Neocons Jihad against Egyptian Liberal Parties

The Ultimate Divide II

Neocons' Jihad

Against

Liberal Parties

In Egypt

Two weeks ago, I received the strangest call I could imagine. It was from a colleague from a liberal party from Sweden. He asked me what I thought of the Democratic Front Party of Egypt! At first, I did not understand the question. Why would someone from Sweden ask me, a member of another Egyptian liberal party, El Ghad; such a question? In explanation, he sent me a copy of an article which was published in a Swedish Newspaper, in Swedish; together with an English translation. The article accused the Democratic Front Party (DFP) of being anti-Semitic and urged Swedish liberals not to participate in Liberal International's Conference in Cairo hosted by DFP at the end of October. I was then made aware of an email campaign where messages with similar content were dispatched to members of Liberal International (LI) and the International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY). On the first day of Liberal International's conference in Cairo, a piece was published in Wall Street Journal with the title: "Why are Egypt's 'Liberals' Anti-Semitic?". In addition to throwing the racist accusation on DFP, this article now claimed that ALL Liberal Parties in Egypt, El Wafd, El Ghad and DFP are anti-Semitic!

Why would someone, or some institution or a group, exert so much effort in sending emails to members of Liberal International, Members of IFLRY, publishing articles in newspapers in Swedish, English and possibly other languages, to throw such accusations on assumingly fellow liberals? But are they fellow liberals? The accusers, you would assume are Liberals who are trying to safeguard liberal values. But no. The accusers, as it turns out, are self-professed Neocons. So, why would they take such an effort in trying to mend the liberal stream?

If it was just an article, then those could merely be opinions, published in response to allegedly racist comments. But when emails sent to members of Liberal International urging them not participate in LI's conference in Egypt, are followed by an article in Sweden then another in Wall Street Journal which was published at the same time as the conference, we must observe a concerted organizational effort and a Neocon campaign, indeed a crusade, some sort of Jihad against some invented infidels. A political campaign designed to discredit and weaken Egyptian Liberal Parties. Now, who would benefit from such a thing? Who would launch such a campaign and what would be the aim of such an effort? The writers are self-professed Egyptian Neocons, but what does that mean? What does it mean to be an Egyptian Neocon? In their words, it means that they believe that the USA, as a superpower, has the right and the obligation to spread "democracy" and "capitalism", by force if necessary, to other countries all over the world, starting with Muslim-majority Countries. However, here comes the puzzling piece. Whether their strategy was right or wrong, surely thriving Liberal Parties in Egypt, being one of these target countries, must help in achieving their aim, of spreading democracy and freedom in the world. Why then would Neocons exert so much effort in discrediting or weakening these parties? In their unholy Jihad against Egyptian Liberals, assumingly in coordination with some Neocon High Commander in some American institute, enterprise or think tank; Egyptian Neocons have attempted to harm the very cause they claim to promote. Liberal International Conference was held in Cairo as scheduled since none of the member parties took those claims seriously. But the instance showed the divide, between those who believe in peace and dialogue on one hand and those who push for confrontation and prophesize for an Armageddon.

Many Neocons believe that the confrontation is inevitable. That Liberal Parties in places like Egypt only delay such a confrontation and dilute the urgency of the situation. They prefer to see a clear and present danger of Islamist extremists as to justify immediate armed intervention. In a way, extremists on both sides have a common interim goal. They both desire to escalate things so that Armageddon draws near. How did this bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy of an Armageddon infiltrate the minds even of those who are not necessarily religious? Or is there some other hidden motive? Neocons secretly and publicly cheer for terrorist attacks. They may be saddened by the loss of human life of course, but they see in these terrorist attacks a tool to gather public support for their confrontational agenda. Neocons booed when President Obama visited Cairo last June and attempted to build bridges of friendship and reconciliation with Muslims around the world. They prefer escalation and conflict. They believe that efforts of peace and reconciliation will eventually fail and the sooner the US realizes that and gets into military action the better.

Neocons and extremists on both sides have become more obsessed with the strategy (of violent confrontation) that they have 'forgotten' the original aim of spreading their ideology. In fact, in their Jihad against Liberals and Liberal Parties, Neocons have proved that their idea of liberalism is in fact some form of a fascist 1984-style ideology, where a single view of righteousness is imposed upon the whole world by force and military power. "You are either with us with the terrorists" kind of thinking. Neocons have not learned anything from the failures in Vietnam, from the Soviet failures in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, from US failure in Iraq; where imposing a regime on a nation proved unsustainable. Because for a stable balance to occur, a system of government must come as the product of cultural, social and political interactions of each society. We can help democracy in a certain country to prosper, but no one can impose change by force on the way people think or live. Use of force to impose ideas or lifestyles has only proved counterproductive.

These same Neocons who label Egyptian Liberals as anti-Semitic, label Obama as a communist and a Muslims-appeaser. They have labels for everyone and they use rumors, doubts and fear, but for what aim? If the real aim of the accusers was to mend the Liberal practices in Egypt, you would think they would exert some effort in communicating with their peers in their locales. But their aim appears different. Their aim is to prevent people, particularly liberals, from coming together. Their aim is to sabotage understanding so that the same failed old policies of confrontation and invasion can be promoted.

It is ironic that the day has come when Neocons wear the crosses of liberalism and cry on the altar of anti-racism ! The day has come for Neocons to cry liberalism! It would have been laughable if the aims were not so dangerous. It is not just hypocritical or showy. It is way more organizationally sinister. It is another facet of the Ultimate Divide.

The Writer is a co-founder of El Ghad Liberal Party of Egypt

The Ultimate Divide

And the Illusion of Armageddon

The recent events in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and even inside the United States, show that we are experiencing a deep divide in our world. You can see it and you can touch it. It affects elections like the ones we have recently seen in the U.S., Iran and Lebanon. It crosses boundaries of geography, ethnicity, religion or cultures. The new divide is not sectarian. We have seen in Lebanon that both the Hezbollah-led alliance and March 14 coalition both had Muslim and Christian factions as a part of each. This divide is not nationalistic. We have seen some right-wing American Neoconservatives publicly or secretly wishing that Ahmadinijad would win the elections so that a final confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would imminently draw near. Islamist fanatics also supported Ahmadinijad for what appears to be different reasons, but really it is because of the same motive. A quest for confrontation. A death wish for the bloodiest self-fulfilling prophecies of all time, Armageddon.

The new divide cuts deeply through our societies. It disrupts peaceful coexistence in our homelands and our world. It brings the threat of civil war closer to our towns and cities. It competes to control our media and our education systems. In one way, the new divide could be seen as being between the moderate and the traditional. The old and the new. Between the liberals and the conservatives. Between the fanatically religious and the secular. Between those who believe in changeable human laws and those who insist on following what they see as the timeless divine will of God. Between things we can debate and things which some consider to be unbound by time, place or logic. But ultimately, the divide is really between those who believe that our problems can be solved through dialogue, diplomacy, economic cooperation and even sanctions; and those who believe that war is inevitable. The divide is between those who believe that we, with all our differences can co-exist, and those who believe that it is either us or them. Between those who think that we can differ but still maintain amicable relations and those who think that either you are with us, the good, or you are against us siding with the axis of evil. The divide is between fear-mongers and promoters of xenophobia on one hand and those who simply believe that people are more or less the same everywhere on the other.

The national divide in Egypt, Lebanon or Iran is not a simple political disagreement within one agreed framework. It is often a disagreement on the nature of the framework which should govern agreements and disagreements. The debate in Washington about torture is not the result of a political disagreement. It represents a disagreement over a basic moral question, are the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights truly universal? Do Geneva conventions apply equally to us and to others? Are they only binding for others or are they binding for all of us? The same divide occurred a few years ago in the over whether or not the United States has the right to invade Iraq, without a United Nations mandate or a consensus from the international community. The problems in Pakistan are not caused by a minority or an isolated rebel group, they represent a national divide between a large portion of the population who supports or at least sympathizes with Taliban with its extremist and violently confrontational ideology, and moderates who want to resolve conflict through peaceful means and dialogue.

Needless to say, that the absence of an effective and fair International Justice System, stands behind the widening of this divide and the empowerment of the extremist ideology. When peaceful means failed and failed for decades, violence started to be marketed as a potentially more successful alternative.

The clash of civilizations assumes that a country or a group of countries belong to a distinctive civilization. Funny enough, the new roles of globalization weaken the validity of such classification. The truth is that the clash is happening within each society. It is a clash of mindsets. A clash of values and personal ideologies. The ideological commonalities cut across societies just like global market segmentation takes place. The clash, therefore, can be more accurately seen as a clash between those who believe in tolerance, diplomacy, peaceful struggle and would only consider war as a last resort in self-defense on one hand and those who believe in exclusivity, violent confrontations and pre-emptive strikes on the other hand.

The reason why many Israeli settlers refuse to leave their illegal settlements is because they believe that this land has been promised to them by God. Many Muslims also believe that they must control Jerusalem because of other religious reasons. During the crusades, Christian warriors believed they had to reclaim the holy land. Too many promises for the same piece of land. Muslims, Christians and Jews sadly have come to believe in Armageddon. The final war where God rewards the righteous, the faithful and the virtuous and delivers victory to his chosen people. The trouble is, each party believes that they are the chosen people. As soon as an attack on Gaza takes place, Muslim mosque preachers of the Friday prayers start telling the stories of Armageddon and how "a rock will tell the faithful that an enemy Jew is hiding behind it, so that the faithful can slay that enemy." Funny enough, the idea of Armageddon had no mention in the Koran and was most likely borrowed by late interpreters from biblical sources. Some Jewish sects and more recently Zionist Christians also believe in Armageddon with different intentions, to say the least. On the way to Armageddon, Islamist extremists, right-wing Neocon extremists, Zionist extremists, do all go hand in hand, till they arrive to the battlefield of course, there it will be a different story of which no one will live to tell. Perhaps Armageddon was once necessary as a potent psychological mobilization mechanism for survival in the past. But times have changed. Armageddon has become the scariest self-fulfilling prophecy of all times. But the good news is, as much as it is self-fulfilling it also is surely self-defeating.

The idea that there is a chosen nation, or a chosen people, or children of God, despite being so deeply rooted in the religious beliefs of Muslims, Christians and Jews is self-defeating because it gives moral justification to the notion that some of us are better or "more equal than others". The struggle of who exactly is better will continue to fuel war and conflict till doom's day, AKA Armageddon. One thing is for sure, Man, by his very nature seeks equality and freedom and rejects bondage and inferior treatment. Thus, ideologies which favor one race, one nation or one religion can fuel wars for centuries, but because Man ultimately seeks peace, safety, comfort and prosperity, these ideas are at the end self-defeating.

Armageddon, at least in the way it is currently being taught, is an illusion. Not because wars will never happen. Unfortunately we will witness wars every now and then. But the idea that Armageddon is a final war whereby one religion or one people will win an ultimate victory, military or otherwise, and then reign supreme happily ever after, as the world witnesses "the end of history", will just never happen. Wars, straight or asymmetric will just continue to erupt until a world order of equality and justice is established. Man will always seek freedom, dignity and equality and this will ultimately defeat Nazism, fascism and promoters of any sort of exclusive supremacy to any group, nation, race, religion or civilization.

But as for now, this divide will continue, until such time that the ominous promise of Armageddon is finally discredited.

If Pakistan Falls

If Pakistan Falls

By:
Wael Nawara

The recent events in Pakistan force me to contemplate a theoretical question: What happens if Pakistan falls into the hands of Taliban or other extremist factions? This 173-million-people country possesses nuclear capability but the nation is largely divided between seculars and extremists. Taliban raised fears in Pakistan by seizing control of the Buner district close to the capital Islamabad and imposed what they consider as “Sharia’a Law”. Scenes of a public flogging of a 17-year old girl on the hands of Taliban early this month alerted the world to the threat. A Washington Post editorial on Sunday said that the Obama administration’s public warnings of Pakistan’s collapse caused panic. Clinton had used the term “existential threat” describing the situation perhaps to urge the Pakistani government to take action. “In the course of three days, the US secretaries of state and defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the commanding general of American forces in the Middle East all publicly warned, in blunt and dire language, that Pakistan was facing an existential threat – and that its government and Army were not facing it,” the newspaper said.

President Asif Zardari’s government officials tried to play down the threat. But it seems that they are afraid that massive confrontation could spark off a wide civil war which the Pakistani army maybe unable to win. “The Threat is certainly real,” it said, however, and the Pakistan Army – “untrained in counterinsurgency and rigidly focused on India” – is either “reluctant to take on” the Taliban or “mostly ineffective”. But as Taliban forces expanded from Swat into the adjacent district of Buner, 100 kms from the capital, the United States made clear that it would attack Taliban forces in their Swat valley stronghold unless the Pakistan government stopped the militants’ advance towards Islamabad. But the key to this war is not the army. It is the divided nation of Pakistan. Like most other “Islamic” countries, Pakistan is divided between the modern and the old. Between the moderates and the fanatics. The seculars and the extremists. The key is how to develop a new cultural balance which will allow both to co-exist peacefully, before a de facto civil war erupts in all of these “Islamic” countries.

In 1947 there were only 189 madrassas or Islamic Schools in Pakistan. By 2002 the country had 10,000-13,000 unregistered madrassas with an estimated 1.7 to 1.9 million students. A 2008 estimate puts this figure at "over 40,000". So, these schools have collectively produced millions of Pakistani graduates who were taught in these “Islamic” schools which mostly teach extremist versions of Islam. Many of those “graduates” become radicalizing elements within their local societies. They command respect and influence people around them. Although you may meet many moderate Pakistanis, I have to admit that I was shocked to observe that some Pakistanis have developed some of the most extremist Islamic interpretations present today. Many of these extremist Pakistanis now live in Britain or other European countries where they teach or preach in local mosques and Islamic centers. Many others mingle with the population and spread their message amongst immigrant communities or Muslim minorities often feeling socially or economically excluded in their new societies.


If Pakistan falls, could this event trigger the official start of a formal World War III? I think the War or skirmishes of such had already started some time in 2001. But if Pakistan falls, knowing the situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Sudan and Yemen, then we have a very unstable position stretching on a potential battlefront covering many thousands of kilometers. Many other countries, Arab, European and otherwise, have large populations of Muslims ranging from moderates to fanatics. Which side are they going to take? And if more wars are to break out, will this trigger internal stability and radicalization in countries such as Egypt which are still dominated by “Moderates”, such that extremists will take control or gain increasing power? Has the self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon finally come to fateful realization? Extremists on both sides have the Armageddon “promise” in their mythology. Each believing that their “own God” will come to their rescue and guide their troops to the path of victory. But what the rest of us can see, is a trail of blood and destruction. Is there an end to this madness?


How does a right-wing-governed Israel fit into this picture? Israel and its atrocities in Palestine is often seen as “the” most potent fuel for radicalization and a major cause of the rise of extremism amongst Muslims around the world. But will the new US administration be able to talk the right-wing Israeli government into a peaceful settlement of a century-long conflict? A settlement with whom, when the Palestinian house is divided? Will such a solution come in time? What pressure can the US exercise over Israel? What is the impact on the internal US political scene?

Meanwhile, the needle of the radicameter in Pakistan as well as in many other places is pushing into the red. And the clock is ticking.

.

.

.

.

Related Stories:


From The Times
April 27, 2009
The threat that forced a fight
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6176004.ece

Google

Taliban bar Pakistan army convoy as tension grows
By ASIF SHAHZAD
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD97PJIVG3


From The Sunday Times
April 26, 2009
‘Stop the Taliban now – or we will’
The US got tough with Pakistan as terrorists moved to within 60 miles of the capital
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6168940.ece

Pakistan Daily Times
US public warning of Pakistan collapse has risks
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C27%5Cstory_27-4-2009_pg1_13

Pakistan Daily Times
PML-N asks Sufi Muhammad to disarm Taliban
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\27\story_27-4-2009_pg1_6