Egyptian blogger Eman AbdelRahman aka LastoAdri. Courtesy of Oso on Flickr.

Why did the Mubarak regime turn the internet off?

That was the question I asked the attendees of a gathering recently at the Oxford Internet Institute looking at the role of the internet in the revolutions sweeping the Middle East. The question gives us, I suggested, a route into understanding the other side of the equation, ie. How authoritarian regimes maintain their power. It therefore connects us to a long standing debate that has encompassed media studies, cultural anthropology, political science and more.

My provisional response was to suggest that turning the internet off was more than anything a gesture of power that shed light on how an authoritarian regime perceived its ability to exercise control. Yes, turning off the internet was an attempt to stop activists using free publishing tools online to organise protests and share information. Yes, turning off the internet worked to prevent information reaching the outside world and so perhaps preserved for one more day alliances with powers who were not going to like the violence and repression that had to be meted out to protect regime interests. But perhaps more importantly, turning off the internet was a gesture of a power relation. We can do this. You cannot stop us. We are in power, you are not. Targeting the internet as a way of stating the existence of a relationship of power just goes to show how embedded the internet had become in Egyptian society, and that its long term role had been to help render the tools of authoritarianism far less effective. In a paradoxical way then, the Egyptian government’s decision was a statement of its powerlessness in the face of the long term impact of the internet.

A number of caveats are necessary. A revolution depends on many factors coming together at the same time: the fuel of long term economic grievances and repression, a cadre of young people willing to die, the fuse of a revolutionary setting – in this case that incredible moment broadcast on Al Jazeera and other satellite networks when President Ben Ali fled Tunisia in the face of the unstoppable force of public protests. Perhaps more importantly for this debate is the caveat that illiteracy and poverty exclude many millions of people from social media in Egypt. Despite these caveats, and without wanting to be trapped in the eddies of the causality debate, social media was influential enough for it to be worth discussing. According to statistics shared by the impressive Noha Atef – founder of a blog documenting torture and Twitter user extraordinaire – there are perhaps as many as 21 million internet subscriptions in Egypt, a figure that demonstrates how the internet has come to play an important role in the country. A middle class phenomenon perhaps, but powerful in its reach.

In taking the longer term view, rather than focusing on the immediate examples of how social media were used in the protests, we can look at the role of social media in helping to undermine the tools of authoritarianism. Three areas are of particular interest: 1) the ways in which authoritarian states obstruct the Freedom of to assemble, 2) the way in which authoritarian regimes control public space with propaganda, objects of fear and the cult of personality, and 3) the ways in which repressive regimes attempt to block critical thinking and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Assembly

Many of the protest movements sweeping the Middle East have gathered pace in towns outside the capital. Sidi Bouzid, Suez, Daraa, Benghazi. But in each case, the protest movement needs to also take hold in the capital, and more specifically in a symbolic location and central gathering place. Only that way could the protest take on the regime in a national sense – a blow to the heart. The best example of this was Tahrir Square which became effectively proto-liberated space for the protesters. It represented what you might describe as ‘sacred national space’ where peace and fraternity reigned amongst those committed to the revolution and both Muslims and Christians could pray alongside one another. A junction at the heart of the capital city, Tahrir became the beating heart of the revolution, so much so that Al Jazeera and other news networks had to broadcast the scene there almost continuously to all corners of the country and beyond. By reclaiming Tahrir Square and fighting every regime attempt to clear it, the Egyptian protesters reclaimed the heart of Egypt for themselves.

Facebook pages and Twitter hashtags provided similar gathering places. These were assembly points that attracted the focus of the many (in the case of Twitter the focus of the most active activists and international networks). On Facebook Kulina Khaled Said and the April 6 Youth Movement were prominent throughout. So too was the January Revolution Day against Torture Poverty Corruption and Unemployment. On Twitter, the hashtag that gathered most attention was #jan25. To be prominent, hashtags and Facebook pages necessarily required wide community participation – just as holding Tahrir required a big number of dedicated protesters in it for the long haul. The impact and attention of these gathering places forced the regime to acknowledge the protesters. Unlike regime media that could largely ignore the protests at the start, to interrupt these gathering points either required using them – thereby acknowledging them – to spread the regime line, or removing access to them altogether (by blocking the service or turning the internet off).

The focus here on date and time is particularly interesting. Why use a date for a revolutionary hashtag? Many other protest movements have used a date on Twitter too – Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Syria. So the trend is deeply rooted. A date is important because it suggests rupture. Although – as Noha Atef pointed out – the revolution began many years before in the gradual activism of a new cohort of web-savvy young people, the symbolic date of rupture was January 25 in Egypt. Before this date, Mubarak reigned supreme. After this date he was effectively ruined. The date announced the rebirth of the nation, the narrative moment in which Egyptians took history into their own hands, purging themselves of the past ills imposed on them by a corrupt regime. This date of rebirth was in many ways more significant than the date on which Hosni Mubarak stepped down – as the continued use of the hashtag attests.

Dates, landmarks and national narratives are deeply interrelated in Egypt, inscribed as they are into the history books and the geography of Cairo. Many of the bridges and major thoroughfares are named after important historical dates (October 6, May 15, July 26). The hashtag had a similar connection to Tahrir. It was both a space, a landmark and a new national narrative, written by the community outside of the control of the regime. In using it, Egyptians broke through the atomization enforced on them through years of Emergency Law preventing them from freely assembling to demand their rights and influence policy. Just as the community collectively broke through the barrier of fear by taking to the streets in such numbers on 25 January, numbers so large that individually the Egyptian protesters faced a greatly reduced risk of reprisal from the regime, so Egyptians took courage in collectively joining Facebook pages and contributing to the #jan25 hashtag on mass.

Propaganda and the Cult of Personality

Authoritarian regimes flourished in the days of old media in large part because the one-to-many paradigm of radio, television and print favoured central control on the distribution of information and ideas. Just as public space could be cluttered with the paraphernalia of the ruler (statues, portraits, banners, insignia on cars), so public media could be cluttered with the propaganda of the regime. This helped to spread fear and furnish the idea that everyone else was wildly supportive of the ruling regime (a process in sharp focus in Bashar Al-Assad’s speech to parliament on 30 March 2011). Some scholars have suggested that the effectiveness of this propaganda quickly wears thin with the people; it is not so much then that Egyptians believed everything Mubarak said or Al Ahram told them, rather they had no power to prevent this propaganda intermediating between their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens. Rather, propaganda acted as a code for describing acceptable behaviour and denied the viability of alternatives to regime rule. As political parties, syndicates and other public bodies are quickly co-opted by the regime, so ‘independent’ mass media are co-opted to distribute regime messages and sideline challenges. Public debate largely ceases to exist or is marginalised, so there is little opportunity to take part in public debate. The regime flourishes in this environment.

But what happens when you have publishing tools that provide for dense inter-connected networks? Egyptian use of Twitter is the perfect example of this. Twitter is the fruition of trends in the web that emphasize networked inter-linked information where everything is social. Everything is linked: users are hyperlinks, topics (hashtags) are hyperlinks, tweets are hyperlinks, replies are connected hyperlinks. Moreover, Twitter is a gateway to other content through traded links. So tools like Discus allow you to see all the users gathering around a particular url on Twitter. Retweets and suggested links broaden and enrich the connections users are willing to take part in between one another. Egyptian activists took this opportunity to build their own web of people and information which was integrated over time into the global link economy.

The point here is not to eulogize the brilliance of Twitter, but to show that its functions – which are the result of evolving trends in the social web – and the breadth of its global community provide for a dense network of people and information which is a direct threat to the stability of regime propaganda through old media. In their own way, Wordpress, Facebook, YouTube and all the other popular web services do a similar thing. In a multi-polar networked paradigm that crosses barriers of location, culture and ideology it is much harder for any one set of interests to take full control. The atomizing effect of regime propaganda is sorely undermined. Simply put, social tools escape the authoritarian suppression of sociability (unless you turn the internet off).

Governments can’t be ‘social’ – only people in communities can. The US Defence Department is surely learning this. So the Mubarak regime’s efforts to insert itself into the evolving online network was doomed to failure. Just as it could not stir enough people onto the streets to counter the revolutionary demonstrations, so it could not tackle the weight of community action online when the floodgates truly opened (#jan25). The regime’s decision to send threatening text messages through the Vodafone network are a case in point. They did not stem the tide of the Egyptian Revolution. Similarly, Mubarak’s televised addresses had the feeling of watching history, literally. This is how the regime treated Egyptians for so long. It was captivating for western audiences to see a dictator in the act of dictating. The content of those speeches could never have met protester expectations precisely because protesters called for Mubarak to go, and in the absence of any meaningful progressive political platform from the regime (was there ever one?), the televised addresses were surely designed simply to show who was in power. But they actually worked the other way. They provided fuel for the community to enervate its critiques and lampoon a dictator. The addresses enhanced the sense of the clumsy powerlessness of the regime, its crass ineptitude, its emptiness. The display demonstrated that the regime’s power had long since evaporated. Suddenly the idea of ruling a country for 30 years looked something incredible and unlikely.

Freedom of Speech

When I was living in Egypt in 2006, I came to know two middle class female bloggers (muhagabat) in their early twenties who blogged anonymously. My interest in their blog stemmed from the fact that they were not tackling overtly ‘political’ topics, but nevertheless their blog was deeply political. They used the blog as a critique of their family life, and particularly to vent against their parents and wider social norms. Why can’t we live in a place of our own outside the family home? Why are we expected to get married and have children? Why won’t my dad let me come back to the house when I want? Around this agenda gathered a community of peer bloggers who offered support and self-affirmation. This small community worked to take on bloggers with opposing world views who stumbled across the blog from the wider public.

The interesting point here was that by blogging and gathering anonymously in this way, the group began to formulate and disseminate a social critique that previously could not have been propagated in public space. So the blog acted for them as a node of critique. This kind of interaction was being repeated among the young educated Egyptian middle class right across Egypt, creating new avenues for free expression and debate, though largely ignored by the media pundits interested more in activists fighting torture. The long term repercussions of this evolution in the Egyptian public sphere cannot be underestimated. Though gradual in terms of the life span of social media, this change is rapid and profound in the broader social history of the Middle East, and surely its impacts will be felt for a long time to come.

Conclusion

We cannot boil revolutions down to a simple equation such as [social media + young people + grievances = revolution]. But then nor can we ignore social media use as an important and growing trend that has direct implications for the way in which authoritarian regimes exercise power. We should be cautious about many aspects of social media – linguistic hegemony, increased status competition, the erosion of privacy protections. Nevertheless, we should celebrate the long term impact of social media use that has created a more networked, community-led, editable public sphere.

What do the next ten years hold for creativity, innovation and intellectual production in the Middle East? Among the presentations to the Arab Thought Foundation’s ninth annual conference, FIKR9, were broadly two competing narratives for how the region should evolve.

Enthusiasm for the future: The young participants of FIKR9 Youth Program with HRH Prince Khalid Al Faisal in Beirut. Picture Courtesy of Hibr on Flickr, Licensed CC Attribution Share-Alike NonCommercial 3.0.

The dominant narrative suggests that the region can harness its ‘youth bulge’ to create a knowledge economy. This can happen from within the existing political structures, and will fuse Gulf oil wealth and investment expertise with the ever growing pool of human talent from across the region.

This narrative likes to focus on STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine). Educational achievement in these areas can create hi-tech industries and cutting edge research centres that will underpin innovation in areas such as renewable energy, petrochemicals, and nanotechnology.

You can see the mechanics of this strategy already taking root. Gulf money is being invested to build truly world-class research infrastructure, such as laboratories and libraries. Qatar’s Education City or the King Abdullah City for Science and Technology are two good examples. Foreign talent from outside the Arab world is being hired at a premium to train local talent, stimulate new research and foster a productive learning environment.

It is a strategy that gels well with the existing political institutions of the region, as the conference made clear. In his introductory notes, Arab Thought Foundation President HRH Prince Khalid Al Faisal, member of the Saudi royal family and governor of Makkah Province, said that the Arab world needed to lead global society toward a ‘sustainable future’ by ‘accelerating development in Science and Technology’.

With their immense resources and access to human capital from the wider Arab world and Asia, the Gulf states can build hi-tech industries and the talent pool needed to power them – a strategy that would replace oil and gas, and bring many wider infrastructure and economic benefits to society – without needing to change the way in which society works in any fundamental way.

That’s where the second narrative comes in, most prominently displayed here by Professor Burhan Ghalioun, Director of the Center for Contemporary Oriental Studies at the Sorbonne. The fact that he works from France is testament to the fact that his views are unpalatable in the Arab world. No one said it, but these views are also incompatible with the ‘knowledge economy’ thesis.

This narrative says that the notion of a knowledge economy is impossible without a fundamental change in the way in which Arab elites view critical thinking. For Ghalioun, critical thinking is inseparable from the notion of a knowledge economy. But for critical thinking to take root depends on elites relinquishing power. So the nub of it is that building a knowledge economy depends on building democracy.

Ghalioun’s thesis is not new – it notably draws on the ideas of Hisham Sharabi’s Neopatriarchy which was written in the 1980s – but it is still deeply challenging to hear the case being made so passionately at an elite Arab forum from within the Arab world. It is an ironic inversion of the very title of the event – Arab Thought Foundation. Ghalioun is saying, “Arab thought” is a contradiction in terms, and you the elites are the reason why this is so. He also poured scorn on the title of the event (Shaping the Future .. Arab’s role?), suggesting that the Arab world has no positive future to look forward to. But one thing is for sure, no non-Arab could make this case so boldly without being labeled an out-of-touch Orientalist. We certainly have to respect the Arab Thought Foundation for inviting him. It is not easy to welcome someone to a conference when you know his purpose for being there is to question the very forum you have established.

No other presentation elicited so much feedback from the audience, both positive and negative, so clearly Ghalioun’s words had hit a chord. Moreover, he spoke in high classical Arabic with a rhetorical eloquence that resonated with the audience, a further irony in a presentation that on face value to a western outsider might look like an unhelpful polemic rant. Let me quote from my notes:

In the Arab world we have a multifaceted crisis. No one is interested in the future, young people don’t have a future. All our policies are built on ignoring the future. Private interests trump public ones. We need many more jobs than we are creating. We have focused on closed nationalisms. We count on foreign protection for security. We are paying the price for nationalism rather than supporting each other. We need cooperation. We have feudal systems, we have princes. No one is asking the people. We have closed political regimes where political interests are linked to financial interests. We have great potential. But instead of asking people to think and criticize we have a system of tutorship. We have packaged people like sardines. This is why the Arab world has no more value than Hungary. The people are marginalized. A very small minority has control. We have deprived ninety percent from human resources. A small group has monopolized power. We need the blood of the Arab body to circulate, not just flow to one limb. Otherwise it will die.

Clearly, Ghalioun’s suggestion that Arab countries do not think about the future of their societies is wrong. Arab countries from Syria to Saudi Arabia think the future of the region is a knowledge economy, built from within the existing political structures. Much as China has built a powerful export economy from within the structures of the existing Communist regime, so the countries of the Middle East believe they must work from where they are, not a fantasy democracy land. The alternative to the current regimes they believe is the sectarian bloodshed of Iraq or the erratic theocracy of Iran.

But the ‘knowledge economy’ thesis is also fraught with challenges. As Parag Khanna argued, the countries of the region have high barriers to mobility which limit trade and the free flow of talent. Daniel Warner, former the chief of human resources at Apple, argued cogently for greater mindshare and investment in entrepreneurship in the region as a strategy for building human capital. Jordanian social entrepreneur Maher Kaddoura asked how the region would make more intellectual production available to wider Arab publics online in light of the fact that many do not speak English. Privately friends noted that the unwillingness of some countries to grant citizenship impedes the long term development of scientific communities needed to build the knowledge economy. There were also calls at the conference for improved legal frameworks and training that could underpin a successful rejuvenation of trade and business growth in the region.

One thing we can be sure of though is that in any plan for building human capital and knowledge industries, critical thinking matters. This is as true for scientists as much as for researchers in the humanities. We may just find that the highly skilled science community the region seeks to build is the vanguard for other kinds of change we can scarcely begin to predict.

As the sole London-based member of Meedan’s far flung team (we have developers in Damascus, Amman, San Francisco and Portland, not to mention our team of editors and translators across the Middle East), I was glad to have some company last week when some of my colleagues dropped in for a visit.

King's College, Cambridge courtesy of inkelv1122 on Flickr.

The occasion was a two-day gathering at the University of Cambridge with the academic partners behind our inter-faith project. We are working on a multi-year project with the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme to develop cross-language approaches to inter-faith study and discussion online.  It is a very exciting project which has the potential to provide new directions not just in models of inter-faith engagement, but in the digital humanities too.

A view of the inter-faith platform discussion page in English with model content provided by Mike Higton. Note this is work in progress.

We were joined at the meetings by members of CIP’s core staff, including the world renowned director of the programme, Professor David Ford, as well as scholars from a series of other key partners: Sohail Nakhooda, inter-faith research fellow at Kalam Research and Media; Director of the Jackman Humanities Institute, Professor Robert Gibbs; Professor in Foundations of Information at the University of Toronto, Brian Cantwell Smith; Director of Development for the Cambridge Abraham Project and former Head of Religion and Ethics at the BBC, Michael Wakelin; and former academic director at CIP, Dr Nicholas Adams.

The meetings provided us with an opportunity to show the platform development to date (due for a more formal release in early 2011), explore use cases and discuss the next phase of development of the tools. We paid particular attention to the cross-language tools we hope will set this platform apart in the field: the glossary, the discussion and annotation tools, and the text library.

The aim of this work is to bring texts to life through shared study.  Scholars will be able to explore and learn about practices of reasoning across different faiths in a collaborative environment.  If you would like to learn more or contribute suggestions, contact me on Twitter.

Taken from the Meedan blog.

Al Arabiya television channel has been fined for deciding not to broadcast an interview. Courtesy Mr T. in DC.

It’s the daily trade of the television output editor, chopping what doesn’t meet the grade to maintain the daily news agenda in a time sensitive schedule.

But now an Arabic language channel in the Gulf might have to rethink its editorial chain of command after a court in Dubai slapped down a $27,000 fine for not broadcasting an interview it recorded with a Saud royal.

The decision inflicted ‘emotional, moral and social damage on the prince’s status as a royal,’ according to his lawyer.

Judge Ahmad Eisa of Dubai’s appeal court agreed, ruling that Al Arabiya had ‘breached the nobility and morality of journalism’ in refusing to air the interview with Prince Dr Saif Al Islam Bin Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud.

The Prince, who sought five times the level of compensation ordered by the court, was upset that Al Arabiya failed to broadcast the interview despite having advertised it on air, according to Gulf News.

The channel had flown Prince Dr Saif Al Islam to Dubai especially to record the piece.

Al Arabiya countered that it had full rights to the interview and so could choose when to air it.

Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA. Picture by Marc Darchinger, Berlin

When Egypt’s  President Hosni Mubarak came to power 28 years ago, the Berlin Wall still had another eight years to stand, AIDS was only just being recognized as a disease, and the Ford Cortina had another year to run on the automaker’s production lines.

Little wonder then that some people in Egypt would like to see a fresh-faced successor to take the reins in elections slated for 2011.

But not, by any means, everyone.

“Respecting the current constitution ensures that the  high post [of president] is occupied by the one who is worthy of it and qualified for it,” the leading state newspaper Al Ahram said in an editorial.  ”The candidate should be aware of all the internal as well as the external affairs. It is not good enough to be an expert on nuclear disarmament. ”

This widely publicized editorial was designed as a thinly veiled attack at the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, following a statement he made early December that he would consider running for Egyptian president if the elections were guaranteed to be fair.

The Egyptian state media see ElBaradei as a threat, and so have taken the attack to his view that the country needs a new constitution – which they say is a sign he’s out of touch with Egypt:

“If the aim was, as he claims, for us all to work on establishing a society that serves humanity and ensures everyone the right of a prosperous secure life, then our decisions should draw largely on this status quo and not on some readings or analysis made by enemy forces that seek to stir chaos and instability. Those forces open the door for interference in the Egyptian internal affairs.

“We learned by experience that a society cannot be built except by its own people. Enough of the interference and enough of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and the disasters that befell their peoples. Several intrusive policies had caused enough difficulties to our  country and opened the door for the “creative chaos” that George Bush Junior told us about before he was gone, leaving behind his political errors and disasters. Dr. ElBaradei now wants to repeat those mistakes, thinking he could cause embarrassment to Egypt and its political system.”

The fear of ElBaradei is shared by democracy activists who have labored against what they perceive as regime injustices.

At the front of the pack is Ayman Nour – Hosni Mubarak’s only rival in the first ‘open’ elections of 2005. He was arrested nine months ahead of the 2005 poll, and only released four years later.

According to the Egyptian press, he sees ElBaradei as a rival to his own presidential ambitions.

In  a headline, leading independent news outlet Al Masry Al Youm (The Egyptian Today) paraphrased Nour’s position:

“Nour: Elbaradei’s position is “vague” and his statement is a “diplomatic no” to presidential candidacy”

«نور»: موقف البرادعى «غامض».. وبيانه «اعتذار دبلوماسى» عن عدم الترشح للرئاسة

The paper itself was doubtful as to ElBaradei’s chances:

“The bitter reality always gives some people the tendency to dream. This is the case with the next presidential elections in Egypt. The names of the candidates legally expected makes people dream of those who are not, according to the constitution, eligible for candidacy. The people have the right to dream about Egypt’s presidency, which is by the way one of the advantages of the amendment to Article 76 of the constitution. It is not yet anyone’s right to sell this dream to the Egyptians as reality.”

لواقع المرير دائماً يجعل بعض الناس تتجه إلى الأحلام.. هذا هو حال الانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة فى مصر.. فواقع أسماء المرشحين المتوقعين قانونياً يجعل الناس تحلم بأسماء لن تتمكن ـ وفقاً للدستور ـ من الترشح، ومن حق الناس أن تحلم برئاسة مصر، وهذه بالمناسبة إحدى مزايا تعديل المادة ٧٦ من الدستور، لكن ليس من حق أحد أن يبيع هذا الحلم أو الوهم للمصريين على أساس أنه حقيقة

At the same time, state ministers have been working the rounds, making sure the Egyptian people know that ElBaradei is not an ‘appropriate’ candidate for President – as Youm7 (The Seventh Day) reported:

“Dr. Mufid Shehab, Minister of State for Legal and parliamentary Affairs, denounced the talks circulating these days about ELBaradei’s candidacy for the presidency of Egypt. He ruled out such possibility justifying that ElBaradei has little to do with political matters, the Arab World relations, and the Palestinian cause. He added that he was a prominent Egyptian scientist who had no political experience and did not know much about parliamentary life.”

استنكر الدكتور مفيد شهاب وزير الدولة للشئون القانونية والمجالس النيابية، ما يتم ترويجه هذه الأيام عن ترشيح البرادعى نفسه لانتخابات رئاسة الجمهورية، مستبعداً حدوث ذلك لكون البرادعى، على حد وصفه، لم يتوغل فى العالم السياسى ولا العلاقات العربية ولا القضية الفلسطينية، فهو عالم مصرى جليل ليس له خبرة سياسية ولا يعلم عن الحياة البرلمانية والحزبية كثيراً

In Al Ahram, columnist Mohammad  Al-Saadani put the state position more succinctly still:

“It seems as if ElBaradei has strayed into an area where he doesn’t belong!”

يبدو ان البرادعي قد انزلقت قدماه الي ملعب ليس ملعبه

Passionate in support of ElBaradei, however, stands El Shorouk – another of Egypt’s leading independent newspapers.

In an opinion piece in the paper, veteran Egyptian columnist Salama Ahmed Salama suggested that ElBaradei’s minimum conditions to stand for the presidency in 2011 (ie. that the elections be fair) are unachievable – but worthy nonetheless:

“Does this mean that ElBaraedi is asking for unrealistic terms that are even not present in any democratic system worldwide? Isn’t he really aware of the fact that the implementation of the said terms necessitates the full belief of the governing regime in democracy and its outcomes. Not only that, their implementation also hinges upon the consensus among the political powers about the necessity to face both implicit and explicit imbalances and irregularities in the political arena. Moreover, they will not be implemented save for giving full reign to the people to practice their political rights without dictation, suppression or rigging. Undoubtedly, ElBaradei knows this quite well. Hence he is suggesting such terms that everyone knows cannot be realized overnight. They need effort in addition to a change in opinions and mentality ( of those in power). What makes the matter worse is that ElBaradei looks as if he is crying in wilderness.”

هل معنى ذلك فعلا أن البرادعى يطالب بشروط مستحيلة، لا مثيل لها فى النظم الديمقراطية الأخرى فى العالم.. وهل يغيب فعلا عن إدراكه أن مثل هذه الشروط يتطلب لتحقيقها إيمان جماعة الحكم بالديمقراطية وتبعاتها، وتوافق القوى السياسية على ضرورة تصحيح العوار الكامن والظاهر فى الحياة السياسية، وتمكين الشعب من ممارسة حرياته وحقوقه السياسية دون وصاية أو إملاء، ودون تزوير أو قمع! لا يوجد أدنى شك فى أن البرادعى يدرك ذلك تماما. ولذلك فهو يطرح هذه الشروط التى يعرف كل عاقل أنها لن تتحقق بين يوم وليلة، وأنها تحتاج إلى وقت وجهد لتنفيذها وإلى تغيير فى الآراء والعقلية ويضاعف من صعوبة الموقف أن البرادعى يبدو كمن يصرخ فى البرية

Commenters to the site responded in kind:

“I extend my regards to every honorable citizen concerned about the interest of our homeland and people,” said one called Magda.

“I believe that God has bestowed His blessings upon Egypt by sending us Dr. ElBaradei. We have to cling to this chance, for he is the only hope and solution for our country’s problems. His own traits testify to the fact that he would be able to resolve all our problems: He is an honorable, righteous, honest man who would eliminate corruption, bribery and favoritism.”

تحياتى لكل مواطن شريف يهمه مصلحة هذا الوطن وهذا الشعب وأرى أن الله أراد بمصر خيراً أن أرسل لها د البرادعى وعلينا أن نتمسك بهذه الفرصه ولا نضيعها فهو الأمل والحل الوحيد لكل مشاكل هذا البلد فهو يحمل صفات تحل مشاكل هذا البلد جميعاً وهى : فهو رجل شريف ونزيه وصادق ليقضى على الفساد والرشوه والمحسوبيه والمنافقين والطفيليين الذين نهبوا ثرو

Writing on Meedan, one of the Egyptian users commenting on the story struck a more balanced tone, criticizing the state media attacks on ElBaradei’s personality but also questioning ElBaradei’s fitness to govern:

“As an Egyptian man, Mohammad ElBaradei has all the right to imply or to talk frankly about nominating himself, that I can understand. The attacks and distortion of the man’s image in the state run newspapers are also fathomable because he simply represents the opposite of what they stand for. However, what I just cannot get is the blind support for the man from those who’d like him to run for president. They support him unconditionally without considering his program or how he views Egypt’s problems and their solutions.”

محمد البردعى كرجل مصرى من حقه أن يتكلم عن ترشيح نفسه مباشرهً أو تلميحا فهذا مفهوم .. وما حدث بالجرائد الحكوميه من هجوم وتشويه لصوره الرجل أيضا مفهوم لأنه يمثل الصوت النقيض لقناعتهم .. لكن الغير مفهوم من مؤيدى الترشيح أن تتخطى مؤازرتهم للرجل حد موافقتهم على الترشيح إلى التسليم والدعم بلا سقف دون النظر لبرنامجه وكيف يرى المشكلات فى مصر وكيف يرى الحل

– Thanks to Tom El Rumi, Nouran, Rania, Deena and Malika for help with these translations.–

You can add your voice on ElBaradei’s possible presidential bid on www.Meedan.net.

Switzerland's anti-Minaret campaign poster. Picture by rytc.

By Tom Trewinnard.

Switzerland’s controversial referendum decision to ban the construction of new minarets for Swiss mosques has caused varying degrees of concern in the Arab world, and attracted a wide ranging debate about the reasons behind the decision.

Independent online daily Nawwar reports that amongst observers, whether Swiss, Arab, or Muslims of any ethnicity “understanding the nature and significance of this initiative differs from one person to the next, some see it as a storm in a teacup, while others see it as flagrant evidence of the “spirit of religious war” persisting in the subconscious of many people in the West.”

فهم طبيعة هذه المبادرة ودلالتها يختلف من فئة إلى أخرى، فهناك من يرى أنها زوبعة في فنجان، وهناك من يرى أنها تعبير قاطع على أن “روح الحروب الدينية” لا تزال تتحكم في لاشعور فئات واسعة في الغرب

While observers playing down the significance of this vote are few and far between, this decision has left many Arab Muslims feeling angry and scared. “I don’t know what is happening in Switzeland. Islam is fought in every age by all possible means. May Allah (God) guide everyone. Oh Allah. Do not impose upon us, because of our sins, those who lack mercy and do not fear You,” reads one comment on the story, from popular Egyptian news site Al-Youm Al Sabia.

انا مش عارف ايه اللى بيحصل ده فى سويسرا ، الاسلام حظه كده فى كل عصر انه يتحارب باى شكل من الاشكال ، وربنا يهدى الناس جميعا ، اللهم لا تسلط علينا بذنوبنا من لا يخافك ولا يرحمنا

As for why the Swiss took the decision to ban new minarets, many commentators refer to a growing anti-Islam push that is taking place throughout Europe. Renowned novelist and political activist Alaa al-Aswani, in an Op-Ed for independent Egyptian daily Al-Shrouq, insists this is not the case:

“This incident proves to us that in reality not all westerners are enemies of Islam, as some of our extremist sheikhs would have us believe…. The western racist and islamophobic ideology is not new. What is new is the fact that this ideology has increased in support because of Westerners’ fear of the bloody, backwards image that some Muslims voluntarily portray of their religion. Those who signed the petition for the ban of minarets, are not necessarily racist haters of Islam, but they are afraid of a religion that they do not know and is only associated, in their minds, with murder, bloodshed and oppression of women…”

ن الفكر العنصرى الغربى الكاره للعرب والمسلمين، ليس جديدا لكن الجديد أنه يكتسب المزيد من المؤيدين وذلك بسبب خوف الغربيين من الصورة الدموية المتخلفة التى يتطوع بعض المسلمين بتقديمها عن دينهم، فالذين وقعوا العريضة من أجل منع المآذن، ليسوا بالضرورة عنصريين كارهين للإسلام، لكنهم خائفون من دين لا يعرفونه يرتبط دائما فى أذهانهم بالقتل والدماء واضطهاد المرأة.. ولنا أن نتخيل رد فعل المواطن الغربى عندما يشاهد فى التليفزيون السيد أسامة بن لادن وهو يطالب بذبح أكبر عدد من النصارى والكفار أو رد فعل المرأة الغربية عندما تستمع إلى أحد شيوخ التطرف وهو يؤكد أن المرأة المسلمة يجب أن ترتدى نقابا بعين واحدة

Another interesting dimension to this debate, is the way the decision in Switzerland has led many to question how religious minorities are treated in the Middle East. One of the 500 or so comments on al-Aswani’s post asks “Why does the author bother himself with what is happening in Switzerland but does not start a campaign to eradicate the cultural roots of the repeated and ongoing attacks against Copts in Egypt?”.

لماذا يوجع الكاتب رأسه بما يحدث في سويسرا ولا يقوم بتوجيه حملة تحاول القضاء على الجذور الثقافية للاعتداءات المتوالية على الأقباط في مصر

In a fascinating blog post discussing the role of the minaret not only in religion, but also in identity and heritage, Egyptian Muslim blogger Tarek closes by voicing his dissatisfaction at the ban, “in the end I am against the Swiss decision. But I am also against the Egyptian non-decision which contributes, in one way or another, to the oppression and dissolution of a people and its culture. While in Switzerland and other places, the governments may be to blame. Here the blame lies with the people.”

ففي النهاية أنا ضد القرار السويسري. لكنني أيضا ضد اللا قرار المصري الذي ساهم بشكل أو بأخر في طمس هوية شعب و ثقافته. و إن كان اللوم في سويسرا و غيرها قد يقع على الحكومات فاللوم هنا يقع على الناس

Thanks to Tom, Rebecca, and Nouran for help with translations.

Sunset Dubai?

Dubai and Abu Dhabi saw their main stock markets fall sharply this week as they opened for the first time since a state-owned company in Dubai asked for extra time to repay its debt.

For many in the Middle East, the specter of Dubai’s towering promise tumbling down is a deep affront to regional pride.

“Oh Proud Emirates, with your golden sands and high sky,” said a reader on Emirat Al-Youm, “your men, women, children, elderly and wise people will not bow down or be humiliated. It will remain the country of good, a generous land for all. We, as Arab diaspora, stand in one row as loyal soldiers to this country, the truth will unfold and those who are unfair to you will know that the Emirates will remain the country of pride and generosity.”

‘شامخة يا امارات برمالك الذهبية وسماءك العاليه, برجالك , بنساءك , باطفالك بشيوخك وحكامك , لا تنحني ولا تذل , باذن الله , وستظل بلد الخير , وارض العطاء للجميع , ونحن كمغتربين عرب نقف صفا متراصا واحدا , لنكون الجند الاوفياء لهذا البلد , وسوف تنجلي الحقيقة وسوف يعرف المغرضين ان الامارات ستبقى بلد الشموخ والعطاء

Another Emirat Al-Youm reader said: “The whole world nowadays is going through difficult financial crises. However, many of those who once benefited from the Emirate of Dubai in its heyday are now turning their backs on it.

“God Willing, Dubai will be back on its feet. This is an opportunity to reconsider the situation and to prepare for stronger foundations next time.

“The whole world should benefit from the mistakes that led it to this abyss. Thank God for everything.

“This world is fleeting and a money crisis is much better than an ethical or a moral crisis.”

العالم جميعا يمر هذه الفترة بأزمات مالية ضخمة ولكن للأسف الكثير ممن استفادوا من إمارة دبي في عز أوجها يتنكرون الآن لكل شيء، دبي ستعود بإذن الله وهذه فرصة لإعادة ترتيب الأوضاع لانطلاقة مستقبلية أقوى والعالم أجمع عليه أن يستفيد من الأخطاء التي أوقعته في هاوية هذه الأزمة. الحمد لله على كل شيء وفي النهاية الدنيا فانية وأزمة في المال افضل من أزمة في الضمير والأخلاق

Attesting trust in God and suspicion of the role of western media was a consistent refrain for Emirat Al-Youm readers:

“Everybody knows that Dubai and the UAE in general are able to get past this crisis. It’s just that the media (especially the Western media) is so envious that it wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill. This crisis, too, shall pass. Just keep your hope in God alive.”

الكل عارف ان دبي او الامارات بشكل عام قادره انها تتخطى الازمه انشاء الله بس وسائل الاعلام وخاصه الغربيه من الغيره والحسد تحاول تلعب وتخرب وتتكلم بأي شيء بس ازمه وتعدي انشاء الله خلو الامل بالله كبير

Readers of the Qatari based AlJazeera.net felt much the same sense of hurt pride. But here there was a stronger anger towards foreign interests:

“Dubai was, is and always will be the best, cleanest and most developed city in the Middle East. God is capable of salvaging it from this crisis. And to those who are green with envy towards all beautiful things: it’s time for you to shut up.”

دبي كانت ولازالت و ستبقي افضل و انظف و ارقي مدينة في الشرق الاوسط. والله قادر أن يخرجها من ازمتها. و الاخوة الحاقدون علي كل شئ جميل آن الاوان أن يصموتوا

Also in Al-Hayat, Daoud Al-Shariyan called for greater transparency in Dubai to calm nerves and reassure investors.

He said: “His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, UAE vice president, UAE Prime Minister and ruler of Dubai, should have expected this media coverage of his country when he spoke in front of the second conference of investment companies and international investors in Dubai, being careful to clarify two points which Dubai has suffered from since the beginning of the global economic crisis.

“The first is that Dubai is not alone, and its success is an extension of the success of Abu Dhabi.

“The second: the recognition that silence has created an information vacuum that has allowed rumors to spread; he called for this to be avoided in the future.”

كأنَّ الشيخ محمد بن راشد، نائب رئيس دولة الإمارات رئيس مجلس الوزراء حاكم دبي، كان يتوقع السلوك الإعلامي تجاه بلاده وهو يتحدث أمام المؤتمر الثاني للشركات الاستثمارية والمستثمرين العالميين في دبي، فحرص على توضيح نقطتين عانت منهما دبي مع بداية الأزمة الاقتصادية العالمية. الأولى: أن دبي ليست وحدها، ونجاحها هو امتداد لنجاح أبو ظبي. والثانية: الاعتراف بأن الصمت خلق فراغاً معلوماتياً وسمح للشائعات بالرواج، داعياً إلى عدم تكرار ذلك في المستقبل

The question of transparency was raised by bloggers within UAE too. An Emirati’s Thoughts said:

“What we need is action by our Minister of Economy, Lubna Al Qasimi. Lubna, instead of recieving dignitatries, why not take a step forward and set up an independent division in the ministry of economy, something along the lines of the “Department of Economic Transparency and Statistics” ? Something that will pool together all information drawn from all the emirates and release it so that investors can assess how bad the situation really is and we can start to address the situation more properly.”

Picture courtesy Kevin Dean and www.betaart.com

The discovery of Ardi, the oldest hominid skeleton ever found, was big news for the science community around the world.

But in the Middle East, the news triggered a different order of debate.

‘A research team revealed Thursday that the discovery of “Ardi” proves humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like ancestors,’ reported Al Jazeera on its Arabic language website under the headline ‘Ardi rebuts Darwin’s theory’.

الجزيرة: “أردي” تطعن بصحة نظرية داروين – وأعلن فريق البحث أمس الخميس أن اكتشاف “أردي” يثبت أن البشر لم يتطوروا عن أسلاف يشبهون قردة الشمبانزي، مبطلين بذلك الافتراضات القديمة بأن الإنسان تطور من أصل قرد

The question at hand was, what does Ardi do for Darwin’s Theory of Evolution? For many it was proof Darwin was wrong all along, and by extension Western society was wrong.

‘Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar, professor of geology at a number of Arab universities, said that Westerners had started to return to their senses after having approached human origin on the basis of materialism and the denial of religion,’ reported the news website Science in Morocco.

‘In an interview with Aljazeera TV channel he said that the latest scientific findings were a strong blow to Darwin’s theory…’

علق الدكتور زغلول النجار أستاذ الجيولوجيا في عدد من الجامعات العربية، بأن الغربيين بدأوا يعودون إلى صوابهم بعد أن كانوا يتعاملون مع أصل الإنسان من منطلق مادي وإنكار للأديان. وقال في اتصال نقلته قناة الجزيرة أن هذا الكشف العلمي الذي وجه ضربة قوية لنظرية داروين يمثل تطورا هاما جدا.ع – اكتشاف يضع نظرية داروين محل شك

The newspaper offered no counter opinion to contrast El-Naggar’s, who represents Egypt’s Committee of Scientific Notions in the Qur’an.

In the UAE, Hamdan Al Shaer, wrote: ‘The scientific community still insists on revising the Theory of Evolution for purely ideological motives, supported by Western media and educational curricula based on promoting materialism and the denial of God’s creation.

‘The theory of evolution is, in fact, based on a doctrine of pure racism, especially as it is known that Darwin was a racist who believed in the superiority of the European race over all other races.’

فإن الدوائر العلمية مازالت تصر على تنقيح النظرية وتطويرها لخدمة أغراض أيديولوجية بحتة، تدعمها في ذلك وسائل الإعلام الغربية ومناهج التعليم القائم على تعزيز المادية وإنكار قيام الله سبحانه بالخلق. نظرية التطور في حقيقتها ترتكز إلى عقيدة عنصرية خالصة، خصوصاً أن من المعروف أن داروين كان عنصرياً يؤمن بتفوق الجنس الأوروبي على سائر الأجناس

The Algerian elchoroukonline.com reported: ‘While Muslims received the news with a broad smile, joyous at the wonder and surprise of the discovery, the western world was shaking last week as media sources reported the latest findings of US researchers which silence Darwin ’s theory on human origins, after centuries of cheering its principles and its consequences, adopting it as their flawless scientific belief system.’

فيما استقبل المسلمون الخبر بابتسامة عريضة تجمع بين فرحة الاستفاقة واستغراب الاكتشاف، اهتز العالم الغربي نهاية الأسبوع المنصرم حال تناقل وسائل الإعلام لآخر ما توصل إليه باحثون أمريكيون يسقط ما ذهبت إليه نظرية داروين حول أصل الإنسان بعدما ظلوا يهتفون بمبادئها ونتائجها لقرون، بل وجعلوها مذهبهم العلمي الذي لا يخطئ أبدا

Newspapers that attempted to report the findings in more detail often received angry comments from users.

Abu Khaled, a reader of London-based Arabic news website Elaph, commented: ‘Enough hypocrisy and nepotism Elaph. Let us say our word, then show the reply.

‘Evolution is a hypothesis, or a lie even, made and adopted by the West and they wanted us to believe it too… To serve materialism and atheism, that’s their winning card.

‘Muslims, the 51st verse, read it a thousand and hopefully you will understand it… God Almighty said (I did not make them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the creation of their own selves; and neither do I [have any need to] take as My helpers those [beings] that lead [men] astray).

‘This verse proves those people’s fallacy and the misguidance of their words. What they say about creation only proves the sincerity of what was written in the Qu’ran.’

يكفى يا إيلاف نفاقا ومحاباة دعونا نقول كلمتنا وأظهروا الرد التطور فرضية أو كذبة قالها الغرب وصدقها وأرادوا منا تصديقها.. لتخدم المادية والإلحاد فهى الكارت الرابح عندهم .. يـــا مسلمين سورة الكهف الآية 51 إقرأوها ألف مرة عسى أن تفهموا .. قال الله عز و جل (ما أشهدتهم خلق السماوات والأرض ولا خلق أنفسهم وما كنت متخذ المضلين عضدا ) عضدا أى نصير ومعين .. فهذه الآية إثبات على كذب هؤلاء وضلالهم وما كلامهم فى خلق الإنسان إلا دليل على صدق القرآن .. واقرأوا معجزة القرآن للشيخ محمد متولى الشعرواى

But there was another view. Many Arab writers hit back at the early reporting on Ardi as incomplete or factually inaccurate.

‘In their enthusiasm to attack Darwin’s theory, most Arab media outlets overlooked the fact that this discovery does not in any way undermine Darwin’s evolution theory,’ wrote Batir Mohamed Ali on AHewar – The Dialogue.

‘In the research, published in the American magazine Science (in which eleven researches were published by the way, not just one) as well as in other international scientific news, there is no mention of Darwin’s theory being undermined.

‘What happened was a unique case of editors’ personal convictions interfering in scientific reporting which led to the dissemination of false information in Arab media outlets.’

الحقيقة التي غابت عن بعض وسائل الإعلام العربية في خضم حماسها لإسقاط نظرية داروين أن هذا الأكتشاف لم يسقط النظرية ابدا، ولا يوجد في البحث المنشور في مجلة ساينس الأميركية (المكون من 11 بحثا متكاملا وليس بحثا واحدا بالمناسبة) ولا في الأخبار العلمية الدولية ما يشير إلى إسقاط النظرية، وما حدث هو حالة فريدة من التدخل في الأخبار العلمية وتحويرها بما يتناسب مع قناعات ذاتية لدى بعض المحررين وهذا ما تسبب في نشر أخبار خاطئة في وسائل الإعلام العربية — باتر محمد علي وردم

Writing on halwasat.com, Mohammad Zakariya Tawfiq accused Al Jazeera of ‘pure fabrication’.

Al Jazeera had ‘falsely claimed that U.S. scientists have proved the theory of evolution a failure,’ he said.

إدعت كذبا أن العلماء الأمريكيين قد أثبتوا فشل، وسقوط نظرية التطور . وهذا محض إفتراء

Blogger Zamakan Gharbeia went further still in criticizing Al Jazeera and Zaghloul El-Naggar: ‘We have said 4.4 million times that Darwin did not say that man originated from chimpanzees, but rather that chimpanzees and humans (and all primates) share a common ancestor.

‘English language news sources were quite clear on this point, but the Arabic versions of the main headlines read “Humans did not originate from monkeys” and “Ardi triumphs over Darwinism”.

‘This indicates the great, often ideologically motivated, stupidity of the Al-Jazeera channel and all other news sites that quoted it, seeking to please Arab and Muslim audiences, added to the nonsense of Zaghloul El-Naggar.’

قلنا 4.4 مليون مرة أن دارون لم يقل أن الإنسان أصله قرد، بل قال إن القرد و الإنسان (و كل الرئيسيات) لها سَلَفٌ مُشترَك.
الأخبار في المواقع الإخبارية باللغة الإنجليزية واضحة تماما في هذه النقطة، و تفسير العناوين الرئيسية على أنها تعني “أن الإنسان ليس أصله قرد” و أن “أردي تبطل نظرية دارون” يدل على غباء شديد، غالبا عقائدي متعمد، و استغفال لنا، من قبل قناة الجزيرة و كل المواقع الإخبارية الأخرى التي نحت نحوهم أو نقلت عنهم، في استجداء لاستحسان جمهورها العربي المسلم، مرفقا بترهات زغلول النجّار.
كل ما تخبرنا به المواقع بالإنجليزية أن علماء إحاثة اكتشفوا في إثيوبيا حفرية لسلف عتيق للإنسان أسموها أردي، و أن أردي عاشت في وقت سابق على أقدم سَلَف كان قد اكتشف حتى الآن و هي الجدة لوسي التي كان سبق اكتشاف مستحاثتها في إثيوبيا كذلك، و أن أردي لا تشبه الشمبانزي

‘The Darwin controversy is a unique one — and not just because of the powerful evolution theory and its implications,’ wrote Science journalist Waleed Al-Shobbaky in a prescient post on Islam Online before Ardi was unveiled.

‘Like most protracted controversies, the one over Darwin in the Arab-Muslim worlds perhaps tells more about the debaters than the subject of the debate.’

Barack Obama by PandaDESTROYRobot

It’s always odd when the President of the United States agrees with a member of Hamas.

“Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters.

It was a view that echoed far off across the Mediterranean, the other side of the Atlantic.

“To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize,” said Barack Obama.

“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments…”

It was a view replicated across the Middle East.  It’s easy to understand why Gazans struggling to recover from a devastating bombing campaign in December 2008 – January 2009 would find it hard to believe peace had come to their lives.

The same could be said for northern Yemenis, caught in the worst fighting for a decade.  Or Iraqis suffering from an upsurge in sectarian killing.

Khaled al-Batsh, an Islamic Jihad leader, questioned the moral authority of the award.

He said: “Obama’s winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by the principles of credibility, values and morals.”

It was a point repeated by Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs on Channel4 news.

He simply said the award is always political.

Which gives the view that perhaps this was not an award for achievements to date, despite the Nobel Committee’s references to “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy” and his “work for a world without nuclear weapons”.

‘Efforts’, ‘vision’ and ‘work’ do not imply achievement. They are words which represent ongoing activities and future plans.

So perhaps this award was a piece of political theatre designed to prod Obama into acting upon his rhetoric.

When we view how hard his Middle East envoy is toiling simply to find ways to have Mahmoud Abbas – who represents only one half of Palestinians at most – sit alongside Benjamin Netanyahu in discussions,  we may rightfully conclude that the realities on the ground in the Middle East remain entrenched in bitterness and fear, if not going backwards.

This is a view common in Norway – which seems to have discovered a way to entertain the world’s attention by offering some kind of mystic insight into the decisions of Nobel Committees.

A foreign commentator on Norwegian TV, Gro Holm, said the committee was trying to pressure Obama to ‘deliver on his promise of greater international peace.’

No doubt in America this will be read as deeply patronising European play, and frankly embarrassing to Obama when he is struggling to do exactly what everyone is expecting – deliver on the grand promises.

It puts him on an even narrower tight rope whereby he has to negotiate a way between being seen as tough at home, and a peace maker abroad.

But in the Middle East, it appears this nuance was overlooked.

The ever provocative Hossam El-Hamalawy summed it up by saying: “The butcher of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan) has won the Nobel Peace prize. Mabrouk!”

In Iraq, Kurdish blogger Dr Ali al-Rubiay greeted the decision with astonishment: “Would any one please tell me what did the American president do in less than a year to merit the Nobel Peace Prize?! How bizarre!!”

Egyptian blogger and activist, Yasry al-Masry said: “They could have made it more plausible had the Prize been awarded to Mr. Obama in two years or so, to give him some time to get something done so they could come out and lie to us.”

This was a view repeated all day on Twitter.

Representing a wide contingent of Egyptians – the Arabic speaking country which hosted Obama for his famous speech to the Muslim world – blogger Zeinobia said it was all far too soon.

“It is early for him to recieve an award, he didn’t even complete a whole year , there are still four years in his,what has he done?” she said.

The decision was at least welcomed by Alaa Bayoumi of Middle East online: “yes Obama does deserve the prize,not only because we support him,but also because we sympathize with him!

“For the change he made in the American policy in less than one year even if it’s only speeches,still is a major change for a young president who has been the president of the biggest country in the world for only 9 months.”

At this rate, in a four-year term Barack Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize five times over.  Whether he wins the support of the Americans for his leadership enough to achieve real change on the ground in Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan remains to be seen.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Will Winning the Nobel Peace Prize Hurt Barack Obama? – TIME (time.com)
• Analysis: Barack Obama wins 2009 Nobel peace prize (telegraph.co.uk)
• President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize, Wingnuts Throw Collective Temper Tantrum (firedoglake.com)

Menassat - the Beirut-based independent news source and media watchdog which closed this week

The Beirut-based news outfit Menassat has closed after its Dutch backers Free Voice withdrew funding support.

The closure brings to an end two years of quality journalism at Menassat which built a reputation for monitoring and investigating Arab media news.

In a statement posted on its website, Menassat’s staff said they were given less than 24 hours notice of the closure.

‘Our reporters were given no notice of this impending closure,’ the statement read.

‘For this, we are deeply sorry. We hope to work with you again soon.’

On Friday a visit to the news outfit’s website  produced only a holding page stating in English and Arabic: ‘Menassat is currently under maintenance. We should be back shortly.’

In a press release, media development organization Free Voice said: ‘ There are no reasons for Free Voice to terminate its efforts with regard to content.

‘We highly value the dedication and work of the editorial team and they have furthermore always enjoyed full editorial freedom.’

‘The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided – through Free Voice – the initial funding until August 1st 2008.

‘It was agreed upon that efforts would made from Beirut to be financially independent after this date.

‘Because this had not been successful, Free Voice has decided to provide, from its own means, additional funds for a number of times under the agreement that additional funds would be actively sought for from Beirut.

‘Sadly, Free Voice has to acknowledge that these have not been secured and Free Voice is now forced to terminate its support, in line with these agreements.’

Despite staff perceptions of a rapid demise, funding concerns existed at Menassat for some months.

In May, staff staged a protest at the delayed payment of their salaries.

Reporters also spoke of working on a ’shoestring’ budget.

When Free Voice responded to staff demands, they in turn requested the outfit take steps to improve its editorial output over a three month period, according to Layal Haddad writing in the Lebanese Al-Akhbar.

Managing director Lina Sahab achieved strong progress with more varied editorial content and up to 4,000 hits per day.

But these successes were not enough to secure the financial future of a promising alternative media source.

The closure has already sparked conspiracy theories, but reporters were more frank.

One reporter, Rita Barotta, wrote: ”The question that haunts my conscience today is: Why do the Lebanese always believe that the solutions to their problems must come from abroad?’

‘Why assume that the basic requirement to launch a unique media platform is the presence of an external financier to support it?’