Le sort de Moubarak est jeté, et jusqu’à l’appui des États-Unis ne pourra pas sauver son gouvernement. Le peuple égyptien est intelligent ; il a, au cours de sa glorieuse histoire, laissé son empreinte dans la civilisation humaine. « Du haut de ces pyramides, quarante siècles vous contemplent », s’exclama, dit-on, Bonaparte à un moment d’exaltation où la révolution des Encyclopédistes le conduisit à cette extraordinaire rencontre de civilisations.
À la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, l’Égypte brilla sous la conduite d’Abdel Gamal Nasser. Lui, Jawaharlal Nehru, héritier du Mahatma Gandhi, Kwame Nkrumah et Ahmed Sékou Touré, deux leaders africains, Sukarno, président de l’Indonésie récemment libérée, créèrent le Mouvement des pays non alignés qui propulsa la lutte d’indépendance des colonies. Les peuples du Sud-Est asiatique et de l’Afrique du Nord, dont l’Égypte, l’Algérie, la Syrie, le Liban, la Palestine, le Sahara occidental, le Congo, l’Angola et le Mozambique, se battaient, avec le soutien de l’URSS et de la Chine, contre les métropoles française, anglaise, belge et portugaise que soutenaient les États-Unis
Cuba se joignit à ce mouvement en marche au triomphe de sa Révolution. En 1956, la Grande-Bretagne, la France et Israël avaient attaqué par surprise l’Égypte qui avait nationalisé le canal de Suez, mais la solidarité audacieuse de l’URSS, qui menaça même de recourir à ses missiles stratégiques, paralysa les agresseurs.
Le décès précoce de Nasser, le 28 septembre 1970, fut une perte irréparable pour l’Égypte.
Les USA n’ont pas cessé de conspirer contre le monde arabe qui concentre les plus grosses réserves de pétrole au monde.
Il est inutile de beaucoup argumenter. Il suffit de lire les dépêches de presse pour savoir ce qu’il se passera inévitablement.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The One Person Who May Know What Egypt's Generals Will Do:Robert Baer
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak appointed his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as Vice President not because Suleiman had any sway with the Egyptian street but rather because the new Veep knows the military better than anyone. A former general, Suleiman has spent his career helping keep Egypt's officers in line. He learned by heart the biographies of every officer, and is uncannily capable of predicting who is loyal and who isn't. That privileged catalog is key to anyone who wants to control the closed military dictatorship that Egypt has been since a 1952 coup d'état overthrew the monarchy. And that's why everyone else seems to be confused about what's going to happen next in Egypt, including the Egyptians.
Anyone who has paid attention to Egypt will tell you that the country's generals have always kept their own counsel. But even at that, they have been extremely circumspect, the generals knowing that anyone who showed the slightest independence or rebelliousness would be quietly and quickly cashiered by the regime. It's not surprising, then, that no intelligence agency in the world has been able to pull back the veil on Egypt's military dictatorship — and they're not about to now. (See how Obama has been forced to sit on the sidelines during the Egypt turmoil.)
I'd guess that Suleiman spent 80% of his time devoted to monitoring Egypt's generals and colonels, the officers who could order the tanks to seize the presidential palace. Suleiman no doubt had every one of their phones tapped, knew who was in debt and who wasn't, who left the country and who didn't. He knew exactly who took which bribes and for how much — a weapon for keeping them in line.
Egypt may have been under a constant Islamic militant threat since the 1950s, but Suleiman and his predecessors knew all along that this was only a flea bite compared to the threat of a military coup d'état. In a country like Egypt, all it would take is one tank company to surround the presidential palace and change the regime.
On the other side of the equation, Egypt's officers know exactly how vulnerable they are in a system like this. If they have never seen the inside of one of Suleiman's prisons, they've heard enough about them to live in abject terror. Accordingly, they make a point of never speaking out frankly to other officers who more than likely could be reporting to Suleiman. And they especially avoid foreign diplomats. (See how vigilantes and protesters are clashing in Egypt's streets.)
All bets are off now that the Egyptian commander in chief's fate is on the edge. I'd guess they're coming out of their holes now and asking aloud what's next — how to preserve the dictatorship. But, like I said, this is only a guess. (Washington's problem, though, is that the last people the Egyptian generals and officers talk to will be the Americans. We can count on that probably because there aren't many Egyptian officers who didn't read the WikiLeaks diplomatic-cable dump.
And anyhow, if the military ever comes to the excruciating decision of giving Mubarak the boot, what good can the U.S. do other than congratulate them after the fact? After all these years of Egypt's military hiding behind a wall of complete opaqueness, the U.S. simply doesn't understand the security forces enough to be of any assistance. (See Israel's growing anxiety over the Egyptian protests.)
So we can only watch and wait. But let's not pay any attention to anyone who says "I told you so." What do they know?
Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently,The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.
Anyone who has paid attention to Egypt will tell you that the country's generals have always kept their own counsel. But even at that, they have been extremely circumspect, the generals knowing that anyone who showed the slightest independence or rebelliousness would be quietly and quickly cashiered by the regime. It's not surprising, then, that no intelligence agency in the world has been able to pull back the veil on Egypt's military dictatorship — and they're not about to now. (See how Obama has been forced to sit on the sidelines during the Egypt turmoil.)
I'd guess that Suleiman spent 80% of his time devoted to monitoring Egypt's generals and colonels, the officers who could order the tanks to seize the presidential palace. Suleiman no doubt had every one of their phones tapped, knew who was in debt and who wasn't, who left the country and who didn't. He knew exactly who took which bribes and for how much — a weapon for keeping them in line.
Egypt may have been under a constant Islamic militant threat since the 1950s, but Suleiman and his predecessors knew all along that this was only a flea bite compared to the threat of a military coup d'état. In a country like Egypt, all it would take is one tank company to surround the presidential palace and change the regime.
On the other side of the equation, Egypt's officers know exactly how vulnerable they are in a system like this. If they have never seen the inside of one of Suleiman's prisons, they've heard enough about them to live in abject terror. Accordingly, they make a point of never speaking out frankly to other officers who more than likely could be reporting to Suleiman. And they especially avoid foreign diplomats. (See how vigilantes and protesters are clashing in Egypt's streets.)
All bets are off now that the Egyptian commander in chief's fate is on the edge. I'd guess they're coming out of their holes now and asking aloud what's next — how to preserve the dictatorship. But, like I said, this is only a guess. (Washington's problem, though, is that the last people the Egyptian generals and officers talk to will be the Americans. We can count on that probably because there aren't many Egyptian officers who didn't read the WikiLeaks diplomatic-cable dump.
And anyhow, if the military ever comes to the excruciating decision of giving Mubarak the boot, what good can the U.S. do other than congratulate them after the fact? After all these years of Egypt's military hiding behind a wall of complete opaqueness, the U.S. simply doesn't understand the security forces enough to be of any assistance. (See Israel's growing anxiety over the Egyptian protests.)
So we can only watch and wait. But let's not pay any attention to anyone who says "I told you so." What do they know?
Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently,The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.
عمر سليمان نائبا له لأنه قادر على إقناع المتظاهرين بالعودة الى منازلهم:صلاح أحمد
يعيّن الرئيس المصري حسني مبارك مدير استخباراته عمر سليمان نائبا له لأنه قادر على إقناع المتظاهرين بالعودة الى منازلهم، وإنما لأنه الوحيد المُدرك نوايا الجنرالات والقادر على قص أجنحتهم.
وفقا لروبرت باير، ضابط «سي آي ايه» الميداني في الشرق الأوسط سابقا وحاليا محرر شؤون الاستخبارات في مجلة «تايم» الأميركية، فإن عمر سليمان، وهو جنرال متقاعد، أمضى حياته المهنية في محاولة «ضبط» الجنرالات وضمان عدم خروجهم على الصف وشق عصا الطاعة.
وليس من المبالغة في شيء القول إن سليمان «يحفظ عن ظهر قلب» سير حياة كبار الضباط، ويعرف «غريزياً» مَن الموالي منهم ومَن المتردد ومَن المتمرد. وهذا التصنيف، الذي لا يعرفه غير صاحبه وقلة مختارة، هو المفتاح لكل من أراد الهيمنة على حارة الدكتاتورية العسكرية المغلقة التي سيطرت على زمام البلاد منذ انقلاب 1952 على الملكية. وهذا ايضا هو السبب في آن لا أحد يعلم ما الذي سيحدث الآن في مصر، بما في ذلك المصريون أنفسهم.
واولئك الذين يحيطون علما بالشؤون المصرية يعلمون أن جنرالاتها يبقون على أمورهم سرا بينهم. وحتى في هذا الإطار نفسه، فهم يتوخون اليقظة والحذر الى أبعد الحدود الممكنة. وهذا لأن كل واحد منهم يعلم تمام العلم أن أي خطوة في غير مكانها الصحيح من جانبه تعني فتح باب الخروج له أو الإلقاء به عنوة خارج أسوار المؤسسة العسكرية. لا غرو إذا، والحال كهذا، أنه لا توجد هيئة استخبارات واحدة في العالم تمكنت من رفع النقاب عن آليات الدكتاتورية العسكرية في مصر، وأن هذا الوضع ليس على وشك التغيّر فقط لأن مصر تشهد ما تشهده.
ويعتقد باير أن سليمان «يخصص 80 في المائة من وقته لمراقبة جنرالات وكبار الضباط في بلاده.. أولئك الضباط القادرون على توجيه الأمر بتحرك الدبابات والاستيلاء على القصر. وما لا شك فيه هو ان سليمان يتنصّت على محادثاتهم الهاتفية، ومَن منهم في رحلة خارج البلاد ومتى يعود، وحتى أنه يعلم مَن منهم يعاني الديون، ومَن منهم تقاضى رشوة وكم من المال انتهى في جيبه.. بإحضار كل ما من شأنه تسهيل الإمساك به من يده التي تؤلم».
ومع أن مصر ظلت مهددة بخطر الأصولية الإسلامية منذ الخمسينات، فقد ظل سليمان وأولئك الذين خلفوه في منصبه يدركون أن هذا بحد ذاته لا شيء بالقياس الى خطر انقلاب عسكري. وفي بلاد مثل مصر، فكل ما يستلزمه الأمر سَرَية في حفنة من الدبابات تحاصر القصر الرئاسي وتستولي على الحكم.
وفي الجهة المقابلة فإن كبار الضباط يعلمون بالضبط أنهم ضعفاء ومن دون حماية داخل الإطار العريض برمته. وحتى إن كان من بينهم من لم ير رؤية العين الوضع داخل سجون سليمان، فإن بدنه سيقشعرّ لمجرد سماعه حكايات مَن رأى. ولهذا فهم لا يدلون بآرائهم أمام أي من الضباط الآخرين (أو الدبلوماسيين الأجانب) خشية أن يجد هذا الرأي طريقه الى مكتب سليمان.
ومع الغموض الذي يكتنف الوضع المصري ومستقبل دكتاتوريتها العسكرية فإن مشكلة واشنطن هي أن الأميركيين هم آخر من يود الضباط المصريون الحديث اليهم. وإذا كان هو الوضع السائد في الأحوال العادية، فما بالك ببرقيات الدبلوماسيين الأميركيين التي سربها وسيسربها «ويكيليكس» بالآلاف؟
على أية حال، وحتى في حال نجاح هؤلاء الضباط في التخلص من مبارك، فما فائدة أميركا بالنسبة لهم غير التهنئة للنظام الجديد والامنيات بالاستقرار والازدهار.. الى آخره من فقاعات الكلام؟
وفقا لروبرت باير، ضابط «سي آي ايه» الميداني في الشرق الأوسط سابقا وحاليا محرر شؤون الاستخبارات في مجلة «تايم» الأميركية، فإن عمر سليمان، وهو جنرال متقاعد، أمضى حياته المهنية في محاولة «ضبط» الجنرالات وضمان عدم خروجهم على الصف وشق عصا الطاعة.
وليس من المبالغة في شيء القول إن سليمان «يحفظ عن ظهر قلب» سير حياة كبار الضباط، ويعرف «غريزياً» مَن الموالي منهم ومَن المتردد ومَن المتمرد. وهذا التصنيف، الذي لا يعرفه غير صاحبه وقلة مختارة، هو المفتاح لكل من أراد الهيمنة على حارة الدكتاتورية العسكرية المغلقة التي سيطرت على زمام البلاد منذ انقلاب 1952 على الملكية. وهذا ايضا هو السبب في آن لا أحد يعلم ما الذي سيحدث الآن في مصر، بما في ذلك المصريون أنفسهم.
واولئك الذين يحيطون علما بالشؤون المصرية يعلمون أن جنرالاتها يبقون على أمورهم سرا بينهم. وحتى في هذا الإطار نفسه، فهم يتوخون اليقظة والحذر الى أبعد الحدود الممكنة. وهذا لأن كل واحد منهم يعلم تمام العلم أن أي خطوة في غير مكانها الصحيح من جانبه تعني فتح باب الخروج له أو الإلقاء به عنوة خارج أسوار المؤسسة العسكرية. لا غرو إذا، والحال كهذا، أنه لا توجد هيئة استخبارات واحدة في العالم تمكنت من رفع النقاب عن آليات الدكتاتورية العسكرية في مصر، وأن هذا الوضع ليس على وشك التغيّر فقط لأن مصر تشهد ما تشهده.
ويعتقد باير أن سليمان «يخصص 80 في المائة من وقته لمراقبة جنرالات وكبار الضباط في بلاده.. أولئك الضباط القادرون على توجيه الأمر بتحرك الدبابات والاستيلاء على القصر. وما لا شك فيه هو ان سليمان يتنصّت على محادثاتهم الهاتفية، ومَن منهم في رحلة خارج البلاد ومتى يعود، وحتى أنه يعلم مَن منهم يعاني الديون، ومَن منهم تقاضى رشوة وكم من المال انتهى في جيبه.. بإحضار كل ما من شأنه تسهيل الإمساك به من يده التي تؤلم».
ومع أن مصر ظلت مهددة بخطر الأصولية الإسلامية منذ الخمسينات، فقد ظل سليمان وأولئك الذين خلفوه في منصبه يدركون أن هذا بحد ذاته لا شيء بالقياس الى خطر انقلاب عسكري. وفي بلاد مثل مصر، فكل ما يستلزمه الأمر سَرَية في حفنة من الدبابات تحاصر القصر الرئاسي وتستولي على الحكم.
وفي الجهة المقابلة فإن كبار الضباط يعلمون بالضبط أنهم ضعفاء ومن دون حماية داخل الإطار العريض برمته. وحتى إن كان من بينهم من لم ير رؤية العين الوضع داخل سجون سليمان، فإن بدنه سيقشعرّ لمجرد سماعه حكايات مَن رأى. ولهذا فهم لا يدلون بآرائهم أمام أي من الضباط الآخرين (أو الدبلوماسيين الأجانب) خشية أن يجد هذا الرأي طريقه الى مكتب سليمان.
ومع الغموض الذي يكتنف الوضع المصري ومستقبل دكتاتوريتها العسكرية فإن مشكلة واشنطن هي أن الأميركيين هم آخر من يود الضباط المصريون الحديث اليهم. وإذا كان هو الوضع السائد في الأحوال العادية، فما بالك ببرقيات الدبلوماسيين الأميركيين التي سربها وسيسربها «ويكيليكس» بالآلاف؟
على أية حال، وحتى في حال نجاح هؤلاء الضباط في التخلص من مبارك، فما فائدة أميركا بالنسبة لهم غير التهنئة للنظام الجديد والامنيات بالاستقرار والازدهار.. الى آخره من فقاعات الكلام؟
طالب أدباء وروائيون ونقاد ومثقفون مصريون الرئيس حسني مبارك بالرحيل والبعض دعى الشباب العودة الى منازلهم
الروائي فؤاد قنديل:"الشباب المصري قام بأهم ثورة في التاريخ المصري كله، وكان يجب القيام بها لأن الأوضاع في عهد مبارك كانت الأسوأ، حيث هناك ترد في جميع القطاعات، في الزراعة والصناعة، والبطالة يعاني منها 10 ملايين شاب يتعرضون للإهانة في أقسام الشرطة".
الثورة تراجع دور مصر الإقليمي وأزمة حوض النيل والحرب على فلسطين، كما قام النظام بتعديلات دستورية لحسابه ولحساب أبناء الحزب الوطني في عهده الذين نهبوا كل شيء في مصر.
الروائي جمال الغيطاني:أن "الشباب هم الأصل في هذه الثورة التي أيقظت مصر". ودعا الغيطاني إلى سرعة بروز قادة من الشباب تتحاور باسم هذه الثورة، وأن يشترطوا أن لا يزيد عمر الرئيس المقبل عن 50 عاما، ونصحهم بالاستمرار في موقفهم وأن يتحاوروا بهدف الوصول إلى نتائج محددة تضمن تداولا سلميا للسلطة.
عبد المجيد :إن مصر "الآن تتحول إلى دولة حرة وديمقراطية على يد هذا الجيل الذي ظلمناه".
يوسف زيدان:"نظام مبارك" وما كرسه من "إدمان" للبقاء على كراسي السلطة، وإلزام الناس بالسكوت على الظلم، هو عصر انتهى ولا رجعة إليه.
الشاعر محمد إبراهيم أبو سنة :ثورة شباب مصر في 25 يناير/كانون الثاني الماضي حققت إنجازات رائعة على مسار تحقيق الديمقراطية والعدالة الاجتماعية ومحاربة الفقر وتداول السلطة.
إبراهيم عبد المجيد: نظام مبارك كان فاشيا ودكتاتوريا وكاذبا وأضاف أن "هؤلاء الشباب حققوا لمصر الكثير في أسبوع واحد، ونحن ننحني إعزازا وتقديرا لهذه الثورة، لكن كل الثورات والحروب تنتهي بالتفاوض شلل فكري
خيري شلبي : كأديب أشعر الخوف والهلع، لأن المستقبل في تقديري غامض ومظلم، سواء تنحى الرئيس مبارك أو بقي في موقعه، فلم تعد الحياة آمنة".
وأضاف "الطريق تحدده العاصفة، ومتى هبت يصبح مصيرها في يدها، وما سوف تحدثه من دمار، ومن يقف أمامها سوف تجرفه، والعاصفة هبت بشكل سريع كإعصار كاسح، ونحن كالعادة غير قادرين على إدارة الأزمات، والآن مصر تتعرض لأكبر أزمة فشلنا في إدارتها، ولو أدرناها بحكمة وعقل لما وصلت إلى هذا الحد".
مدحت الجيار: تنحي الرئيس مبارك الآن مطلب صعب التحقيق وأنصح الشباب بالعودة إلى منازلهم، لأن تنحي الرئيس الآن هو مطلب صعب التحقيق، "لأنه يحتاج إلى إجراءات قانونية، حتى لا يحدث فراغ في السلطة وترتبك أمور الدولة، كما أن الفترة الباقية للرئيس قليلة، والحوار مطلوب بين جميع الجماعات والحكومة ممثلة في نائب الرئيس ورئيس الوزراء وبدون شروط مسبقة".
محاولات للحد من المظاهرات بمصر
قائد المنطقة المركزية العسكرية فشل في إقناع المتظاهرين بإخلاء ميدان التحرير )
بدأت الحكومة المصرية إجراءات للحد من احتمال اتساع نطاق الاحتجاجات المطالبة بتنحي الرئيس حسني مبارك, بينما يتوقع أن يشهد ميدان التحرير بقلب القاهرة وعدد من المحافظات "مسيرات مليونية" دعا إليها المتظاهرون في بداية ما أطلق عليه أسبوع الصمود.
وذكرت مصادر للجزيرة أن الجيش يعرقل دخول المتظاهرين إلى ميدان التحرير, الذي يتواجد فيه عدد من رموز المعارضة. كما ينتظر أن يقيم مسيحيون قداس الأحد في قلب الميدان تضامنا مع مطالب المتظاهرين.
وسعت دبابات الجيش إلى ضغط المتظاهرين بميدان التحرير لإفساح الطريق أمام حركة المرور, ورفض المحتجون المغادرة رغم هطول الأمطار.
وقال مصطفى محمد، وهو أحد المحتجين، إنه من الواضح جدا أنهم يحاولون خنق المتظاهرين وهذا يظهر سوء النية، ولكنه قال إن المحتجين لن يتحركوا قبل تلبية مطالبهم المشروعة.
وفي محاولة حكومية لإعادة الحياة إلى طبيعتها, وهو ما قد يعني تهميش المظاهرات, تستأنف البنوك المصرية عملها بشكل تدريجي اليوم, في حين حاول الجيش المصري فتح طريق للسيارات بميدان التحرير الذي يحتشد فيه المتظاهرون. ويوصف التحرك الحكومي في هذا الصدد بأنه أول اختبار حقيقي لإمكانية السيطرة على قوة دفع الاحتجاجات.
وقد أصر المحتجون في ميدان التحرير بالقاهرة على البقاء بمواقعهم ورفضوا طلبا من قائد المنطقة العسكرية المركزية في الجيش المصري حسن الرويني الذي ناشدهم العودة إلى منازلهم لتسيير الحياة اليومية للمواطنين.
وكان الرويني يتفقد ميدان التحرير في محاولة لإقناع المحتجين بمغادرة الميدان المزدحم عادة في قلب المدينة.
ما يزيد عن 3000 فلسطيني يتظاهرون تضامناً مع شعبي مصر وتونس
5-2-2011- رام الله-بيت لحم-الناصرة -فلسطين المحتلة- احتشد آلاف الفلسطينيين في أرجاء الوطن تضامناً مع الشعبين المصري والتونسي الشقيقين في ثورتهم من أجل الحرية والديمقراطية والعدالة الاجتماعية. وكانت مجموعة من الشباب الفلسطيني المستقل ومؤسسات المجتمع المدني وبعض القوى الفلسطينية وعدد من النقابات قد دعت إلى هذه المظاهرات التضامنية، ,ورفع المتظاهرون المحتشدون الأعلام الفلسطينية والتونسية والمصرية، وطالبوا بإسقاط النظم الاستبدادية وعلى رأسها النظام المصري. ونادى من خلال هتافهم، "الشعب يريد إنهاء الانقسام، الشعب يريد إنهاء التطبيع، الشعب يريد إنهاء الاحتلال"، إضافة إلى ترديدهم الشعار الناظم لانتفاضة مصر، المستوحى من انتفاضة تونس: "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام [المصري]"، مطالبين برحيل الرئيس المصري مبارك فوراً.
وتعبيراً عن وحدة الشعب الفلسطيني، قامت مجموعات شبابية بالمشاركة في تنظيم المظاهرات التضامنية مع الشعب المصري في كل من الناصرة وبيت لحم ورام الله بالتزامن.
وتعبيراً عن وحدة الشعب الفلسطيني، قامت مجموعات شبابية بالمشاركة في تنظيم المظاهرات التضامنية مع الشعب المصري في كل من الناصرة وبيت لحم ورام الله بالتزامن.
Révolution égyptienne, l’exceptionnalisme israélien : Michel Warschawski
Quand on entend les réactions israéliennes à l’insurrection du peuple égyptien, l’aspect le plus frappant est l’abîme vertigineux existant entre ces réponses et celles du reste du monde. On dirait qu’Israël vit sur une planète totalement différente.
"Le monde doit apprendre ce qui s’est passé à Gaza. La démocratie commence..."
Que ce soit sincèrement ou hypocritement, il n’y a pas un seul dirigeant dans le monde à ne pas exprimer un soutien aux exigences des masses égyptiennes, et à ne pas critiquer (mollement ou durement) le fonctionnement du Président Moubarak au cours de ces trois dernières décennies. Non seulement le Président Obama mais aussi le porte-parole des républicains néolibéraux ont été contraints d’exprimer des doutes sur leur allié égyptien et de lui suggérer de partir et de faciliter la mise en œuvre de réformes politiques et sociales. Le monde entier comprend, ou tout au moins déclare, que Moubarak est le responsable de la rage justifiée de son peuple et qu’il doit rentrer chez lui ou, comme son collègue tunisien, s’exiler. Il n’y a qu’en Israël où les réactions sont différentes, à l’exact opposé, tant dans la rue que dans l’establishment.
Inquiétude et peur caractérisent la réaction de la rue israélienne. Les Israéliens soudain se souviennent qu’il existe un accord de paix entre Israël et l’Égypte, et que ce traité est un « atout stratégique », que le Président Moubarak est un allié important, et que la « paix froide » israélo-égyptienne a économisé des millions de dollars au ministère de la Défense d’Israël. De plus, si un citoyen israélien moyen peut encore accorder quelque crédit (limité) aux dirigeants arabes, surtout s’ils portent costume et cravate et parlent anglais correctement, les masses arabes, elles, lui font peur. À ses yeux racistes, les masses arabes sont à jamais passionnées, « incitées » et débordantes de haine pour tout ce évoque la culture (occidentale) et bien sûr, ces masses sont anti-israéliennes et antijuives. Les masses arabes constituent une menace stratégique et ne peuvent donc inspirer que la peur, et non l’empathie.
Et s’agissant de l’establishment d’Israël, avec tous ses instituts de Renseignements, il a complètement oublié que dans le monde arabe, il y a une chose qu’on appelle « la rue », qui est capable de parler, de crier, de se mobiliser et même de renverser des régimes. Il n’est pas surprenant, par conséquent, que cet establishment recherche frénétiquement « mais qui donc est derrière les manifestations » : les Frères Musulmans, Ben Laden, l’Iran... ? L’ancien chef du Service général de la sûreté, Avi Dichter, nous a même expliqué à la télévision que la surprise des autorités des Renseignements israéliens ne devait pas nous inquiéter... parce qu’ils ne possèdent pas les outils pour prédire les soulèvements populaires (il a même rappelé sans honte que lui et ses amis ne s’étaient pas attendus ni à la Première Intifada, ni à la Deuxième) ou les changements de régimes. L’aveu de l’ancien chef du SGS est, certes, encourageant, mais s’il en est ainsi, pourquoi devons-nous leur payer des salaires, et ne vaudrait-il pas mieux affecter les énormes budgets du poste Renseignements à ceux de l’Enseignement et du Logement public ?
"Le monde doit apprendre ce qui s’est passé à Gaza. La démocratie commence..."
Que ce soit sincèrement ou hypocritement, il n’y a pas un seul dirigeant dans le monde à ne pas exprimer un soutien aux exigences des masses égyptiennes, et à ne pas critiquer (mollement ou durement) le fonctionnement du Président Moubarak au cours de ces trois dernières décennies. Non seulement le Président Obama mais aussi le porte-parole des républicains néolibéraux ont été contraints d’exprimer des doutes sur leur allié égyptien et de lui suggérer de partir et de faciliter la mise en œuvre de réformes politiques et sociales. Le monde entier comprend, ou tout au moins déclare, que Moubarak est le responsable de la rage justifiée de son peuple et qu’il doit rentrer chez lui ou, comme son collègue tunisien, s’exiler. Il n’y a qu’en Israël où les réactions sont différentes, à l’exact opposé, tant dans la rue que dans l’establishment.
Inquiétude et peur caractérisent la réaction de la rue israélienne. Les Israéliens soudain se souviennent qu’il existe un accord de paix entre Israël et l’Égypte, et que ce traité est un « atout stratégique », que le Président Moubarak est un allié important, et que la « paix froide » israélo-égyptienne a économisé des millions de dollars au ministère de la Défense d’Israël. De plus, si un citoyen israélien moyen peut encore accorder quelque crédit (limité) aux dirigeants arabes, surtout s’ils portent costume et cravate et parlent anglais correctement, les masses arabes, elles, lui font peur. À ses yeux racistes, les masses arabes sont à jamais passionnées, « incitées » et débordantes de haine pour tout ce évoque la culture (occidentale) et bien sûr, ces masses sont anti-israéliennes et antijuives. Les masses arabes constituent une menace stratégique et ne peuvent donc inspirer que la peur, et non l’empathie.
Et s’agissant de l’establishment d’Israël, avec tous ses instituts de Renseignements, il a complètement oublié que dans le monde arabe, il y a une chose qu’on appelle « la rue », qui est capable de parler, de crier, de se mobiliser et même de renverser des régimes. Il n’est pas surprenant, par conséquent, que cet establishment recherche frénétiquement « mais qui donc est derrière les manifestations » : les Frères Musulmans, Ben Laden, l’Iran... ? L’ancien chef du Service général de la sûreté, Avi Dichter, nous a même expliqué à la télévision que la surprise des autorités des Renseignements israéliens ne devait pas nous inquiéter... parce qu’ils ne possèdent pas les outils pour prédire les soulèvements populaires (il a même rappelé sans honte que lui et ses amis ne s’étaient pas attendus ni à la Première Intifada, ni à la Deuxième) ou les changements de régimes. L’aveu de l’ancien chef du SGS est, certes, encourageant, mais s’il en est ainsi, pourquoi devons-nous leur payer des salaires, et ne vaudrait-il pas mieux affecter les énormes budgets du poste Renseignements à ceux de l’Enseignement et du Logement public ?
Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn : Phillip Inman
After 30 years as president and many more as a senior military official, Mubarak has had access to investment deals that have generated hundreds of millions of pounds in profits. Most of those gains have been taken offshore and deposited in secret bank accounts or invested in upmarket homes and hotels.
According to a report last year in the Arabic newspaper Al Khabar, Mubarak has properties in Manhattan and exclusive Beverly Hills addresses on Rodeo Drive.
His sons, Gamal and Alaa, are also billionaires. A protest outside Gamal's ostentatious home at 28 Wilton Place in Belgravia, central London, highlighted the family's appetite for western trophy assets.
Amaney Jamal, a political science professor at Princeton University, said the estimate of $40bn-70bn was comparable with the vast wealth of leaders in other Gulf countries.
"The business ventures from his military and government service accumulated to his personal wealth," she told ABC news. "There was a lot of corruption in this regime and stifling of public resources for personal gain.
"This is the pattern of other Middle Eastern dictators so their wealth will not be taken during a transition. These leaders plan on this."
Al Khabar said it understood the Mubaraks kept much of their wealth offshore in the Swiss bank UBS and the Bank of Scotland, part of Lloyds Banking Group, although this information could be at least 10 years old.
There are only sketchy details of exactly where the Mubaraks have generated their wealth and its final destination.
Christopher Davidson, professor of Middle East politics at Durham University, said Mubarak, his wife, Suzanne, and two sons were able to accumulate wealth through a number of business partnerships with foreign investors and companies, dating back to when he was in the military and in a position to benefit from corporate corruption.
He said most Gulf states required foreigners give a local business partner a 51% stake in start-up ventures. In Egypt, the figure is commonly nearer 20%, but still gives politicians and close allies in the military a source of huge profits with no initial outlay and little risk.
"Almost every project needs a sponsor and Mubarak was well-placed to take advantage of any deals on offer," he said.
"Much of his money is in Swiss bank accounts and London property. These are the favourites of Middle Eastern leaders and there is no reason to think Mubarak is any different. Gamal's Wilton Place home is likely to be the tip of the iceberg."
Al Khabar named a series of major western companies that, partnered with the Mubarak family, generated an estimated $15m a year in profits.
Aladdin Elaasar, author of The Last Pharaoh: Mubarak and the Uncertain Future of Egypt in the Obama Age, said the Mubaraks own several residences in Egypt, some inherited from previous presidents and the monarchy, and others the president has commissioned.
Hotels and land around the Sharm el-Sheikh tourist resort are also a source of Mubarak family wealth.
According to a report last year in the Arabic newspaper Al Khabar, Mubarak has properties in Manhattan and exclusive Beverly Hills addresses on Rodeo Drive.
His sons, Gamal and Alaa, are also billionaires. A protest outside Gamal's ostentatious home at 28 Wilton Place in Belgravia, central London, highlighted the family's appetite for western trophy assets.
Amaney Jamal, a political science professor at Princeton University, said the estimate of $40bn-70bn was comparable with the vast wealth of leaders in other Gulf countries.
"The business ventures from his military and government service accumulated to his personal wealth," she told ABC news. "There was a lot of corruption in this regime and stifling of public resources for personal gain.
"This is the pattern of other Middle Eastern dictators so their wealth will not be taken during a transition. These leaders plan on this."
Al Khabar said it understood the Mubaraks kept much of their wealth offshore in the Swiss bank UBS and the Bank of Scotland, part of Lloyds Banking Group, although this information could be at least 10 years old.
There are only sketchy details of exactly where the Mubaraks have generated their wealth and its final destination.
Christopher Davidson, professor of Middle East politics at Durham University, said Mubarak, his wife, Suzanne, and two sons were able to accumulate wealth through a number of business partnerships with foreign investors and companies, dating back to when he was in the military and in a position to benefit from corporate corruption.
He said most Gulf states required foreigners give a local business partner a 51% stake in start-up ventures. In Egypt, the figure is commonly nearer 20%, but still gives politicians and close allies in the military a source of huge profits with no initial outlay and little risk.
"Almost every project needs a sponsor and Mubarak was well-placed to take advantage of any deals on offer," he said.
"Much of his money is in Swiss bank accounts and London property. These are the favourites of Middle Eastern leaders and there is no reason to think Mubarak is any different. Gamal's Wilton Place home is likely to be the tip of the iceberg."
Al Khabar named a series of major western companies that, partnered with the Mubarak family, generated an estimated $15m a year in profits.
Aladdin Elaasar, author of The Last Pharaoh: Mubarak and the Uncertain Future of Egypt in the Obama Age, said the Mubaraks own several residences in Egypt, some inherited from previous presidents and the monarchy, and others the president has commissioned.
Hotels and land around the Sharm el-Sheikh tourist resort are also a source of Mubarak family wealth.
Why Egypt's Military Cares About Home Appliances : Alex Blumberg
One reason for the military's peaceful response: the unique role it plays in the Egyptian economy. The military owns "virtually every industry in the country," according to Robert Springborg.
...car assembly, we're talking of clothing, we're talking of construction of roads, highways, bridges. We're talking of pots and pans, we're talking of kitchen appliances. You know, if you buy an appliance there's a good chance that it's manufactured by the military. If you ... don't have natural gas piped into your house and you have to have a gas bottle, the gas bottle will have been manufactured by the military. Some of the foodstuffs that you will be eating will have been grown and/or processed by the military.
The reasons for this arrangement go back to the '60s and '70s, when the Egyptian military was very large as a result of the wars with Israel. After the peace treaty with Israel was signed, the need for such a large fighting force disappeared. But leaders worried about all those young men released from military service suddenly flooding the job market.
So the military transformed itself from a fighting force to hiring force. And some of the businesses it got into were pretty far away from its traditional mission. For example, the military had all these forces stationed on the coast — a really pretty coast that lots of people would probably pay to visit. So, Springborg says, the question arose:
What are we gonna do with this military zone that is huge and in the most desirable part of the country and has extremely beautiful beaches, and some of the greatest … coral reefs in the world and was absolutely crying out for touristic development?
The answer: The military gave private developers access to the land, and the developers made military officers shareholders in big tourist developments.
No one knows for sure how many resort hotels or other businesses in Egypt are run by the military, which controls somewhere between 5 percent and 40 percent of the nation's economy, according to various estimates. Whatever the number, Springborg says, officers in the Egyptian military are making "billions and billions and billions" of dollars.
These billions would be threatened if the protests devolved into full-on civil conflict. People in the middle of violent political chaos don't buy dishwashers.
"The military wants stability above all," Springborg says. "It's not focused on war fighting; it's focused on consumption."
One of the few glimpses we have into the role of the Egyptian military in the economy comes via a 2008 diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks.
The cable discusses the various businesses the military is involved in, and considers how the military might react if Egypt's current president, Hosni Mubarak, were to lose power.
The military would almost certainly go along with a successor, the cable's author writes, if that successor didn't interfere in the military's business arrangements. But, the cable continues, "in a messier succession scenario, it becomes more difficult to predict the military's actions."
...car assembly, we're talking of clothing, we're talking of construction of roads, highways, bridges. We're talking of pots and pans, we're talking of kitchen appliances. You know, if you buy an appliance there's a good chance that it's manufactured by the military. If you ... don't have natural gas piped into your house and you have to have a gas bottle, the gas bottle will have been manufactured by the military. Some of the foodstuffs that you will be eating will have been grown and/or processed by the military.
The reasons for this arrangement go back to the '60s and '70s, when the Egyptian military was very large as a result of the wars with Israel. After the peace treaty with Israel was signed, the need for such a large fighting force disappeared. But leaders worried about all those young men released from military service suddenly flooding the job market.
So the military transformed itself from a fighting force to hiring force. And some of the businesses it got into were pretty far away from its traditional mission. For example, the military had all these forces stationed on the coast — a really pretty coast that lots of people would probably pay to visit. So, Springborg says, the question arose:
What are we gonna do with this military zone that is huge and in the most desirable part of the country and has extremely beautiful beaches, and some of the greatest … coral reefs in the world and was absolutely crying out for touristic development?
The answer: The military gave private developers access to the land, and the developers made military officers shareholders in big tourist developments.
No one knows for sure how many resort hotels or other businesses in Egypt are run by the military, which controls somewhere between 5 percent and 40 percent of the nation's economy, according to various estimates. Whatever the number, Springborg says, officers in the Egyptian military are making "billions and billions and billions" of dollars.
These billions would be threatened if the protests devolved into full-on civil conflict. People in the middle of violent political chaos don't buy dishwashers.
"The military wants stability above all," Springborg says. "It's not focused on war fighting; it's focused on consumption."
One of the few glimpses we have into the role of the Egyptian military in the economy comes via a 2008 diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks.
The cable discusses the various businesses the military is involved in, and considers how the military might react if Egypt's current president, Hosni Mubarak, were to lose power.
The military would almost certainly go along with a successor, the cable's author writes, if that successor didn't interfere in the military's business arrangements. But, the cable continues, "in a messier succession scenario, it becomes more difficult to predict the military's actions."
The impossible happened : Serge Halimi
In an interview with the Tunisian ambassador to Unesco, Mezri Haddad, on 13 January (the day before Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled), the opposition leader Nejib Chebbi criticised “development in which low pay provided the only comparative advantage in international competition” and “provocative displays of illicit wealth in the cities”, and claimed that “the people are all against the regime .”Haddad responded: “The people will ransack your fine house in La Marsa, that is what people do in societies where there is no fear of the police … Ben Ali saved Tunisia from the fanatics and fundamentalists in 1987… He must remain in power, come what may, because the country is under threat from the fanatics and their neo-Bolshevik allies.”
The historic events in Tunis had a familiar, French Revolutionary feel. A spontaneous movement spreads, widely diverse social strata are brought together, absolutism is vanquished. At which point, there are two alternatives left: take your winnings and leave, or double your stakes. Generally, one section of society (the liberal bourgeoisie) tries to stem the flood; another (peasants, employees in dead-end jobs, unemployed workers, poor students) backs the tide of protest, in the hope that the ageing autocracy and the monopolists will be swept away. Some of the protestors, especially the young, do not want to have risked their lives so that others, less daring but better placed, can use the protests to their own advantage. The social system survives, minus the police and the mafia.
Extending opposition to dictatorship in the person of the Ben Ali family to opposition to economic domination by an oligarchy would not suit the tourists, the money markets or the International Monetary Fund. The only freedom they want is for tourists, trade and movement of capital. Moody’s rating agency naturally downgraded Tunisia’s bond ratings on 19 January, citing “political instability and uncertainties caused by the collapse of the previous political regime”.
France’s outstretched hand
Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli, Beijing and western chanceries were equally unenthusiastic. As mainly Muslim crowds called for liberty and equality, France had its own interpretation of the compatibility of democracy with Islam, offering Ben Ali’s failing regime “the expert assistance of our security forces”. Ruling oligarchies, Muslim, secular and Christian, always close ranks at any public unrest. The former Tunisian president claimed to support secularism and women’s rights against fundamentalism, his party was a member of the Socialist International, yet he fled. To Saudi Arabia of all places.
Imagine the outcry if police had opened fire on demonstrators in Tehran or Caracas, leaving a hundred dead. Such comparisons were rejected in principle over 30 years ago in an article by the US academic, Jeane Kirkpatrick (3), in which she claimed that pro-western “authoritarian” regimes were always preferable and more susceptible to reform than the “totalitarian” regimes that might succeed them.
Then, “viewing international developments in terms of… a contemporary version of the same idea of progress that has traumatised western imaginations since the Enlightenment”, the Carter administration made a fatal mistake: it encouraged regime change. “Washington overestimated the political diversity of the opposition (especially the strength of ‘moderates’ and ‘democrats’), … underestimated the strength and intransigence of radicals in the movement, and misestimated the nature and extent of American influence on both the government and the opposition”, preparing the way for the ayatollahs and the Sandinistas.
There is nothing new about the idea of a “dictatorship of the lesser evil”, which is pro-western and may mend its ways given endless time, or the fear of finding fundamentalists (or communists) masquerading as democratic demonstrators. But the spirit of Jeane Kirkpatrick seems to have influenced Paris more than Washington. The US was reassured by the relatively minor role of Islamists in the Tunisian uprising, enabling a broad social and political front against Ben Ali. WikiLeaks had revealed the State Department’s feelings about the “mafia-esque elite” and the “sclerotic regime” of the ruling family. The White House left them to their fate, trusting that the liberal bourgeoisie would provide a replacement friendly to western interests.
But the Tunisian uprising has had wider repercussions, notably in Egypt. For the conditions that caused it are to be found elsewhere: unequal growth, high unemployment, protest crushed by grossly overblown police forces, well-educated young people with no prospects, bourgeois parasites living like tourists in their own country. Tunisians will not solve all these problems at a stroke but they have made a start. Like the rest of us, they were told there was no alternative. Yet they have shown us that “the impossible happens” .
The historic events in Tunis had a familiar, French Revolutionary feel. A spontaneous movement spreads, widely diverse social strata are brought together, absolutism is vanquished. At which point, there are two alternatives left: take your winnings and leave, or double your stakes. Generally, one section of society (the liberal bourgeoisie) tries to stem the flood; another (peasants, employees in dead-end jobs, unemployed workers, poor students) backs the tide of protest, in the hope that the ageing autocracy and the monopolists will be swept away. Some of the protestors, especially the young, do not want to have risked their lives so that others, less daring but better placed, can use the protests to their own advantage. The social system survives, minus the police and the mafia.
Extending opposition to dictatorship in the person of the Ben Ali family to opposition to economic domination by an oligarchy would not suit the tourists, the money markets or the International Monetary Fund. The only freedom they want is for tourists, trade and movement of capital. Moody’s rating agency naturally downgraded Tunisia’s bond ratings on 19 January, citing “political instability and uncertainties caused by the collapse of the previous political regime”.
France’s outstretched hand
Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli, Beijing and western chanceries were equally unenthusiastic. As mainly Muslim crowds called for liberty and equality, France had its own interpretation of the compatibility of democracy with Islam, offering Ben Ali’s failing regime “the expert assistance of our security forces”. Ruling oligarchies, Muslim, secular and Christian, always close ranks at any public unrest. The former Tunisian president claimed to support secularism and women’s rights against fundamentalism, his party was a member of the Socialist International, yet he fled. To Saudi Arabia of all places.
Imagine the outcry if police had opened fire on demonstrators in Tehran or Caracas, leaving a hundred dead. Such comparisons were rejected in principle over 30 years ago in an article by the US academic, Jeane Kirkpatrick (3), in which she claimed that pro-western “authoritarian” regimes were always preferable and more susceptible to reform than the “totalitarian” regimes that might succeed them.
Then, “viewing international developments in terms of… a contemporary version of the same idea of progress that has traumatised western imaginations since the Enlightenment”, the Carter administration made a fatal mistake: it encouraged regime change. “Washington overestimated the political diversity of the opposition (especially the strength of ‘moderates’ and ‘democrats’), … underestimated the strength and intransigence of radicals in the movement, and misestimated the nature and extent of American influence on both the government and the opposition”, preparing the way for the ayatollahs and the Sandinistas.
There is nothing new about the idea of a “dictatorship of the lesser evil”, which is pro-western and may mend its ways given endless time, or the fear of finding fundamentalists (or communists) masquerading as democratic demonstrators. But the spirit of Jeane Kirkpatrick seems to have influenced Paris more than Washington. The US was reassured by the relatively minor role of Islamists in the Tunisian uprising, enabling a broad social and political front against Ben Ali. WikiLeaks had revealed the State Department’s feelings about the “mafia-esque elite” and the “sclerotic regime” of the ruling family. The White House left them to their fate, trusting that the liberal bourgeoisie would provide a replacement friendly to western interests.
But the Tunisian uprising has had wider repercussions, notably in Egypt. For the conditions that caused it are to be found elsewhere: unequal growth, high unemployment, protest crushed by grossly overblown police forces, well-educated young people with no prospects, bourgeois parasites living like tourists in their own country. Tunisians will not solve all these problems at a stroke but they have made a start. Like the rest of us, they were told there was no alternative. Yet they have shown us that “the impossible happens” .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)