We are inviting submissions to our database of protesters who are missing or may still be detained – either new names, or more information on those already named. All information will be vetted before use The database can be found here . Egypt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In one of the finest commentaries I’ve seen, Lawrence O’Donnell lays the gauntlet gently, quietly and firmly at Bill O’Reilly’s feet over O’Reilly’s claim that MSNBC has “anti-American” tendencies. Not once did O’Donnell raise his voice. Not once did he say or do anything that was bombastic or angry, but underneath the quiet voice there was mockery and anger. Quite well done. He also makes a great point. While we all focus on Glenn Beck’s wingnuttery, BillO is in the background making stuff up, saying whatever he wants, and getting away with it. Here’s his lead: Time for tonight’s rewrite. Do you ever get the feeling that Glenn Beck’s job is to be a smoke screen for Bill O’Reilly? Beck is busy saying so many utterly insane things that get him so much attention that it’s easy to miss O’Reilly’s lower voltage lies. Here is O’Reilly talking with renowned prostitute patron Dick Morris about the thing O’Reilly can never stop talking about, his interview with President Obama. And yes, that thought has occurred to me. Glenn Beck is a distraction, attractive only to the whackos who put on their tinfoil hats and wait for the second coming of the Messiah on a rocket. But Bill O’Reilly, now that guy looks credible, especially when sandwiched next to Beck. O’Donnell’s observation that O’Reilly has learned that he can lie to viewers and get away with it is what drives all of us here to make sure he doesn’t get away with it. And now Lawrence O’Donnell issues a challenge to BillO (love the way he spits out the name “Billy”): Now, I have a homework assignment for your underworked staff. Since they finished explaining the tides and the moon to you, put them to work trying to find what this network has done or what I have done that is anti-American. Take as long as you want. Find it and show it to your audience. and if you’re as afraid to accept my challenge as I think you are, if you don’t even try to provide fact to back up what you said about me, no one watching this show is going to be surprised, Billy, because they will know that you will have proved everything that I just said. Full transcript follows (as taken from their real-time transcript attached to the video): Time for tonight’s rewrite. Do you ever get the feeling that Glenn Beck’s job is to be a smoke screen for Bill O’Reilly? Beck is busy saying so many utterly insane things that get him so much attention that it’s easy to miss O’Reilly’s lower voltage lies. Here is O’Reilly talking with renowned prostitute patron Dick Morris about the thing O’Reilly can never stop talking about, his interview with President Obama. OREILLY: The president wouldn’t basically define how he sees the Muslim Brotherhood. He would not do it. He said they are strains of Anti-American in it, but that sounds like MSNBC, there are strains of anti-americanism over there. Sure. So O’Reilly tells the lie that MSNBC is anti-american and gets a desperate guy whose public record with prostitutes makes him unemployable anywhere else to agree with him. And his devoted audience thinks they just learned something, which explains why a University of Maryland study found that Fox News viewers are misinformed more than any other news network viewers. A study that was not the first to reach that conclusion. Now, when I say O’Reilly is lying about this, I’m giving him credit for sometimes being smarter than what he actually says. And on this one, O’Reilly knows better. He knows there’s nothing anti-American going on at this network. But he’s seen the studies about how, shall we say, impressionable his audience is, and he knows everyone on the fox payroll that appears as a guest on the show will say exactly what he wants them to say. He has figured out exactly what his audience wants to hear, and that’s what he delivers. And when that requires lying, O’Reilly can do it without blinking because he discovered there’s a lot of money to be made in those lies. Here is what i see when i look at Bill O’Reilly. A very, very, very rich man who has grown phenomenally rich by playing on TV something that america falls for. When i look at O’Reilly, i see dozens of guys i grew up with who were just like him. Overbearing, argumentative, Irish guys who think they know everything and can back up nothing. Those guys have always been a joke to me, which is why O’Reilly almost never has the capacity to outrage me, because he is just a joke to me. Most of the time. But when he blairs homicidal — he deserved what he has received. Most of what O’Reilly does day-in and day-out deserves nothing more than to be laughed at, which is how saturday night live treated him, what else can you do with someone who says he knows of no other explanation of why the tides go in and out. Then when told it has a little something to do with the moon thinks he can stump you with this question. How did the moon get there? How’d it get there, how’d the sun get there? How’d it get here? How did it get there? Who put it there. He believes he can ask an utterly idiotic question like that and intimidate you, simply by using his faux Irish tough guy style. Billy boy, i know real Irish tough guys. They don’t look and sound like you. And none of them come from Long Island like you. And none of them go to work in makeup like you. Anybody who knows real tough isn’t fooled by your act, Bill. Now, I have a homework assignment for your underworked staff. Since they finished explaining the tides and the moon to you, put them to work trying to find what this network has done or what I have done that is anti-American. Take as long as you want. Find it and show it to your audience. and if you’re as afraid to accept my challenge as I think you are, if you don’t even try to provide fact to back up what you said about me, no one watching this show is going to be surprised, Billy, because they will know that you will have proved everything that I just said.
Continue reading …His office has been rocked by scandal and charges of corruption. Now, stripped of immunity and ordered to stand trial on charges of having sex with an underage woman, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s political obituary is being written yet again. Al Jazeera’s Tim Friend reports from Rome on the mix of embarrassment, shame and amusement among Italian citizens at the efforts of the 74-year-old to cling to power.
Continue reading …President Obama made it perfectly clear with the budget proposal he submitted Monday that he has no interest in subordinating his agenda to the the country's long-term fiscal health and sustainability. Under the proposal, the federal government will add $26.3 trillion in new debt over the next ten years. Jake Tapper summed it up thusly : “The plan shows that Obama will not take the lead on any aggressive measure to eliminate the nation’s $14 trillion debt.” Head below the break for a list of some of the more disheartening figures from the budget, compilments of NRO's Andrew Stiles . $3.73 trillion — total spending this year (25 percent of GDP, highest levels since World War Two). $46 trillion — total spending over the next decade. $8.7 trillion — total new spending over the same period. $26.3 trillion — Total new debt, including entitlement obligations, predicted by 2021. $7.2 trillion — Total deficit predicted by the end of the decade. $1.1 trillion — How much the White House estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit over the next ten years. $4 trillion — How much the president’s deficit commission recommended reducing the deficit over the next ten years to avoid financial catastrophe. $1.6 trillion — The projected annual deficit for 2011 (11 percent of GDP), up from $1.3 trillion in 2010. Follow the link for more of the numbers. Any surprise here? How will the media react, do you think?
Continue reading …Thousands have taken to the streets in Bahrain, as a second protester is laid to rest on Tuesday. For two days, demonstrators have been demanding government reform. Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Manama, who we are not naming for safety reasons, has the latest.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media During this weekend’s McLaughlin Group, Monica Crowley did her best to continue the fearmongering that we’ve heard out of her fellow Fox contributors about how the Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over the Egyptian government if they’re allowed to have fair and free elections. CROWLEY: Remember that President Bush began this public discussion about economic political liberalization in the Middle East. You had the Iraq War. But understand something, that yes the regimes in the Middle East from Jordan’s King Abdullah to Saudi King Abdullah, all across North Africa and the Middle East they have to be very worried about the impact of this. But remember that the only Arab democracy that we currently have in the region is the one built by the United States in Iraq. So when we talk about democracy the way we talk about it here in the west has a fundamentally different meaning than it has in the Middle East and because you have so many devout Muslims across this whole region, if they are given the vote, the chances are you’re not going to get a Jeffersonian democracy. John you are going to get very strong Islamists influences. Just as we saw in 2006 with a vote in Gaza. Remember we’re hearing the same kind of talk now with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We hear now that the Brotherhood would only get 20-30% of the vote. That’s the exact same percentage we were told Hamas would get in Gaza and guess what? They got 70% of the vote. Tread very carefully here. You’ve got to love these conservatives. They only like democracy when it’s at the point of a gun or when we get the results we want from another country’s elections. Otherwise we’re content to keep their dictators propped up and bought off. Robert Dreyfuss has a really good article at Mother Jones on the Muslim Brotherhood, sans the fearmongering — What Is the Muslim Brotherhood, and Will It Take Over Egypt?
Continue reading …Egypt’s revolution has not just deposed a dictator, it has breathed life into an exhausted idea: Arab self-determination The protesters on the streets of Cairo who, in just 18 days, ended the three-decade rule of Hosni Mubarak were not merely demanding the end of an unjust, corrupt and oppressive regime. They did not merely decry privation, unemployment or the disdain with which their leaders treated them. They had long suffered such indignities. What they fought for was something more elusive and more visceral. The Arab world is dead. Egypt’s revolution is trying to revive it. From the 1950s onwards, Arabs took pride in their anti-colonial struggle, in their leaders’ standing and in the sense that the Arab world stood for something, that it had a mission: to build independent nation-states and resist foreign domination. In Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser presided over a ruinous economy and endured a humiliating defeat against Israel in 1967. Still, Cairo remained the heart of the larger Arab nation – the Arab public watched as Nasser railed against the west, defied his country’s former masters, nationalised the Suez canal and taunted Israel. Meanwhile, Algeria wrested its independence from France and became the refuge of revolutionaries; Saudi Arabia led an oil embargo that shook the world economy; and Yasser Arafat gave Palestinians a voice and put their cause on the map. Throughout, the Arab world suffered ignominious military and political setbacks, but it resisted. Some around the world may not have liked the sounds coming from Cairo, Algiers, Baghdad and Tripoli, but they took notice. There were defeats for the Arab world, but no surrender. But that world passed, and Arab politics fell silent. Other than to wait and see what others might do, Arab regimes have no clear and effective approach towards any of the issues vital to their collective future, and what policies they do have contradict popular feeling. It is that indifference that condemned the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt to irrelevance. Most governments in the region were resigned to or enabled the invasion of Iraq; since then, the Arab world has had virtually no impact on Iraq’s course. It has done little to achieve Palestinian aspirations besides backing a peace process in which it no longer believes. When Israel went to war with Hezbollah in 2006 and then with Hamas two years later , most Arab leaders privately cheered the Jewish state. And their position on Iran is unintelligible; they have delegated ultimate decision-making to the US, which they encourage to toughen its stance but then warn about the consequences of such action. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, pillars of the Arab order, are exhausted, bereft of a cause other than preventing their own decline. For Egypt, which stood tallest, the fall has been steepest. But long before Tahrir Square Egypt forfeited any claim to Arab leadership. It has gone missing in Iraq, and its policy towards Iran remains restricted to protestations, accusations and insults. It has not prevailed in its rivalry with Syria and has lost its battle for influence in Lebanon. It has had no genuine impact on the Arab-Israeli peace process, was unable to reunify the Palestinian movement and was widely seen in the region as complicit in Israel’s siege on Hamas-controlled Gaza. Riyadh has helplessly witnessed the gradual ascendancy of Iranian influence in Iraq and the wider region. It was humiliated in 2009 when it failed to crush rebels in Yemen despite formidable advantages in resources and military hardware. Its mediation attempts among Palestinians in 2007, and more recently in Lebanon, were brushed aside by local parties over which it once held considerable sway. The Arab leadership has proved passive and, when active, powerless. Where it once championed a string of lost causes – pan-Arab unity, defiance of the west, resistance to Israel – it now fights for nothing. There was more popular pride in yesterday’s setbacks than in today’s stupor. Arab states suffer from a curse more debilitating than poverty or autocracy. They have become counterfeit, perceived by their own people as alien, pursuing policies hatched from afar. One cannot fully comprehend the actions of Egyptians, Tunisians, Jordanians and others without considering this deep-seated feeling that they have not been allowed to be themselves, that they have been robbed of their identities. Taking to the streets is not a mere act of protest. It is an act of self-determination. Where the United States and Europe have seen moderation and co-operation, the Arab public has sensed a loss of dignity and of the ability to make free decisions. True independence was traded in for western military, financial and political support. That intimate relationship distorted Arab politics. Reliant on foreign nations’ largesse and accountable to their judgment, the narrow ruling class became more responsive to external demands than to domestic aspirations. Alienated from their states, the people have in some cases searched elsewhere for guidance. Some have been drawn to groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, which have resisted and challenged the established order. Others look to non-Arab states such as Turkey, which under its Islamist government has carved out a dynamic, independent role, or Iran, which flouts western threats and edicts. The breakdown of the Arab order has upended natural power relations. Traditional powers punch below their weight, and emerging ones, such as Qatar, punch above theirs. Al-Jazeera has emerged as a fully fledged political actor because it reflects and articulates popular sentiment. It has become the new Nasser. The leader of the Arab world is a television network. Popular uprisings are the latest step in this process. They have been facilitated by a newfound fearlessness and feeling of empowerment – watching the US military’s struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Israel’s inability to subdue Hezbollah and Hamas, Arab peoples are no longer afraid to confront their own regimes. For the US, the popular upheaval lays bare the fallacy of an approach that relies on Arab leaders who mimic the west’s deeds and parrot its words, and that only succeeds in discrediting the regimes without helping Washington. The more the US gave to the Mubarak regime, the more it lost Egypt. Arab leaders have been put on notice: A warm relationship with the United States and a peace deal with Israel will not save you in your hour of need. Injecting economic assistance into faltering regimes will not work. The grievance Arab peoples feel is not principally material, and one of its main targets is over-reliance on the outside. US calls for reform will likewise fall flat. A messenger who has backed the status quo for decades is a poor voice for change. Attempts to pressure regimes can backfire, allowing rulers to depict protests as western-inspired and opposition leaders as foreign stooges. Some policymakers in western capitals have convinced themselves that seizing the moment to promote the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will placate public opinion. This is to engage in both denial and wishful thinking. It ignores how Arabs have become estranged from current peace efforts; they believe that such endeavours reflect a foreign rather than a national agenda. And it presumes that a peace agreement acceptable to the west and to Arab leaders will be acceptable to the Arab public, when in truth it is more likely to be seen as an unjust imposition and denounced as the liquidation of a cherished cause. A peace effort intended to salvage order will accelerate its demise. The Arab world’s transition from old to new is rife with uncertainty about its pace and endpoint. When and where transitions take place, they will express a yearning for more assertiveness. Governments will have to change their spots; their publics will wish them to be more like Turkey and less like Egypt. For decades, the Arab world has been drained of its sovereignty, its freedom, its pride. It has been drained of politics. Today marks politics’ revenge. • This article first appeared in the Washington Post. Comments will be open for 24 hours Egypt US foreign policy Middle East United States Protest Saudi Arabia Israel Palestinian territories Turkey Hamas Robert Malley Hussein Agha guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Delacroix’s image of revolution, Liberty Leading the People, helps us see the protests in Eygpt and Iran in a new light The flag of liberty flutters over a smoke-wreathed barricade. A crowd of the poor and the desperate and the idealistic rushes towars us, and towards death if they fail to win their freedom. A street child and a top-hatted bohemian defy the cannon of the regime to win their place in history. This is Liberty Leading the People by Eugene Delacroix , the most romantic and inspiring of all images of revolution. The rising it portrays is the Revolution of 1830 in France, and the battle cry it makes visible – freedom or death! – is once more alive, this time on the streets of Cairo, Tehran and Bahrain. I happened to see this bloodrush of a painting in the Louvre in Paris just as events were kicking off in Egypt. It hangs in the most impressive gallery in the museum, a hall so grand it would make you think about history even if it were not decorated by awe-inspiring paintings of revolution and war. But to compare Liberty Leading the People to other paintings by Delacroix that hang in that same magnificent atmosphere is to see today’s revolutions in a new light and get a richer sense of their radicalism. Liberty is European in the art of Delacroix while tyranny, in his eyes, is proper to the Middle East. Opposite his hymn to revolution, so patriotically French with that glimpse of Notre Dame through the battle smoke, hang three pictures that graphically portray Middle Eastern societies as inherently despotic. The Death of Sardanapalus wallows in a fantasy of “oriental” decadence as a tyrant kills himself amid the fabulous erotic abandon of his court. Meanwhile, in The Massacres at Chios , defenceless Greek rebels are slaughtered by cruel Turks. And in The Women of Algiers , we are offered a glimpse of life in a harem. The message in this group of great paintings is clear. Democracy according to Delacroix is a western passion, a European ideal. In reality, when Delacroix painted his Romantic masterpieces, democracy was as new and exotic – and as rare – in the monarchical and aristocratic societies of Europe as it was anywhere else. Only paintings like his (and novels and histories that shared their sentiment) would rewrite Europe’s story as an invincible forward march to freedom. Until now, the world has lived with the consequences of this false idea that freedom is inherently European and democracy only a passion of the west. This is surely why the revolt of Arab youth is one of the truly epoch-making moments in world history. Think what is at stake: a truly universal democratic ideal. The end of the corrupting conservatism and disdain that sees human nature as divisible. I don’t know what Delacroix would have thought. But the boy on the barricade salutes his brothers and sisters. Eugène Delacroix Painting Art Egypt Iran Middle East Protest Jonathan Jones guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As protests hot up across the Middle East, the lavish lives of aloof Arab royal wives are in the spotlight It started with Leila Trabelsi, the wife of President Ben Ali – the Arab world’s answer to Imelda Marcos, the Lady Macbeth of Tunisia , who allegedly made off with copious amounts of gold after the uprising that ousted her husband. Attention then shifted to Suzanne Mubarak , Egypt’s ex-first lady, who shares her husband’s estimated $70bn fortune. In the wake of King Abdullah’s dismissal of the government in Jordan this month, the latest Arab Wag in the spotlight is Queen Rania . Last week she was the subject of an unprecedented attack by a group of Jordanian tribal figures complaining about the ruling family and widespread corruption. According to the statement, the queen and “her sycophants and the power centres that surround her” are dividing Jordanians and “stealing from the country and the people”. As the wave of dissent sweeping the region puts Arab presidents and monarchs under the spotlight, their wives are also being scrutinised for their lavish lifestyles and “interference” in politics. Queen Rania in particular, a regular “frow” (front row) fixture at fashion shows in Paris and Milan and Giorgio Armani’s “muse” is well known for her fashion credentials and her Tatler-like lifestyle. Feted in the west, Rania is queen of one of the poorest countries in the region. Most first ladies in the Arab countries are western educated (Suzanne Mubarak is half British) and thus are more comfortable in western circles of diplomacy and royalty. While they may be beautiful, articulate and impeccably styled ambassadors, on their home turf they often appear out of touch with the concerns of citizens. In the oil-rich Gulf states, due to generally high living standards, the indulgences of first ladies (often more than one per monarch) do not particularly grate. In addition, the conservative monarchies of the Gulf are generally more low profile and it is inconceivable that any of the Saudi king’s wives would tweet a picture of herself watching football in Barcelona. When Gulf Wags do make a rare outing, they are mostly noted for their style. Sheikha Moza of Qatar caused a frenzy last year with her icicle-heeled Chanel boots on a state visit to the UK. The latest royal spouse to make an outing is Princess Amira, wife of the unconventional Saudi multi-billionaire, Prince Waleed bin Talal . Rarely seen in the obligatory Saudi abaya, she recently accompanied her husband to the opening of the refurbished Savoy Hotel in London. She has commented that she is “ready to drive” in Saudi Arabia and is often photographed meeting her husband’s charity causes in the kingdom in jeans and T-shirts. While there is nothing uncommon about the wives of political leaders coming under scrutiny for their appearance ( Michelle Obama’s choices of dress and designer are in the headlines almost as often as her husband’s policy making), Arab first ladies are even more celebrated in the west for their exotic take on western styles. While it is understandable that Queen Rania’s international jetsetting, along with her large palace office and entourage, might be provocative to some Jordanians, the local criticisms of her are not devoid of prejudice. The queen is of Palestinian origin, part of a Palestinian emigre community in Jordan that has an often tense relationship with native Jordanians. Old-fashioned misogyny also creeps into the discourse: a youthful, tweeting, Armani-clad, charity-sponsoring queen does not go down well with the traditional tribal leaders who wield considerable power in the country. Since public criticism of the king and the institution of monarchy is taboo in Jordan (and carries a penalty of three years’ imprisonment), the queen also provides a softer target. Those who criticised her last week were actually firing a warning salvo aimed at the king. Queen Rania talks eloquently about change and women’s rights on Oprah, yet Jordan’s human rights record under the stewardship of her husband has been poor. Most tragically, Jordan still has the highest incidence of honour killings in the Arab world and, according to Amnesty International’s 2010 report on Jordan, “perpetrators of such killings continued to benefit from inappropriately lenient sentences”. Irrespective of whether the attack on Queen Rania is fair, it is increasingly clear that the wives of kings and presidents across the Arab world are being seen and treated as an extension of the unaccountable regimes presided over by their husbands. Middle East Tunisia Egypt Jordan Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Hosni Mubarak Qatar Saudi Arabia Nesrine Malik guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In Egypt, the search is under way for people who disappeared during the pro democracy protests over the past three weeks. For families, information about loved ones has been scarce at best. Al Jazeera’s Sherine Tadros reports from Cairo.
Continue reading …