Co-opting the Arab revolts

Clinton tells Senate Al Jazeera is "real news"

Among the 2011 Arab revolts, Libya was always the worst case scenario.  The country's crazy dictator pledged to fight to the last to protect his regime.  By mid-March, it looked like the rebels didn't have the experience or the resources to win.  Qaddafi was taking back one rebel stronghold after another, and moving on the main one, the city of Benghazi.  It was painful for the rest of the world to watch that.  The usual US hawks, McCain and Lieberman, were joined by Kerry in calling for the euphemistically named "no-fly zone." That means western military intervention in an oil-rich Arab country, when nothing of the kind has happened in other, less strategically interesting, countries where rebels have been massacred.  As Robert Gates pointed out, a no-fly zone (during a time of conflict) usually implies aerial attacks. But as it turned out, America seemingly had the cover of the Arab League, a UN resolution, and lobbying by the UK, France, with Belgium, Spain and Canada promising to participate.  So now it has begun"  "Operation Odyssey Dawn."  The Libyans are not wholly fighting their own battles anymore.  Of course some Libyan rebels desperately called for outside help. And Benghazi has celebrated the no fly zone.   But where will it all go now?  The essence of the wave of revolutionary spirit across the Arab world has been that its origins were indigenous. With outside intervention the specter arises of all the old foreign support that kept corrupt regimes in power so long.  Now Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, has already condemned the intense western-initiated air strikes for causing more civilian casualties instead of preventing them.  Yes, that's right.  The Arab League has had second thoughts.  But intervention is hard to undo.


"So we are going to take 'all necessary measures' to protect the civilians of Libya, are we?" Robert Fisk wrote yesterday.  "Pity we didn't think of that 42 years ago."  Indeed.  Though you can always predict interventions by a colonial power will come, you never quite know when they're coming. It seems to be a matter of sheer impulse.  Maybe what's going on in Libya has just been too visible for the western powers to overlook it this time.  While with Egypt the US wouldn't get involved, with Libya it's gotten much too involved.  


 Speaking of interventions, last week the Saudis sent troops to help the Bahrain regime put down mounting demonstrations.  The United Arab Emirates sent police there too.  The US stays neutral to that.  An Obama spokesman says it's not a foreign invasion, not at all.


Hillary Clinton went to Egypt to meddle a little in their revolution.  A group of young revolutionaries, the January 25 Revolution Youth Coalition,  refused to meet with her to underline that she was still supporting Mubarak when their rebellion was well under way and that the US should formally apologize for its policies toward Egypt in past decades.  Hillary surprised us last week by praising Al Jazeera for at lest presenting "real news," unlike the US mainstream media.  Unfortunately she was pushing for more money for US propaganda abroad.  Meanwhile "the angry Arab," As'ad Abu Khalil of California State University, Stanislaus, seconded by Chicago progressive blogger Stephen Lendman, has been attacking Al Jazeera (Arabic and English, not always differentiated) for using unreliable reporters, going soft on revolts in the kingdoms (vs. the republics), even citing Hillary's praise as a sign that the Qatar station has become a tool of the West.  These claims do not gibe with my observation.  Al Jazeera Arabic still takes you to events in he Arab world like no other news agency.  Just remember, when you're in a combat zone, you don't often know what's going on.  But it's better to be there than in London or Washington analyzing events you can't see.   It is true Al Jazeera English is much more like the BBC, but it also has articles by decidedly non-establishment younger commentators like Mark LeVine of UC Irvine. It's not an easy task to critique 24/7 "real news" coverage from multiple sources about rapidly changing situations.  Al Jazeera is worth following.


Also on Al Jazeera English LeVine has published an interview with the Egyptian singer/songwrier Ramy Essam, author of the revolutionary anthem, "Irhal,"  expressing fears of an Egyptian counter-revolution.  The situation in Egypt is extremely complex now. The first blush of the revolution when Mubarak stepped down has faded and there are many dangers.  As was said at the beginning, the primary risk is in acting too fast, before new leadership can organize, which would allow the old powers of army, Muslim Brotherhood, and Mubarak's NDP to step forward and take over. For the new forces in Egypt the referendum on constitutional changes (passed today) may have gone too fast, and Mohamed AlBaradei was attacked by thugs while voting on it.   Essam was one of many beaten by thugs and according to his account arrested by army officers in Tahrir Square a month after the revolution.  He says Facebook has become a two-edged sword, used by the young activists but also now a tool of misinformation by counter revolutionaries. Still, there remains a new awareness in Egypt and a spirit of hope and activism.  Rami Essam has not given up and neither should we.

Rami Essam shows torture wounds

Pearl Roundabout in Manaama, Bahrain, site of repression now

UN camp for Bangladeshi refugees from Libya

ElBaradei leaves referendum vote after being attacked by thugs

A new Arab image -- no matter what

Al Jazeera screen grab from warisbusiness.com

"Tunisia’s revolution now looks pretty much complete," Max Rodenbeck writes optimistically in the current New York Review of Books. Remnants of the old regime have been forced out of the government and "exiles have returned, censorship has been abandoned, and political prisoners have been amnestied. Elections are scheduled for August." In Egypt with its complex institutions we can see that progress is slow, and perhaps should be even slower to allow a new leadership to emerge in elections. Perhaps this is the "orderly transition" Washington called for. The Egyptian people have shown they're still willing to take to the streets whenever necessary. More and more remnants of the old regime are being pushed out there too.  And demonstrations continue in Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, even Oman now.

If you look at the amazing wave of Arab revolts from the angle of Libya however, things don't look so positive. In fact they look horrible. Qaddafi's responses to the popular revolution against his dictatorship -- his pretense that it did not exist, his menacing threats, his house-by-house terrorizing of the population, his vicious military attacks by air and by land against rebel areas -- still represent the worst that could happen to a people in revolt, short of genocide. If Qaddafi loyalists remain numerous and fighting continues to be fierce (though limited by poor equipment on both sides), then can you call this"civil war," as some already want to? The revolutionaries utterly reject this. They say they can't be called "rebels" because they are in the majority. They say this is not civil war but a revolution, which a powerful and rich dictator is ruthlessly attempting to crush. They say the "loyalists" are not really an opposing faction. They are people who hate the regime too but are controlled by terror, or foreign mercenaries with no way out.

The situation in Libya is tragic, a humanitarian disaster. It's still positive for the opposition, in that it has removed any legitimacy Qaddafi ever may have had. But it's tricky for the US, which seems to be moving away from its interventionist policies. Defense Secretary Gates has built up the American military to new levels and attempted to modernize it. But he has just shocked some people by warning against any future discretionary wars: "In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” he told West Point cadets a few days ago. Gates specifically rules out future Iraqs or Afghanistans. The US can set up a "no-fly zone" in Libya, Gates acknowledges but he warns: “Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses." That means the US bombs another Arab country, not a good idea. Especially when it's a particularly oil-rich one.

Obama presents an image of dithering. He waits to see which way the wind blows. He only supports an Arab revolution once it's clearly winning or the dictator becomes a war criminal. But his restraint has a plus side. However much administration statements reveal a lingering assumption that the US is the world's savior and protector, the US has not stuck its nose in Arab business too obviously this time.

But this means that Libya is burning and many are dying and the rest of the world isn't doing much to reverse that. Egypt and Tunisia have had relatively peaceful revolts. Their regimes fell and they are transitioning into democracies. Libya is descending into chaos and its dictator rages on.

This provides fuel to the pessimists and the right wing in America and Israel who say the Arab revolutionary movements are a disaster that will destabilize the region and make Iran, which Israel hawks would like to bomb out of existence, the dominant power in the region. But this is still a time for optimism. NY Times op-ed piece by Karim Sadjadpour counters that. With its similar demographics and new vibrancy and freedom, he says, Egypt will balance Iran's power as never before. The Arab revolts will provide models of all the qualities that Iran, with its stagnation and oppression, conspicuously lacks. Iran won't be anybody's role model. It will be less of a threat, not more.

Again the seemingly timid Obama has taken the right stand by telling Israel they shouldn't be afraid of changes in the Middle East. Still asserting that protecting Israel was "sacrosanct," Obama recently reassured a Jewish group that he's "actually confident that ten years from now we’re going to be able to look back potentially and say this was the dawning of an entirely new and better era.” Potentially. Still the weasel word, but telling Jews this will be "an entirely new and better era" is a big step forward for Washington.

One aspect of all these events is that they've shown Washington in a new, less important role. Cameron and Sarkozy have made more forceful statements about Mubarak and Qaddafi. The wave of Arab revolutions has been neither created nor blocked from outside.

These developments have changed the status of the Arab in the world. The American right wing symbolized by the Fox News bigotry factory, as well as the Israeli hawks who wanted those "moderate" leaders to stay in power, fear and despise the Arabs more than ever now. But in the more reasonable world where views are modified as situations change, the Arab trend toward democracy demands a new level of respect. Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia, calls the new changes "The Arab Spring." In the face of all the coming changes, the superficial western image of the Arab peoples as backward no longer holds up, Khalidi writes. Even more important, the Arabs have gained back their own pride and self-respect. Their heads will be bloody but unbowed. Whatever happens in Libya, that cannot be taken away.

Tunisia's Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali out with the trash

 

Anti-intervention sign in Libya

          Early February demonstration in Yemen

Libyan celebrates fall of Tobruk

The Arab states:  most have had demonstrations

Muammar al-Qaddafi in extremis

(Also published on Baltmore Chronicle.)

Qaddafi on state TV:  "Sing, dance, and get ready"

Ten days later the world isn't focused on Cairo any more.  On February 26 military police brutally attacked protesters in Tahrir Square and  in front of the Parliament, a sign the old order and means of repression are not gone. Not that all hope is lost:  slowly, steps are being taken to move toward a new democratic government.  And as for the wave of revolutionary fervor, that continues throughout the Arab world.  On Friday Iraqis staged their own "Day of Rage" and the biggest oil refinery was shut down.  Additional tribal leaders joined the opposition in Yemen and it's looking more and more as if Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen will have to step down, not wait till 2013, his Mubarak-like initial offer.   Revolt is strong in Bahrain too.  A Shiite leader returned from exile to Manama and thousands marched to call for the PM's removal. Demonstrations were weaker in Algeria and Tunisia,  but they happened.  

All the attention of course is on Libya.  This is the worst-case scenario for the Arab revolts.   A mad dog leader (Reagan's words), isolated, eccentric, and deranged,  has made the country an empty shell. The small population is scattered into disconnected tribes. Qaddafi and his No. 1 son Saif al-Islam are pledged to fight to the end.  Only Libya's oil riches may protect the country from future chaos.  If oil income is distributed among the population, that may foster domestic tranquility (which happens in the Gulf princedoms and makes them more secure against revolt).  But Libya's revolution can't have been as planned and coordinated as those of Tunisia and Egypt.  It's more a spontaneous impulse, inspired by news of the Arab world.  One can only hope that the revolutionary spirit and the Arab connectedness symbolized by Al Jazeera will somehow also inspire the country to rebuild itself and avoid the truly worst-case scenario of descending into another Afghanistan.

There is no semblance of decency in Qaddafi. He ordered his own air force to strafe demonstrators.  Some defected in protest and piloted their planes to Malta.  The new Arabic words to learn this time (akin to بلطجية /baltagiyya for the locally hired thugs in Cairo) are مرتزقة اجانب/murtaziqa ajānib, foreign mercenaries.  Here is a leader who is accusing the demonstrators of being not only foreign-inspired, but run by al-Qa'ida, while he is hiring outsiders to kill his own people, and openly threatening to attack them in their houses, burn the land, turn the country into a living hell, distribute arms to all his remaining supporters.

Citizen rebels hold Benghazi, which represents a bastion of freedom, a city-wide Tahrir Square, and other towns have followed.  But Quaddafi forces still control other strongholds, including the capital, Tripoli -- which was done over in a day to present a tidy, peaceful front for foreign journalists.  The dictators' favorite western media contact lady, Christiane Amanpour of ABC, got to interview Saif al-Islam.  But he has already raged on state television, and this man does not wear well.

Libyans used broken TVs as barricades.  Al Jazeera broadcast an extraordinary film last week.   It showed the video stream of Quaddafi's khaki-swathed rant, also on TV, being projected huge on a wall and as the mad dog waved his Green Book and threatened to make his people's lives hell, protesters threw large objects at the flickering image and shouted.

The revolution in Libya has the dubious but for the revolutionaries very real advantage that the government hasn't (like Egypt's republic) a thread of legitimacy.  The fabric of Egypt's regime would have shredded more completely if its cadre of ministers, military officers, and ambassadors had publicly resigned and declared their allegiance to the revolt as has happened in Libya.  But while Egypt has the danger that its old regime is too solidly entrenched, Libya has the danger of having no structure to hold it together at all.

Now, Obama still presents a pale image of American "democracy," because Sarkozy and Cameron spoke up directly while he dithered again.  Two good reasons this time, though:  oil and Americans working in Libya.   If Obama had called for Quaddafi's removal early and oil prices had gone up, as they are anyway, that would hurt Obama's reelection chances.  He did not want to drive the crazy leader to take Americans hostage and bad weather was delaying their escape to Malta.  

American and indeed all policy of the western powers is based on expediency rather than morality, and their official reprisals may be feeble or harmful, anything but helpful, just diplomatic gestures to make them look good later.  As Ertegun of Turkey has just said, sanctions against Libya threaten to harm the people more than help their cause.  The United States isn't written "US" for nothing.  It's all about us, not them. 

Libya, though just next door, is not providing a picture of the beautiful, mainly peaceful revolution that we witnessed in Egypt.  It's an ugly process with no end in sight and not easy to watch.  But it is an even stronger picture of the courage, determination, and democratic drive of the Arab  people.  And this too is being called by Libyans a "revolution of youth."

Rebels celebrate fall of Benghazi

Demonstrators with old Libyan flag in Benghazi

  

Former soldier celebrates the Libyan revolt

Demonstrators take Pearl Roundabout, Manama, Bahrain

Demonstration against Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen

Noam Chomsky: what about here?

Noam Chomsky

Unless there’s a democratic uprising here, there’s not going to be much of a chance for people elsewhere who are struggling courageously.  What they are doing is inspiring and we must recognize that, but we cannot overlook the fact that what the US and Europe do -- that’s Europe too -- is very significant.  As long as people are quiet and passive -- you know, the CEO of Goldman Sachs can just get a twelve and a half million dollar bonus as he did a couple of days ago and have his base salary quadrupled as a few days ago, already astronomical, while you're attacking pensions for teachers and police.  As long as the population's quiet, yeah, we can continue just as in the Middle East, just as in Latin America, just as everywhere.  Those are critical facts, and we have to face them. . .    Noam Chomsky, lecture clip, Democracy Now!, February 17, 2011

These words are worth pondering.  The US government and those of the other chief western powers control things; control the world.  Egypt, Tunisia, and the other Arab states whose people are staging popular uprisings can make little changes that are very significant locally, but the overall strategic structure remains more than anything in the hands of the one surviving great global power, the United States, and its major allies.  And whether or not the sweeping changes called for in Egypt go through in a form appealing to a majority of the people who participated in their January 25 revolution, there is a new spirit in Cairo and Tunis, and developing in Tripoli, Sanaa, and Manama also.  There is not a new spirit in the US. 

As Chomsky has repeatedly pointed out, a vast majority of US citizens opposed continuation of the tax cuts for the very rich and yet the Congress sent it right on through. America is as much a kleptocracy as Ben Ali's in Tunisia was, only the profits go to a few more people.  Things have changed in Latin America.  They are changing in the Arab world.   Will they change in the US?   That may be a more difficult question.   A vast majority opposed continuing tax cuts for the rich, but they didn't take to the streets about it.

 One obstacle is that here in the US there seems to be a situation that has prevailed in Venezuela.  There is a strong right wing opposition and it owns the media, so public opinion can be molded at election time (assuming there is a choice).  The next presidential election will be more expensive than ever -- hence more bought and paid for by the richest men in the country.  When did we get our regime?  Wasn't it around the same time as Egypt, when Ronald Reagan became President?  Perhaps our Mubarak has simply changed his face every so often. 

But I don't think Chomsky is proposing a direct comparison; even each of the Arab nations where uprisings are occurring is different from the others and America is far different from any of them.  The point is that uprisings work, and sometimes they are all that works, and our government is not representing us.  It is representing the wealthy and the corporations, and the American Empire that the late Chalmers Johnson described so well -- but that doesn't seem as close to falling as he believed. 

What would an uprising in the US look like?  Not like Egypt's, certainly.  The US is not a brutal dictatorship.  Chomsky may be seen by the right as a dangerous radical, a socialist, a communist; but then, they see Obama that way.  Chomsky is not calling for the fall of a regime.  He is simply one of many who think popular demonstrations are the only way that certain important changes can be made to come about.  And if you look at the will of the people as represented in polls and the actions of the government as represented in what happens in Washington, important changes are needed.  And Americans are pretty passive and quiet.  Look at Al Jazeera's world:  Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Libya.   It's only natural to think about what's been happening in the Middle East and wonder.  Wouldn't that spirit, that courage, that determination, that organization, be a breath of fresh air here?

Bahrain protesters [Reuters]

Libyan crackdown [Al Jazeera Arabic]

Egypt after the fall: the right's rigid analysis

25 January slogan:  "The People, the Army:  One Hand!"

 Mubarak has stepped down and the Egyptian people have triumphed, celebrating as only they can.  But have they really triumphed?  Is the regime gone?  Obviously there will be many remnants. What will become of Mubarak and Omar Suleiman?  What will become of the police, the Mukhabarat's apparatus of detention and torture?  What can save the economy of a nation that has such demographic problems?  These are certainly very real worries.  But foreign, particularly American, observers are partly irrelevant now, though they could be helpful.   Obama, whose foreign policy team was at cross purposes and who vacillated himself, has come out with very positive statements about the revolution, its youthful spirit, its new hope -- a move, at last, that's both wise and shrewd on his part.

But this has brought the ire of such right-wing US foreign policy ideologues as John Bolton, a would-be republican presidential candidate, who has raged at Obama's naiveté.  Here is one of the reasons the American right is so clear and forceful in its statements.  Its spokesmen repeat the same ideas over and over without reference to changing events.

 Conservatives stick by their two familiar bugaboos, the Egyptian army and the Muslim brothers, whose predicted effects are somewhat contradictory, because the army, they say, will make everything remain the same (which they may like); but the Muslim brothers, they also say, will change everything horribly for the worse.  To begin with, conservatives don't like revolutions:  full stop.

The armed forces are a great power in Egypt. They are in charge now. Besides, since 1952 each leader has come from their ranks. But the military has stood on the side of the uprising and this has been clear all along. A slogan of the protesters all along was "The People, the Army:  One Hand!"   The army must have supported the removal of Mubarak for that to have taken place. Bolton and other conservative commentators and "experts" (whose Middle East experience Jeremy Scahill joked often seems to be "has eaten falafel") keep insisting that the Muslim brothers are a mass of jihadists. Everyone knows the Ikhwan are the "most organized" opposition group. But their threat seems exaggerated. They have become more moderate and open to secular government. They have been warmly cooperative in the intifada, never impeding its Muslim-Christian unity. They may simply not be much of a political force in Egypt now, if they ever were. As has been pointed out, they have accomplished little in the last eighty years.
    
The youth revolution of 25 January brings out whether one is an optimist or a pessimist.  I side with the optimists.  They include most Egyptians right now.  They see a new, young, secular democracy, with free elections, economic development for the good of all, and representation of all elements of society.  The pessimists say there will always be a "pharaoh," and the army will just bring in a new one, maybe even someone not so new.  They go on to say Egypt will go the way of Iran rather than Turkey.

Optimists like me point out that the Egyptian people have an incredible new commitment to their political future, an extraordinary new sense of civic and national pride that make everyone want to get involved -- and ready to take to the streets again if  their basic demands are not met.  The touching voluntary cleanup of Tahrir Square is a visible metaphor for their will to cooperate at the most basic level.  The spirit of Tahrir Square won't easily be abandoned.  

This may be a time for Americans to acknowledge that it's not all about us or all about Israel.  Even moderates have dared to speculate recently that propping up a dictator like Mubarak for thirty years may not really have done either the US or Israel any good.  A lot of those billions went down the drain.  They may have gone directly into the Mubarak family bank accounts.  They certainly didn't go into the pockets of Egyptian working people.

The fourth communiqué of the High Council of the Armed Forces is encouraging as far as it goes, pledging a changeover to a civilian government and continuation of all existing treaties.  The people and their various political organizers are agreed on the general steps that must soon take place. Both houses of parliament must be dissolved; there must be a new provisional constitution allowing for true democratic elections; a presidential council and a transitional government; a referendum on a new constitution.    There may be differences on details.  Some may be unhappy that the military is in charge.  Everything hinges on what elements of the army dominate.  For the moment there are no clear leaders.  For me this is hopeful too, a clear sign that this is really as Al Jazeera Arabic  has called it,  ثورة شعب/thawrat sha'b, "a revolution of the people."  But in a situation like this, we have to be able to live with uncertainty.

Egyptian revolution day 18: Mubarak resigns!

ElBaradei speaks in Tahrir Square

Yesterday was the seventeenth day of the Egyptian revolution, which seems to be called in Egypt "The Youth Revolution of 25 January."  (Al Jazeera Arabic's theme title is simply "A People's Revolution.")  Things kept heating up further, every day becoming more exciting -- and more uncertain. The regime was deeply entrenched but the protesters were  as profoundly inspired.  The number of people in the streets kept growing, with more recruits turning up every day from more levels of society and more walks of life in more cities and at more locations.   In Cairo the pressure points had become not only Tahrir Square, all along the grand stage of the uprising, but also the Parliament, the building that houses state TV, and a presidential palace.  This is in addition to strikers at factories and workplaces throughout the country as involvement of labor grows.  The courage, dedication and spirit of the Egyptian people are incredible and increasingly inspire not just the Arab world but people everywhere.

Mixed messages continued from the top of this stubborn and powerful regime, so long in control, so long heavily supported to the tune of billions annually by the United States.  Early on Thursday the High Council of the Armed Forces, meeting with its commander Hosni Mubarak conspicuously absent, issued a "first communiqué," indicating that it might be threatening to take charge independently, but mentioning no practical steps.  Yesterday the High Council said the demands of protesters would be met in full, without saying how or when.  Today it promised the thirty-year state of emergency laws would be lifted when appropriate and asked the protesters to go home.  But what would it do?  So far, apparently nothing. It was sitting on the fence, but making itself more visible at the top.  The Army can be decisive.  It must choose which way to go, with the regime or with the people.

Late in the evening, long awaited, came a speech from Mubarak broadcast on state television.  It was at once a huge disappointment and a great new motivator to the protesters in the street.    Rumors had said "al-rayyis" would step down.  Instead he only showed the same stubborn, clueless determination to remain in office.  He repeated the regime's accusation that the protesters are inspired by foreigners.  He justified himself, promising those who had killed and injured protesters (the infamous "baltagiyya") would be punished, as if he wasn't himself ultimately behind their violence.  He repeatedly used the word "youth."  But he addressed the "youth" primarily only to ask them to "go home."   He pretended that this was not about him but about the nation.  He implied that he was worthy of our pity:  this mega-billionaire of a police state that routinely rounds up and tortures thousands of its citizens (and does the same job by proxy for the US), 40% of whose citizens live on $2 a day, and 30% of whom are illiterate, wants us to shed tears for him, for all he is going though.  American papers call him "beleaguered."

The result was a roar of disapproval and waving of shoes -- the Arab equivalent of giving the finger -- in Tahrir Square.  This was an enraging frustration but also a great rallying point for the continued public demonstrations of today, which leaders of the uprising dubbed "The Friday of Farewell."  This promises to be a very long goodbye.  

Finally, late on Friday, Mubarak resigned.  Tahrir Square became an endless roar of celebration.  At last!

Now what?

Mohamed ElBaradei lays out his version of "The Next Step for Egypt's Opposition" in an op-ed piece in today's NY Times.   The Parliament must be dissolved and the Constitution abolished, and a provisional constitution set up with a three-man presidential council, including a representative from the military, and a "transitional government of national unity." Then there should be "free and fair" presidential and parliamentary elections within one year.

It is a wise and hopeful proposal.  But nothing is clear yet.  This simply remains a moment to savor.  Tom Friedman of the NY Times writes of a well-dressed Egyptian, who worked in Saudi Arabia, come so the boys could "see, hear, feel and touch Tahrir Square."  "I want it seared in their memory," he declared.  ElBaradei began by saying how in his youth they could speak of their political views only in whispers.  Now they are shouted in all the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Port Said, Suez, Al Mansoura, day and night.  It will be seared in all our memories.  And for now, that is enough.  This isn't a time to be afraid.  It's a time to be hopeful.  It's a time when the Middle East is being redefined.  And so is the United States.

Steps must be taken quickly, and the time is crucial.  But again, this is a time to enjoy the moment.  The Egyptian people deserve about three days to celebrate.  For them, this is like winning fifty World Cups.

To watch Al Jazeera online:  
Al Jazeera English.
Al Jazeera Arabic.

The struggle continues: Wael Ghonim becomes a hero

Wael Ghonim and somebody's mother in Tahrir Square

Despite disappointingly limp or counterproductive responses from the Obama Administration and continuous propaganda efforts by the Mubarak regime to dismiss the Egyptian youth revolution of 25 January, it has only grown stronger.  Sharif Abdel Kouddous reported on Twitter that on Feb. 8 the crowd in Tahrir Square was the biggest he had seen yet.

For US readers, a New Yorker magazine blog links to Wael Ghonim's dramatic appearance on Egypt's most popular interview show on the private channel Dream TV, an emotional eye-opener which the NY Times' Feb. 9 lead story indicates has brought thousands of new participants into the uprising.  These now, the Times story says, begin to include "brigades of university employees and telephone  company employees," "a column of legal scholars in formal black robes," and more members  of the Egyptian elite in Tahrir Square, including pop and sports stars and intellectuals.  The Times' front page photo shows a group of obviously hip and well-off young Egyptians deeply involved in collating interviews they've done with Tahrir protesters to post in various social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.  

The Internet hasn't been crucial to the Egyptian uprising during its more than two weeks, but then again it has.  Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing executive in the Gulf, was active in establishing the "We Are All Khalid Said" Facebook site.  Said was a young Egyptian beaten to death by police in Alexandria on June 6, 2010, an event that was a tipping point for the Egyptian revolt as the self-immolation of unemployed university grad Mohamed Bouazizi was for the Tunisian one.  Surely their organizing of "We  Are All Khalid Said" and several other social networks helped get people into the Egyptian streets.  Then once public protest got going, each one told one, and millions came out and are still coming out.  The movement has a momentum of its own.   Ghonim has become a hero of the uprising -- especially its wired, young branch -- by saying tearfully and eloquently that he is not the real hero, that he only used his "fingers on a keyboard," while protesters put their bodies on the line.

In the TV interview Ghonim tells how he came from the Gulf telling his boss he needed time  off for "personal" reasons, but in fact in order to be in Cairo for the protests.  When he got there, he was "kidnapped" by police and held, continually blindfolded, for  twelve days -- the first, key days of the intifada.  He didn't know if the uprising had really gotten off the ground.  When he was released and learned that many had died, he was devastated, but he insisted it was not the fault of the organizers; it was the fault of " those who are in charge of the country and don’t want to leave their positions."

This TV moment is important because it helps counter the continuing Mubarak regime campaign to discredit the uprising, say its leaders are tools of foreign interests, or claim its demands have been met and people can go home.

The demands of the Egyptian people have not been met.  They insist that Hosni Mubarak leave and his whole government with him, including Omar Suleiman;  that the two main bodies of the government be dissolved; and there be a new constitution allowing multiparty representation.  Needless to say when Suleiman met with opposition representatives on Sunday he agreed to none of that.

Washington has gotten its wires crossed, sending as special Egypt envoy longtime Mubarak friend Frank Wisner.  Wisner insisted the dictator had to stay in office to insure a "smooth transition" --  just what the administration was not saying any more. All that is notable only for its irrelevance and unhelpfulness.  As commentators have been saying, America is once again  "on the wrong side of history."  The US backing of Omar Suleiman as a "transition" figure is utterly wrong.  The terror/torture chief, the extraordinary rendition point man, Mubarak's no. 1 crony, is no transition at all but a continuation.  But the uprising is undaunted and is planning to move to other fronts beyond the main visible one of Tahrir Square, now setting up a significant demonstration in front of the headquarters of the Egyptian Parliament, an action which one protester interviewed by the NY Times said needed to be united with the Tahrir demonstrations:  "Then we will expand further until Mr. Mubarak gets the point."  There is a new program for protesters to come out mainly on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so they can rest in between and be visibly strong when they appear.  Feb. 9's favorable lead story in the NY Times suggests the regime's repression of foreign journalists inspires them to see the revolt more positively.

From a video of Wael Ghonim being arrested

Wired Egyptian youth (NY Times Feb. 9, 2011)