front for terrorists and an attempt by Muslims to push out Bible and Christian book publishers who do business in the town.

“You have Christian music headquartered here,” Cardoza-Moore said on “The 700 Club.” “The radical Islamic extremists have stated that they are still fighting the Crusaders, and they see this as the capital of the Crusaders.”

Robertson singled out Murfreesboro on his show.

“You mark my word, if they start [to] bring thousands and thousands of Muslims into the relatively rural area, the next thing you know, they’re going to be taking over the city council. Then they’re going to be having an ordinance that — that calls for the public prayer five times a day,” Robertson has said.

Hearing that is especially difficult for Dr. Essam Fathy, a physical therapist who has lived in Murfreesboro for 30 years. He is on the board of the new mosque.

“There were a lot of Muslims here years ago as there are now, and we have all lived in peace for years,” he said. “But something lately has changed in my town. I’ve never seen aggression like this. It’s reached an absurdity that I just don’t know how to react to anymore.

“I hear people say things to me, just out and about, rumors about how we’re going to build a terrorist training camp, that’s what the gym will be used for.”

Fathy talks in exasperated tones. “I just want you to understand,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that we don’t want to argue with anyone. I want Murfreesboro back the way it was, which was actually a very nice place to live.”

Ayash recalled wearing her hijab around town, running errands, shopping for groceries.

“Back then, I felt so proud to put it on,” she said. “Now I’m afraid. If I wear this, am I a target?”

Ayash said she gets at least one threatening phone call or voicemail a week about the mosque. The Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department has stepped up patrols near the mosque.

“What do you do in this situation? I’m a mother, I’m a wife. There are times when I feel defeated, like I should back down just to protect my family,” she said.

“My parents think it’s sad what’s going on.

“If they taught me to look around, to challenge people, ask more questions, I guess I’d ask the people here in Murfreesboro, ‘Is this how you treat your neighbors?'”

(edition.cnn.com / 13.03.2011)

Tientallen gewonden bij betoging tegen Marokkaanse overheid

Tientallen mensen hebben deels zware verwondingen opgelopen na een betoging zondag in de Marokkaanse stad Casablanca, zo hebben een journalist van het Franse persbureau AFP en andere ooggetuigen vastgesteld.

Dat gebeurde toen de Marokkaanse politie wou binnendringen in de zetel van de PSU, een linkse partij, waar de demonstranten hun toevlucht hadden gezocht.

De betoging zelf, waar een lans werd gebroken voor politieke hervormingen, was vreedzaam verlopen tot de politie ze met geweld ontbond. Daarop zochten tientallen betogers hun toevlucht in het gebouw van de Parti Socialiste Unifié (PSU).

Een poging van de politie om het gebouw te bestormen mislukte wegens heftig verzet van de demonstranten. Volgens een getuige werden zelfs een zwangere vrouw en tienermeisjes door de ordehandhavers hardhandig aangepakt.

(www.nieuwsblad.be / 13.03.2011)

Four Principles for a Noble Character

It is not imagined that one can have noble character except if it is founded upon four pillars:

The First: Sabr (Patience)
The Second: ‘Iffah (Chastity)
The Third: Shujaa’ah (Courage)
The Fourth: ‘Adl (Justice)

Patience inspires him to be tolerant, control his anger, endure the harms that he receives from others, to be forbearing and deliberate in his decisions. It motivates him to be gentle and not to be rash or hasty.

Chastity inspires him to avoid every imprudent characteristic, whether in statement or action, and encourages him to have a sense of modesty and integrity which is the epitome of all good. It prevents him from fornication, stinginess, lying, backbiting and spreading tales to cause separation and discord between the people.

Courage inspires him to have a sense of self esteem, to emphasize high and noble manners and to make it apart of his natural disposition. It also encourages him to exert himself and to be generous, which is in essence, true courage and it leads to strong will and self determination. It encourages him to distance himself from his ardent lowly desires, to control his anger, and to be forbearing because by such, he can control his temper, take it by the reins and curb his violent and destructive behavior just as the Messenger (salla Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said:

“The Strong is not the one who can wrestle his opponent to the ground but rather the strong is the one who can control himself when he gets angry.” [Agreed upon]
«ليس الشديد بالصرعة ، إنما الشديد الذي يملك نفسه عند الغضب» متفق عليه

This is true genuine courage and it is the sole trait that the slave utilizes to conquer his opponent.

Justice encourages him to be impartial in his behavior with people and to be moderate between the two extremes of negligence and extremism. It motivates him to be generous and kind; which is the middle course between absolute degradation and arrogance, and to make this a part of his disposition and makeup. It encourages him to be courageous; which is the middle course between cowardice and imprudence, and to be forbearing; which is the middle course between extreme unnecessary anger and ignominy.

These four virtuous characteristics are the axis and provenance of all noble manners and the foundation of all repugnant and ignominious characteristics are built upon four pillars:

The First: Jahl (Ignorance)
The Second: Dhulm (Oppression)
The Third: Shahwah (following ones lowly desires)
The Fourth: Ghadab (Anger)

Ignorance allows him to view good in the form of evil and evil in the form of good, and to consider that which is complete to be incomplete and that which is incomplete to be complete.

Oppression causes him to put things in places which are not appropriate for them, so he gets angry when it’s time to be happy and he is happy when it’s time to be angry. He is ignorant and hasty when it’s time to be deliberate and deliberate when it’s time to be hasty, he is stingy when it is time to be generous and generous when it’s time to be stingy. He is weak when it is time to be courageous and assume responsibility, and he assumes responsibility when it is time to take a step back (and let someone else undertake the initiative). He is gentle and lenient when it is time to be harsh and firm and he is harsh and firm when it is time to be lenient. He is humble when it is time to be superior and arrogant when it is time to be humble.

Following (his) lowly desires encourages him to be diligent in obtaining that which the soul ardently desires, to be stingy and greedy. It encourages him to adorn himself with all types of despicable and imprudent characteristics.

Anger incites him to be arrogant, jealous, envious, to hold enmity of others and to be imprudent and shameless.

The foundation of these four repugnant and blameworthy characteristics; are two pillars:

Either extreme self ignominy,
Or extreme self pride.

3-Libyan rebels says Gaddafi forces fight each other

Gunfight between security force units at Misrata: rebels

* Government spokesman says reports of mutiny are “rubbish”

* Resident says city calm by nightfall (updates with quote from resident)

By Mariam Karouny

DJERBA, Tunisia, March 13 (Reuters) – An assault on Libya’s rebel-held city of Misrata was stalled on Sunday by renewed fighting between members of Muammar Gaddafi’s security forces, rebels said, but the government denied reports of a mutiny.

Residents said fighting broke out on Saturday after some units of the Libyan leader’s force refused to attack Misrata, Libya’s third-biggest city and the only place in the west of the country still openly defying Gaddafi’s rule.

The reports of a mutiny could not be verified because Libyan authorities have not allowed reporters access to the city of 300,000 which is 200 km (130 miles) east of the capital.

“From the early morning they (the security forces) are fighting among each other. We hear the fighting,” Mohammed, one of the rebel fighters, told Reuters by telephone on Sunday.

“This division between them came to us from God. Just when we thought the end was coming, this happened. Now we are waiting to see what will happen.”

MUTINY REPORTS “RUBBISH”

Asked about reports of a mutiny in Misrata, government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim said: “This is rubbish. It is not true.”

“The army has surrounded the centre of Misrata. They are in the city. Tribal elders are talking to them (the rebels) to surrender,” he said in Tripoli.

Misrata residents said they could hear the sound of heavy fighting from a military airfield to the south of the town, where pro-Gaddafi forces have been based.

They said there were no clashes between rebels and security forces on Sunday. By nightfall, the city was calm, even though fearful locals said they were bracing for a government assault.

“It’s quiet, the streets are empty, but we are expecting an attack at any moment,” said Mohammed, a resident, adding there was a shortage of emergency medical supplies in the city.

Earlier Gemal, a rebel spokesman, said that during fighting between Gaddafi’s forces a house and a shop had been hit by shelling. He did not know whether there were any casualties.

He said during the day shops had opened as normal, adding: “Of course there is tension as everybody is waiting to see what will happen.”

Reports of a mutiny in Misrata, though unconfirmed, will raise questions about the ability of Gaddafi’s security forces to press an offensive in the country’s east, where the rebels have their biggest stronghold.

Residents had said the main force preparing to attack Misrata was the 32nd Brigade. This is commanded by Gaddafi’s son Khamis and, according to military analysts, is the best trained and equipped force available to the Libyan leader.

Gaddafi, in power for four decades, lost control over large swathes of the oil exporting country last month in a revolt against his rule that took some of its inspiration from uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt.

But in the past week, the momentum has shifted back towards Gaddafi. His forces crushed a rebellion in Zawiyah, 50 km west of Tripoli, and drove the rebels in the east out of the oil towns of Ras Lanuf and Brega.

(www.af.reuters.com / 13.03.2011)