Ayman Nour: One year since Obama’s inauguration

Barack Hussein Obama has made history since he became the first black person to win a seat in the U.S. Senate and made history for the second time when he won the Democratic Party’s nomination for the Presidential election. He has since made more history when he scored victory in the elections, becoming the first black American President in history.

But making history is different than entering this space and formulating the wide consequences resulted from this victory, as before Obama, American President James Buchanon also made history as the first and the only president to remain a lifelong bachelor, as well as President Martin Van Buren, considering English was not his mother tongue.

Obama’s real problem from the moment of his inauguration last January 20, 2009, is that he began a new phase, which is greater than making history; a difficult stage of the competition, much harder than the old Republican rivals or even his stubborn Democratic rival – and his current Secretary of State – Hilary Clinton, or with his predecessor: Bush.

Obama’s rival after one year in office is himself. He is the only person he cannot defeat, as Obama, the current President of the United States, is a rival to Obama – who was described by the dreamy minds as “the savior”; minds that painted the image of Obama and put it in the background of the image. They drew the descriptions of Moses splitting the sea and Joshua who stopped the sun, and Christ, who revives the dead! And certainly, Obama is not any of these prophets.

Although America is part of the world – and not the whole world – Obama has become a universal dream, especially considering the other was a universal nightmare. Strangely enough, and dangerous, is the conflicting expectations about Obama from related parties whose positions have conflicting interests and can only be unified by hope and ambition in this “magical” image. They have planted in their imagination of Barack Obama, who has to find an impossible approach to fulfill this imagination.

Obama’s problem, who had plenty of sympathy in Egypt and many Arab countries is doubled due to historical considerations and past experience with former presidents of the US, who at the beginning were greeted by them [Arabs], then they called on for their impeachment.

At the end of World War I President Woodrow Wilson made the 12 principles his priority. The last of these principles was the right of every nation to self-determination and Egypt’s Revolution in 1919 was against the British occupation of Egypt, demanding the right to self-determination, and the demonstrators shouted slogans honoring Saad Zaghloul (revolutionary leader) and Mr. Wilson.

In Syria, demonstrations demanded an American Mandate in the hope of the promise of Wilson.

Suddenly, President Wilson recognized the British protégé in Egypt, and demonstrations were organized to call for his impeachment, after it was organized in the beginning to cheer his life! The same thing happened in Syria, when he recognized the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon!

When President Roosevelt declared the Four Freedoms, the motivation of Arabs turned from Hitler to America, then Truman succeeded Roosevelt, to recognize Israel, breaking Roosevelt’s promises during World War II, causing a shock to the Arabs and a shift in their feelings as they were frustrated.

This happened in 1956, when America gained its popularity back, for its stance against the tripartite aggression on Egypt, the popularity that has soon faded away because of America’s rejection in financing the construction of the High Dam.

When the Egyptian-American relations were restored, the Egyptian people welcomed President Nixon in an unprecedented event, then Carter remained to hold a special place in the hearts of Egyptians until America’s constant bias with Israel, which has been the cause of the deterioration of the Egyptian-American Rapprochement for years.

Obama’s real rival is the image of Obama himself, people who chant for his favor may in fact chant and shout against him. Only if he decided to read history well to be able to make it again after one year has already been lost.

BM

Ayman Nour: A visit to Gaza

Ayman Nour

After the conclusion of the official reception of my trip with Amr Mousa to Gaza on the occasion of opening the first session of the Palestinian National Council, I received an invitation from a Palestinian Member of Parliament to attend a meeting at the Social Club of Gaza. His name, as far as I remember was Hamadah El-Fara’ena.

In that meeting, I was introduced to a high profile group of Palestinian leaders who belong to the Intifada generation. The most prominent among them were Marawan Barghouthy from the Fatah movement, Abdul Khalek Al Natshah from Hamas, in addition to some other independent political activists.

In the meeting, I had a feeling that I am seeing a different Palestine, unlike the one I left in despair at Arafat’s house, which I sneaked out of to attend the activists’ meeting. There, I saw a real image of the fire burning inside Palestine! I was transformed from a cold conversation at Arafat’s house about personal memories on public and private meetings and phone calls to a real hot debate on the future of Palestine, criticizing the newborn presidency, constitution, and Oslo 1993.

I was an eyewitness to the exchange of serious accusations between liberal and independent leaders. They mentioned the absence of transparency and democracy. They were preoccupied by the involvement of the Palestinian Authority with the ill mechanisms of building the state via importing the worst examples of ruling regimes in the Arab world. They did not want individualism, monopoly, and corruption to be the pillars of establishing the newborn state. They also had big doubts regarding the injustice of diplomatic developments.

The representatives of Hamas, in the meeting, discussed the fragile balance indicated in Oslo and described it as a “domination peace!” This term stole my ears and I could not forget it until I read it again in Raymond Irawan’s book Paixet Guenne Entx Leanationa in 2004.

I saw the power of the Intifada removing the accumulated clouds of division and weakness in the sky of Palestinian national unity. It strengthened hope in reaching a comprehensive and unified solution.

Israel succeeded in planting a burning cord into the powder keg, by involving Arafat, and later, Abbas, into transformational phases, which gave the Israeli side more space to impose a negative rhythm on the development of social movements. They ran into signing conventions based on the logic of steps and testing the ability of the newborn authority to guarantee Israel security – or rather, suppressing Islamist radicals and secularists.

The internal crisis of Palestine cannot be reduced to the conflict between Fattah and Hamas, or illusionary (made in USA) groups of “moderates” and “extremists.” This is a mere echo of the naïve division of the world into the “Empire of Good” and the “Empire of Evil” by Reagan in his infamous Orlando Florida speech to the National Association of Evangelicals on March 8, 1983. The same concept came to the surface once again by Bush after the September 11 attacks.

My evidence on the inaccuracy of this reduction of the internal Palestinian crisis to a conflict between moderates and extremists is that the majority of Palestinian politicians who participated in the aforementioned meeting are in jail, now.

If we look into the “Prisons” Initiative launched by Marawan Barghouthy of Fatah and Abdul Khalek Al Natshah of Hamas, we realize that the Palestinian-Palestinian conflict is not a conflict between moderation and extremism. It is a conflict between two views of managing a homeland which is not found yet.

[http://bikyamasr.com/?p=6187]

I Reject Anti-Semitism and Respect Egypt's Pluralism

Published on Wall Street Journal

Monday, November 2, 2009

The authors of "Why Are Egypt's Liberals Anti-Semitic?" (op-ed, Oct. 26), Amr Bargisi and Samuel Tadros, quote me at a conference I was invited to attend in the city of Port Said, Egypt shortly after my release from prison after contesting President Hosni Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections.

I would like to clarify a few points regarding the statements attributed to me in the article. First, neither myself nor my party, El-Ghad, were the organizers of this forum. I was invited to attend in my personal capacity, and to make a short statement. I was not responsible for any graffiti or items placed on the banners in the conference.

Furthermore, my statements referred specifically to Israel's conduct during the Gaza war, which in my opinion was highly objectionable.

I was distraught over the excessive loss of civilian life in Gaza, and I regret that my comments were expressed in a way that was unclear and that may have understandably offended.

Anyone examining my record can easily discern that I have always supported and upheld Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, and have strongly opposed calls of aggression against Israel.

I have also consistently called for a peaceful and just resolution to the Arab Israeli conflict. I gave a recent interview published in Commentary magazine where I stated, "El-Ghad supports every treaty made by Egypt before and will keep it going. We want to ensure peace with every country in the world."

I would like to conclude that the "anti-Semitic" label is one that I strongly reject. My critiques pertain to the conduct of the state of Israel in certain contexts and not to the Jewish people as a whole. The history of Egypt is replete with contributions from Jewish Egyptians, and that history of pluralism that once defined Egypt is one that I recall fondly and deeply respect.

Principles of religious pluralism and mutual respect and tolerance are principles that I strongly advocate not just in my position as a political activist, but as a human being.

Ayman Nour