Egypt president delivers TV address to the nation – and pledges to step down at the next election and pave way for new leader “I talk to you during critical times that are testing Egypt and its people which could sweep them into the unknown. The country is passing through difficult times and tough experiences which began with noble youths and citizens who practise their rights to peaceful demonstrations and protests, expressing their concerns and aspirations but they were quickly exploited by those who sought to spread chaos and violence, confrontation and to violate the constitutional legitimacy and to attack it. Those protests were transformed from a noble and civilised phenomenon of practising freedom of expression to unfortunate clashes, mobilised and controlled by political forces that wanted to escalate and worsen the situation. They targeted the nation’s security and stability through acts of provocation theft and looting and setting fires and blocking roads and attacking vital installations and public and private properties and storming some diplomatic missions. We are living together painful days and the most painful thing is the fear that affected the huge majority of Egyptians and caused concern and anxiety over what tomorrow could bring them and their families and the future of their country. The events of the last few days require us all as a people and as a leadership to chose between chaos and stability and to set in front of us new circumstances and a new Egyptian reality which our people and armed forces must work with wisely and in the interest of Egypt and its citizens. Dear brothers and citizens, I took the initiative of forming a new government with new priorities and duties that respond to the demand of our youth and their mission. I entrusted the vice president with the task of holding dialogue with all the political forces and factions about all the issues that have been raised concerning political and democratic reform and the constitutional and legislative amendments required to realise these legitimate demands and to restore law and order but there are some political forces who have refused this call to dialogue, sticking to their particular agendas without concern for the current delicate circumstances of Egypt and its people. In light of this refusal to the call for dialogue and this is a call which remains standing, I direct my speech today directly to the people, its Muslims and Christians, old and young, peasants and workers, and all Egyptian men and women in the countryside and city over the whole country. I have never, ever been seeking power and the people know the difficult circumstances that I shouldered my responsibility and what I offered this country in war and peace, just as I am a man from the armed forces and it is not in my nature to betray the trust or give up my responsibilities and duties. My primary responsibility now is security and independence of the nation to ensure a peaceful transfer of power in circumstances that protect Egypt and the Egyptians and allow handing over responsibility to whoever the people choose in the coming presidential election. I say in all honesty and regardless of the current situation that I did not intend to nominate myself for a new presidential term. I have spent enough years of my life in the service of Egypt and its people. I am now absolutely determined to finish my work for the nation in a way that ensures handing over its safe-keeping and banner … preserving its legitimacy and respecting the constitution. I will work in the remaining months of my term to take the steps to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. According to my constitutional powers, I call on parliament in both its houses to discuss amending article 76 and 77 of the constitution concerning the conditions on running for presidency of the republic and it sets specific a period for the presidential term. In order for the current parliament in both houses to be able to discuss these constitutional amendments and the legislative amendments linked to it for laws that complement the constitution and to ensure the participation of all the political forces in these discussions, I demand parliament to adhere to the word of the judiciary and its verdicts concerning the latest cases which have been legally challenged. I will entrust the new government to perform in ways that will achieve the legitimate rights of the people and that its performance should express the people and their aspirations of political, social and economic reform and to allow job opportunities and combating poverty, realising social justice. In this context, I charge the police apparatus to carry out its duty in serving the people, protecting the citizens with integrity and honour with complete respect for their rights, freedom and dignity. I also demand the judicial and supervisory authorities to take immediately the necessary measures to continue pursuing outlaws and to investigate those who caused the security disarray and those who undertook acts of theft, looting and setting fires and terrorising citizens. This is my pledge to the people during the last remaining months of my current term: I ask God to help me to honour this pledge to complete my vocation to Egypt and its people in what satisfies God, the nation and its people. Dear citizens, Egypt will emerge from these current circumstances stronger, more confident and unified and stable. And our people will emerge with more awareness of how to achieve reconciliation and be more determined not to undermine its future and destiny. Hosni Mubarak who speaks to you today is proud of the long years he spent in the service of Egypt and its people. This dear nation is my country, it is the country of all Egyptians, here I have lived and fought for its sake and I defended its land, its sovereignty and interests and on this land I will die and history will judge me and others for our merits and faults. The nation remains. Visitors come and go but ancient Egypt will remain eternal, its banner and safekeeping will pass from one generation to the next. It is up to us to ensure this in pride and dignity.” Hosni Mubarak Egypt Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ian McEwan misleadingly calls the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra “Daniel Barenboim’s … Orchestra” ( Letters , 26 January). In fact the orchestra was established by Barenboim together with my late husband, Edward Said . In responding to the writers urging Mr McEwan not to accept the Jerusalem prize, Mr McEwan says “there are ways in which art can have a longer reach than politics and for me the emblem in this respect is […] the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra”. But there is a significant difference between our project and his accepting the Jerusalem prize. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement’s policy is “to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel”. It does not call for a boycott against all Israelis, but those affiliated with institutions that support the Israeli state and its policies and who do not express support for the Palestinian struggle against occupation. Barenboim, Said, myself and the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra do not meet any of those criteria. Mr McEwan is going to accept a prize sponsored by the municipality, a key institution of the Israeli state. In accepting the prize, Mr McEwan does indeed meet the criteria outlined by the Boycott movement. Mariam Said New York • As an elected member of the Israeli parliament, Haneen Zoabi can perhaps afford to take her hardline stance ( Comment , 31 January), whereas the official Palestinian representatives, whom she so decries, must take a more reasonable and practical position. It is ironic that she can express her views with impunity from the heart of, and courtesy of the freedoms provided by, the Jewish state, while in the same breath denying it recognition or legitimacy. It’s time for the Muslim world to accept and recognise the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as a Jewish state because this too is not negotiable. Impasse? Alastair Albright London • Whatever the outcome in Egypt ( Reports , February 1), one hopes Israel, at least, has learned one salient lesson. Israel relinquished the Sinai peninsula, captured in 1967, together with its oilfields and the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, for a peace treaty with Egypt. It now appears that this piece of paper is worth no more than the staying power of this Egyptian administration. A sobering lesson for any future “peace treaties”. Allan Solomon Watford, Hertfordshire • America’s credibility problem has become acute. It claims to support democracy in the Middle East, but at any time in the last 30 years it could have used pressure to guide Mubarak’s regime towards at least minimal reforms. On the other hand, it slapped crippling sanctions on the Palestinians when they voted, in free and fair elections, for a party the US and Israel disliked. Hilary Wise London Israel Palestinian territories Middle East Ian McEwan Egypt Hosni Mubarak guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The country’s most important issue is not when the leader goes, but whether the regime will go with him President Mubarak’s announcement, under American pressure, that he will not seek re-election in September marks an end to one phase of the Egyptian crisis. But it does not resolve it. First, it is far from clear that Egyptians will accept him remaining in even nominal control. Secondly, the real struggle in Egypt is not between Mr Mubarak and the bulk of the Egyptian people. It is between the entrenched political, military and economic elites who have come to dominate Egyptian society in the years since independence and the classes they have increasingly excluded, coerced and manipulated. These elites have worked for Mr Mubarak, fought for his favour, and been controlled by him while at the same time using him to defend their collective interests. A dictator never stands alone. “Irhal!” (“Go!”) the protesters cry, but the most important issue is not when Mr Mubarak goes but what goes with him. The manner in which he leaves office is nevertheless important because it will be an indication of how much of the old system is likely to survive in the new era. Mohamed ElBaradei, representing the views of much of the opposition, has said there can be no discussions with what remain of the authorities until Mr Mubarak steps down. Another wing of the opposition has split over whether there can be contacts before that moment. Even as the crowds pour into Tahrir Square in search of the catharsis Mr Mubarak’s early departure will bring, those on both sides of what used to be the divide between government and opposition are examining what trade-offs might be, could be, or should be considered. They are doing this not only with a graph of rising popular anger in mind but to a short timetable set by the relentless degradation of the Egyptian economy . Empty shops, closed banks, deserted tourist hotels and dry petrol stations cannot be borne for long by a society with Egypt’s limited margins and reserves. Mr Mubarak’s main personal concern may well be to withdraw from the scene in what he deems to be an honourable way. But those who have constituted the pillars of his regime are interested in survival, not withdrawal. The officer corps wants to preserve its power and privileges. Yet the Egyptian army is oversized and over-armed, and ought, in any sensible reordering of Egypt’s political system, to be reduced and depoliticised. The older leaders of the ruling National Democratic party, where some remnants of the original Free Officers’ idealism may still just be discerned, also want a place in any new order, and may have a sort of constituency in Egypt’s enormous bureaucracy. Yet that, too, should be reduced. The Egyptian business class, particularly that section of it which gravitated toward Gamal Mubarak, the president’s son, will plead that its capital, competence and contacts are vital if Egypt’s economy is to be restored, and threaten dire consequences if the deals and depredations of the past are unearthed. Yet that class is properly seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution. The police, lowest of the low on the regime totem pole, will be calculating that sooner or later their brutal skills will once again be needed. Yet they must be curbed if Egypt is to make a genuine new start. The divisions on the opposite side, notably between the Muslim Brotherhood and more secular groups, and, potentially, between all of the established opposition and the new, younger protesters who so dramatically initiated change in Egypt, are obvious. They may also have spread the impulse for change further afield, as yesterday’s reshuffle of the Jordanian government shows. The demonstrators in the square say they have only one demand, that Mr Mubarak step down. In the euphoria of the moment some of them see his departure as the answer to everything that is wrong in the land of Egypt. But whether that departure comes sooner or later, it will not be that. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Protest guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Planet Beck nears critical mass with wingnutty theory about Egypt uprising
February 2, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Like Steve Benen, I’m beginning to wonder if our favorite Big-Time Wingnuts are about to implode under the critical mass of their own overpowering wingnuttery. It seem as though Sarah Palin’s bizarre “WTF” rant of the other night — while not particularly spectacular in the context of a political career rich with embarrassing moments — may have been the pebble that finally tipped even her reflexive defenders in the other direction. (You sure can’t find anyone outside of Planet Palin who will defend it.) Then there’s Glenn Beck in the past couple of days. Conor Friedersdorf’s reaction reflected the consensus: “the fact that Roger Ailes and his associates air this kind of nonsense –couched in these kinds of assurances! – is indefensible.” As Benen says : Over the last year or so, Fox News’ Glenn Beck has lost about a third of his audience, which is a pretty significant drop, and may very well lead the deranged media personality to think of ways to bring viewers back. One way, for example, may be for Beck to be even more creative when sharing crazy visions of global affairs. Yesterday, the strange man did his best to explain events in Egypt with a take that really has to be seen to be believed. Chris Hayes called it “a tour de force of paranoid ignorance,” which sums it up nicely. As you can see, all he’s really doing is reinforcing what even some of Beck’s Believers are now beginning to realize: that he’s an ignoramus peddling cockamamie conspiracy theories with no regard to facts or truthfulness. You see, Beck believes that events in Egypt are the culmination of conspiratorial forces he’s been railing about for some time now — essentially revolving around an obscure book by French anarchists that nobody is actually reading, The Coming Insurrection . Basically, Beck foresees a Middle Eastern “Caliphate” overtaking Europe and China controlling big chunks of new territory, all fueled by a “Marxist” and “Islamist” conspiracy: I believe that I can make a case in the end that there are three powers that you will see really emerge. One, a Muslim caliphate that controls the Mideast and parts of Europe. Two, China, that will control Asia, the southern half of Africa, part of the Middle East, Australia, maybe New Zealand, and God only knows what else. And Russia, which will control all of the old former Soviet Union bloc, plus maybe the Netherlands. I’m not really sure. But their strong arm is coming. That leaves us and South America. What happens to us? Then Beck went on Bill O’Reilly’s show and explained the nutshell version: BECK: No, I think we’re actually possibly the witnessing Archduke Ferdinand moment. Archduke Ferdinand was the guy who was killed — shot, a few months later started the First World War. I think we’re in real danger. … BECK: I understand that, but what you’re not taking into account is that that is what the average person thinks, just like the average person on the street of — of Cairo thinks they’re swept up in some freedom movement. It is not about freedom. It is being orchestrated by the Marxists, communists and primarily also the Muslim Brotherhood. Sean Easter and Todd Gregory at Media Matters have a thorough roundup of the madness, and conclude by observing: All of this was offered up in service of his theory that the protests in Egypt are the manifestation of The Coming Insurrection , an obscure book that French police believe was written by a member of a small group of anarchists. Beck has repeatedly described the anonymous author (or authors) of the book as “communists.” He’s tied George Soros and President Obama to The Coming Insurrection , as well. So, a diverse group of the Egyptian people are in the streets protesting an autocratic leader, and Glenn Beck has decided that this is directly connected to an anonymously written anarchist tract from France that he’s been obsessing about for the past two years? Normally, we are in the business of debunking the falsehoods and smears that Beck promotes. But how do you debunk pronouncements that quite obviously bear no relationship to reality? The real question is: Why would anyone ever take this man seriously on any subject?
Continue reading …
A crowd of thousands rushed to speakers and projection television screens to listen to their president address the unrest that has swept over the nation in the past eight days. They weren’t happy with what they heard and told an Al Jazeera web producer they would remain in the square until Mubarak leaves.
Continue reading …Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak says he will stand down at the next election – video
February 1, 2011 No Comment
Hosni Mubarak announces on state TV that he will serve out remaining term – his sixth – and pave the way for a new leader in September
Continue reading …
Protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square continue to demonstrate their opposition to President Hosni Mubarak, prior to his announcement that he will stand down at the next election
Continue reading …
The pro-life group Live Action has posted an expose that should be deeply embarrassing to Planned Parenthood. In a visit taped on January 11, an office manager at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Perth Amboy, New Jersey greets a man and woman posing as a pimp and a prostitute by carefully explaining they want “as little information as possible” as they offer their contraceptive and abortion services, even as this pimp described bringing in underage girls as illegal aliens to be his sex workers. At NPR's blog The Two-Way, reporter Eyder Peralta picked this up and promptly mangled the facts. The headline was “Group Behind ACORN Undercover Videos Sets Up Planned Parenthood 'Sting.'” Yes, “sting” may be what you call it when liberal journalists take a hidden camera to expose malfeasance, but if the videographers are pro-life, the word goes into quotes. Peralta began: “The same group that went undercover at ACORN offices back in 2009 is now going after Planned Parenthood.” Wrong. NPR was forced to correct: “An earlier version of this post stated Live Action was associated with James O'Keefe. They are not, and O'Keefe was not a part of this undercover video.” But Live Action is still upset at the new headline: “Conservative Group Sets Up Planned Parenthood 'Sting.'” They claim the label is wrong : This title is still false as we have never identified ourselves as a “conservative” group. We are not conservative or liberal. Just because polls show that more conservatives are pro-life than liberals does not make our pro-life organization conservative. That is illogical. We are simply pro-life. So NPR, please stop arrogantly imposing your labels upon us. Political reporters may find it natural to assign pro-life activists to the right, but not only are there pro-life Democrats and even pro-life socialists — there's the problem that political reporters almost never describe “abortion rights” groups as liberals. In a 1998 study of newspaper labeling, MRC found about pro-lifers were described as “conservative” or some variant of it in 47 percent of stories, while abortion advocates were identified as “liberal” in 2.8 percent of stories.
Continue reading …In this Washington Post op-ed ridiculously titled ” Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world ,” Elliot Abrams attempts to show how GWB’s democracy agenda forecast the desire for the Arab peoples of the Middle Eastern nations to be free. He says: The three decades Hosni Mubarak and his cronies have already had in power leave Egypt with no reliable mechanisms for a transition to democratic rule. Egypt will have some of the same problems as Tunisia, where there are no strong democratic parties and where the demands of the people for rapid change may outstrip the new government’s ability to achieve it. This is also certain to be true in Yemen, where a weak central government has spent all its energies and most of its resources simply staying in power. All these developments seem to come as a surprise to the Obama administration, which dismissed Bush’s “freedom agenda” as overly ideological and meant essentially to defend the invasion of Iraq. But as Bush’s support for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and for a democratic Palestinian state showed, he was defending self-government, not the use of force. Consider what Bush said in that 2003 speech, which marked the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, an institution established by President Ronald Reagan precisely to support the expansion of freedom. “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe – because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” Bush said. “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export.” Now I’m no foreign policy expert, but I’m thinking that GWB was meaning to use this phrase in the context of his preventive invasion of Iraq, to justify the burning, looted buildings and mass chaos that he left in the wake of that unnecessary violence. As Greg Sargent points out , the sad thing about neocons claiming credit for the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt is how they think that the model for democracy requires using foreign military intervention as a prerequisite. Yes, if only Elliot Abrams had been in charge of developing foreign policy in the Middle East so that democracy and freedom could “reign” across the region. Oh, wait. HE WAS . While neocons want to somehow take credit for understanding the Middle East , the current conflict is more indicative of the failures of US foreign policy than any successful understanding. Considering that Abrams was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra scandal,
Continue reading …