News Release Archive | Jennifer Loewenstein | Accuracy.Org

Egypt: Behind the Chaos

The Guardian headlines their Mideast blog “Egypt’s Transition Plunged into Chaos.” The Wall Street Journal reports: “Egypt’s highest court ruled on Thursday to allow a former regime loyalist to run in presidential elections starting Saturday and to dissolve both houses of Egypt’s parliament, in verdicts that could add another pressure point to Egypt’s already fraught transition from military rule to democracy.

“The verdicts come only two days before run-off elections for Egypt’s next president start on Saturday, and only two weeks before the ruling council of generals had promised to hand over its executive authority to the newly-elected head of state.”

Meanwhile, Al-Jazeera is reporting: “Egypt’s justice ministry has issued a decree allowing military police and intelligence officers to arrest civilians suspected of crimes, restoring some of the powers of the decades-old emergency law which expired just two weeks ago.”

JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN, amadea311 at earthlink.net,
Loewenstein is faculty associate in Middle East Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She said today: “The Supreme Court ruled that Ahmed Shafiq can run in the election even though he was part of the Mubarak regime — he was the last prime minister — and even though the court has ruled that others associated with the Mubarak regime cannot stand for office. Meanwhile, the other candidate, Muhammed Morsi, is the candidate put forth by the Muslim Brotherhood — though they initially said they would not field a candidate. While the Brotherhood represents the oldest and most well-organized political party in modern Egypt, it nevertheless sat on the sidelines of the uprisings in Tahrir Square when they were at their most popular and intense. There is real irony in the fact that neither of the two contenders for president of a new, democratic Egypt represents the people and organizations whose energy and motivation set the Egyptian Revolution in motion. The ramifications of this situation could be profound.”

JIHAN HAFIZ, fahema22 at gmail.com
REED LINDSAY, reedlindsay at yahoo.com
Hafiz is The Real News correspondent in Cairo. Lindsay is bureau chief there. See their recent reports.

KHALED BEYDOUN, khaled.beydoun at earla.org
Beydoun is with the Egyptian American Rule of Law Association. He said today: “The Egyptian Courts, and SCAF [Supreme Council of the Armed Forces], are not only undermining the self-determination millions of Egyptian’s marched and rallied for during the January 25th Revolution, but also manipulating a result advantageous to a select few of elites — many of whom are remnants or proxies of the toppled government. Much of what SCAF’s strategy is an extension of what Mubarak did for decades: If not for us, the nation will degenerate into chaos.”

See on twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/accuracy/egypt

Self-Defense for Iran?

JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN, amadea311 at earthlink.net
Loewenstein is faculty associate in Middle East Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She said today: “News reports on the recent spate of cross-border violence between Israel and the Gaza Strip depicted Israel’s extra-judicial assassination of Popular Resistance Committee leader, Zuhir al-Qaisi, as consistent with its ‘right to defend itself’ by claiming that al-Qaisi and his accomplice were planning an attack on Israel. Israeli justification of the targeted killing caused no raised eyebrows in mainstream commentary on the worst violence against Gazans since Israel’s Dec. 2008 to Jan. 2009 invasion, or ‘Operation Cast Lead.’ It is difficult to second guess what really motivated this assassination, especially given the prevailing — if somber — calm between the two areas; nobody questioned the rationale — that the PRC was planning a terror attack — as if IDF officials have only to make the claim in order to line up support for state-sanctioned murder. Journalists typically parroted back the information without seeking to verify it, standard fare where Israel is involved. It is understood that some sources are not to be questioned: That the IDF is revising and polishing its own war plans, against a variety of countries, territories, and ‘non-state actors’ daily has not yet been justification for Hizbullah, Iran, Hamas, or any other ‘enemy’ to strike at Israel preemptively, in ‘self-defense’, though the same logic prevails. What we do is acceptable, right, and good — and the principle of universality was deep-sixed as long ago as the Nuremburg Trials when the ‘supreme war crime’, aggression, was also to have instructed nations on the unacceptability of force for resolving international disputes.

“Some have speculated that Israel used the occasion to stir up a response in Gaza that would allow it to test out its Iron Dome Missile Defense system — a system whose reliability could be paramount if a strike on Iran prompted a similar response from the Islamic Republic, Hizbullah in Lebanon, or a minor faction such as Islamic Jihad in Gaza. (It should be noted, in fact, that Hamas stayed out of the latest round of violence which pitted the IDF against the tiny factions Islamic Jihad and the PRCs.) Perhaps Israel’s ratcheting up of violence – which killed 26 people and wounded more than 70 — was intended to wreck ongoing efforts at unity among the Palestinian political parties and factions, or to send another belligerent signal to Iran now that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has returned less than satisfied from his mission to seek a green light for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities from the United States. We may never know. What will remain true is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go on to condemn ‘pre-meditated actions’ of the military services of a state (Syria) against people it doesn’t speak for (the popular resistance) but over whom it rules, but that where Israel and the Palestinians are concerned such a view is anathema to our national interests and the client states who help maintain their supremacy — especially in the Middle East.”