Interview with Dr. Abdel Monem Abul-Futouh

Dr. Abdel Monem Abul-Futouh is a genial, energetic man who looks
to be about 60 years old.  The thick, dish-like lenses of his
eye-glasses magnify his eyes and give him a vulnerable, owlish
look.  To
see him at his office in the gracious old building that houses both
the Egyptian Medical Society and the Arab Medical Union, you have to
make the appointment well in advance.  When you arrive a tall,
well-organized young man who glides around the building with a bundle
of files in his hand takes you to Dr. Abul-Futouh’s office. We greet
each other, and the doctor immediately lays out the terms of engagement
for the interview.  “Ask anything!  How long do you
need?  Is thirty minutes enough?”  I ask for forty, and am
granted them.

Did I mention that, in addition to being the General Secretary of the
Arab Medical Union, Dr. Abul-Futouh is also a member of the Guidance
Council
of the Muslim Brotherhood?

The most interesting part of the interview came when I pressed him to
explain his view on Israel.

“We as the Muslim Brotherhood know that the Jews in Israel are human
beings,” he said,

and we know they should live, and should not be killed.  Just the
same as the Palestinians who are the original owners of the country
should live and should not be killed.  The Palestinian problem was
made by the western regimes and surely they should solve it– but not
at the expense of the Palestinians!

He sought to illustrate his argument about why the Jewish people
of Israel should not be killed by describing an Arab custom whereby a
person who is born as a result of a rape should not face any punishment
or stigma on account of that fact.  “That person’s existence may
be the result of a fault, but the fault was not his,” he said. 
“What fault has he committed?”

He continued,

The Jewish people can go or stay,
but whatever they do the Palestinians should win their rights. 
You could have an outcome with one state there– a secular, democratic
state– or two states.  But I think one state would be better,
because if you have two states, then they would fight.  It would
be better to be one state– like South Africa.

I asked him, did he really say a “secular, democratic
state”?  This seemed ground-breaking given the MB’s traditional
opposition to the idea of secular rule, and I wanted to confirm that he
really intended to say it that way– in Arabic, “dawla dimuqratiyya ‘ulmaniyya“. 
He confirmed that he did mean that.

— But Israel refuses
everything!  And now, the US regime– the regime, not the people–
has joined Israel in imposing this very bad siege on the Palestinians.

Why does America attack us?  I think they do this because they are
rightwing and extremist and have interests with the multinational
companies which bring so many benefits to people associated with the
regime there that they live well at our expense.

I had started the interview by asking how he saw the situation in
Egypt, whre the MB has been the subject of a governmental crackdown
that has grown increasingly harsh over the past year.

He said,

Continue reading “Interview with Dr. Abdel Monem Abul-Futouh”

Egyptian blogging on trial

The trial of Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer, who is on trial for his writings criticizing Egypt’s al-Azhar religious authorities, Islam and President Husni Mubarak, resumes in his home town of Alexandria today. Fellow blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy writes:

    From the way the trial has been going, and Kareem’s family’s recent media stunt, unfortunately I’m expecting a harsh verdict. I hope I’m proven wrong…

Kareem is a student at Al Azhar University, where he enrolled with, I presume, the strong support of his very religiously observant family. He broke with their religious values/practices– and now as I understand it his dad has publicly excoriated him. It must be very painful for all members of the family.
Kareem’s supporters have been running a support blog called Free Kareem, which distributes news of the various public actions being held in his support in various places around the world. I see that sadly none are listed for Egypt. The only Middle Eastern country in which activities are posted is Bahrain. The photos indicate that many of these actions are very sparsely attended. Having taken part in any number of sparsely attended public actions of my own I understand that doing that– especially in a place where such public actions are not very common– takes a certain amount of courage.
The way I see it, this trial is about Kareem Amer– but it is also about the fate of blogging and the freedom of expression in general, in Egypt. In the past few years all of the public media here has become markedly more open and more ready to publish views highly critical of the regime. This applies to the print media as well as the blogosphere and other portions of the internet.
Here, by the way, is a very interesting article on the whole subject that was posted recently on the Muslim Brotherhood’s website. It surveys the whole scene of the Egyptian blogosphere– secular and pro-MB– and has material from an interview conducted with Hamalawy:

    Hossam el-Hamalawy, one of the most famous Egyptian bloggers, whos is publishing http://arabist.net/arabawy/, says that the Muslim Brotherhood experience with the Internet started early, seeing the Islamic group as among first political powers to use the Internet and Email groups from an early time.
    El-Hamalawy suggested that he was receiving many Emails and statements from Muslim Brotherhood Email Groups as early as 2002.
    El-Hamalawy added that the weblogs have been introduced to Egypt by the secularists, specially Leftists whether the mainstream Left ( those affiliated to a leftist party or group ) or leftist individuals; but the actual revolution of weblogs in Egypt was during 2005 referendum, after which bloggers managed to make weblogs a credited source of news.
    El-Hamalawy pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood’s young members’ use of the weblogs took place later on may be because the weblogs are considered personal diaries in which personal feelings are expressed while the Muslim Brotherhood discourse avoids such methods, specially under the tense relation with the regime and security.
    El Hamalawi added that the most important Muslim Brotherhood weblog that has been recently browsing is: http://ana-ikhwan.blogspot.com/ because it follows up the news of detentions among the Muslim Brotherhood group.

The article also contains a whole blogroll of blogs maintained by “MB Youth”. They start off there with some female-authored blogs… Haven’t had a chance yet to check many of them out.
And here is a post from yesterday on the MB website, under the title Blogs against military rulers, which summarizes some recent blog postings on the continuing campaign of detention and economic expropriation that the Egyptian authorities have been maintaining against the MB.
I just note, finally, that if Kareem Amer is sentenced to a jail term it is possible he could be subjected to some bad harrassment in jail– from guards or fellow prisoners who object to the criticisms he has voiced of the role of Muslim religious authorities and/or are influenced by the government’s accusations that that makes him un-Islamic and a threat to national security. I think it would be excellent if an influential organization like the MB could declare publicly that it stands against any mistreatment of Kareem Amer or any individual on the basis only of views that he or she has expressed and of government accusations against him…

Notes from Cairo, #3

I have been incredibly busy, “uploading” information and impressions from here in Egypt into my brain, renewing old acquaintances here, making new ones, rushing around in general. My daughter– and one-time research assistant– Leila is here for the week, too, taking her one-week midwinter break from teaching first grade in snowbound Brooklyn with us here, which has been a LOT of fun. So yes, on Sunday I did spend a day doing out with her to see some pyramids…
It was good to re-connect with 5,000-plus years of this ancient civilization, with its underpinnings of an incredibly stable state/bureaucratuic structure. Also really interesting to drive through the peri-urban areas– to see the extent to which the hyper-fertile green fields are being eaten up by “informal housing”– that is, dense clumps of four- and five-story concrete and brick buildings that have metastasized out from the older city in many, many directions.
We had a brief discussion along the way about the effects of the Aswan High Dam, built in the 1960s to regulate what used to be the very frequent (and actually, soil-enriching) inundations of the Nile down here at the apex of the agriculturally fabulous Delta. The person who was with us said that since the dam was built, the absence of flooding means the farmers downstream can now get five crops per two-year cycle, where previously it was only one crop per year. But they need a lot of ferilizer to keep the soil productive on such a punishing schedule… Anyway, all the irrigated land we saw as we dove around– to Memphis, to Saqqara, to Giza– was intensely cultivated and very green, and the villages that remained unengulfed by the city’s growth looked bustling and productive.
Monday, Bill and I drove out for lunch with Mohamed Hassanein Heikal and his wife Hedayat at their farm west of town. Getting out of Cairo took– as always– a long time, and then we sped through some agricultural land and some near-desert. When we were about 50 minutes out from the city center– well into a partly agricultural, partly desert-side zone– we passed a massive conglomeration of fantastically futuristic buildings, all of them constructed from acres of sheeny blue glass supported by whitewashed concrete. The effect was somewhere between “Mediterranean Arabic” as in Tunisia’s cute seaside villages, Windows’ “blue screen of death”, and just plain tacky… This was the “Smart Village”, a huge zone of office structures and labs for participants in the country’s booming IT sector. (With reportedly big investment from Bill Gates, hence perhaps the “blue screen of death” effect?)
We sped on… Barely five minutes later as we drove along a broad tree-lined road Bill nudged me: “Look!” Ahead of us was a herd of camels being herded along the other side of the road to, presumably, some camel market nearby. There were about thirty of them, all trotting/galloping fast fast along the road, all keeping to their own side of it, and being herded by (as far as I could see) a single herder mounted on his own camel who brought up the rear and controlled them by, I suppose voice commands. It was a great sight– one I have never seen before. The camels had paint-writing on their flanks and their full, plumped-out humps; it looked like the names of their owners or perhaps the names of butchers who had bought this meat on a futures market.
As we continued driving, we passed a couple of smaller herds, and I saw one large pickup truck with a couple of very recalcitrant-looking camels tied down in the back. Must have been market day somewhere close?
Heikal, for those who don’t know much Egypt, was a key eminence grise of the Nasser regime who often acted as an intermediary between Nasser and western powers in times when Nasser was intent on trying to hew to a neutral position in the Cold War. He became Nasser’s Minister of Information, and kept that job under Sadat after Nasser died of a heart attack in fall 1970. After Sadat undertook his peace diplomacy with Israel Heikal became a vocal critic of that… And then, when Sadat went into his last fatal spiral of paranoia in fall 1981 and started locking up everyone whom he suspected of harboring any independent thoughts at all, Heikal was one of those imprisoned.
(I was working in London at the time– including, doing a little research on Heikal’s behalf in the Public Records Office in Kew into some aspects of Britain’s policy in Egypt in the late 1940s. But as the Egyptian crisis deepened I went to Cairo to do some reporting, and I was able to go visit Hedayet and get some news back to their friends in London about what was going on… I think I have only seen her once since then; so it was good to reconnect with them both this week… )
These days, Heikal, who is 84, is doing a weekly half-hour program on Al-Jazeera in which he is narrating his research and analysis of, I believe, events during his entire time close to power. He has been doing it for about three years now and has reached 1955. It’s an interesting format: he sits behind a desk looking very scholarly, and brings out documents– both the original diplomatic records (maybe some that I had gotten for him from the PRO back in 1981?)– and their Arab translations, and discusses both the documents and the other events around them…
Anyway, we had a good lunch conversation there with the Heikals and their other guests. Heikal said, “Ask me anything!” and I did. One of the things I asked him about was the succession issue here in Egypt. He was adamant that Gamal Mubarak would not be the next president: “Everyone hates him!” he exclaimed at one point. He also talked at length about the extent to which President Mubarak has insulated and isolated himself from ordinary Egyptians and has built an impermeable bubble of courtiers and yes-men around himself.
One of the other lunch guests remarked on the fact that that morning, Mubarak had presented the Egyptian “Order of Merit”, one of the country’s highest honors, on the outgoing head of US Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid. “Outrageous! That just proves how isolated Mubarak has become!” was Heikal’s reaction. (I haven’t seen this significant award mentioned anywhere else. Has anyone else seen any reports of it? Maybe the news of it was fairly tightly held by the Mubarak courtiers so as not to embarrass the ageing Pharaoh?)
More later on the content of those conversations… That evening we were once again generously hosted, this time by Ali Dessouki and his wife Eglal. Ali is a recent Minister for Youth and Sports. He and another of the dinner guests, Muhammad Kamel, are both on the NDP committee that’s working on political reform. We had a very lovely dinner in an incredibly posh new sporting- and social club out to the southeast of the city, and a conversation that was often very lively. Ali grew very impassioned as he explained to me how the regime felt it really had to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood these days, with an argument along the lines of “We gave them an inch [of liberalization] and they tried to take a mile, so we really had no alternative but to push back against them very hard.” On that basis he was adamant about justifying, for example, the recent re-arrest of some dozens of MB activists immediately after they had just been freed on the orders of a judge…
Yesterday morning I went to the generally pro-establishment Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, where the Director, Dr. Abdel Monem Said Aly had thoughtfully set up a small round-table discussion for me on current strategic developments in the region, with three of his senior colleagues there at the center. The discussion continued for two hours– mainly in Arabic (which I had to record, since I absolutely cannot conduct a conversation in Arabic while taking notes on it at the same time.) Again, more later on that… The main thing that came out of the discussion there was the intense preoccupation that these people all had with the current rise of Iran in the region. Indeed, it was hard to get them to talk about anything else!
Abdel Monem noted that there are a variety of views among Egyptians towards Iran and its nuclear program, with some seeing it as something of a threat, some seeing it as a potentially useful bargaining chip to try to win an agreement on making the whole Middle East into a region free of nuclear weapons, and some seeing it as an actual strategic asset for Egyptians.
And then, on to my afternoon appointment, which was with Dr. Abdel Monem Abul-Futouh, who is both the secretary-general of the Cairo-based Arab Medical Union and a member of the Guidance Council of the MB. Once again, as when I interviewed Dr. el-Arian last week, this meeting was in the downtown headquarters of the Egyptian Medical Society. One of the most notable things he said was to express support for the idea of a secular democratic state in Palestine! (That was, of course, the old proposal of Fateh and the PLO, back in the late 1960s, before they became converted to the idea of a two-state solution.) Dr. Abul-Futouh said something like, “We could see there being either a one-state solution or a two-state solution in Palestine. But I think if there’s a two-state solution they would still be fighting, so from that point of view one state– a secular democratic state– would be better.”
I double-checked with him that he meant to say a secular democratic state, and he said he did. I also probed a little the degree to which he would see the Jewish (Israeli) citizens of present-day Israel being included in this political project, and he said they should be. “Like the South African solution,” he confirmed. He also quoted a saying about the need to give decent treatment to a child born as the result of a rape. “The child should not be punished,” he said. The clear implication was that, though he saw Zionism as a political crime, as he said, the people who had come into being as Israeli citizens as a result of it should not be punished. Or anyway, not all of them. I did not get to complete clarity with him whether only the Jewish Israelis born in Israel or all those currently in Israel should be allowed to stay; though he did say clearly that there should be an end to discriminatory forms of (Jews-only) immigration into the country.
He repeated his and the MB’s respect for Judaism as a religion.
Anyway, more of that later, too.
Later yesterday, a quick meeting with former close presidential confidante Osama al-Baz…
As you can see, I’m having some extremely interesting discussions and experiences here Now, I gotta run and have some more.

Riverbend’s cry from the heart

The talented Iraqi woman blogger Riverbend has posted again today– the first time since December 31.
This post is an agonized reflection on an interview she saw on Al-Jazeera t.v. last night, with an Iraqi woman who had been gang-raped by members of the US-trained Iraqi “security” forces.
As I noted here recently, the use of sexual humiliation and other forms of humiliation to try to “ensure” the post-detention silence of detainees is a common tactic of oppressive, torturing regimes; and it takes enormous courage for any victim to be able to speak out afterwards about what was done to her/him.
Riv writes,

    look at this woman and I can’t feel anything but rage. What did we gain? I know that looking at her, foreigners will never be able to relate. They’ll feel pity and maybe some anger, but she’s one of us. She’s not a girl in jeans and a t-shirt so there will only be a vague sort of sympathy. Poor third-world countries- that is what their womenfolk tolerate. Just know that we never had to tolerate this before. There was a time when Iraqis were safe in the streets. That time is long gone. We consoled ourselves after the war with the fact that we at least had a modicum of safety in our homes. Homes are sacred, aren’t they? That is gone too.
    She’s just one of tens, possibly hundreds, of Iraqi women who are violated in their own homes and in Iraqi prisons. She looks like cousins I have. She looks like friends. She looks like a neighbor I sometimes used to pause to gossip with in the street. Every Iraqi who looks at her will see a cousin, a friend, a sister, a mother, an aunt…

And of course, many non-Iraqi Arabs who watch this on Jazeera will have a very similar response, too.
Riv starts out her post by noting the contrast between the Oprah Winfrey Show, airing at that exact same time on one of the t.v. channels her family is able to access, which dealt with challenges US women face as they make their shopping choices or deal with their shopping addictions… and the other show, the one on Jazeera. She writes, too, that she is (quite understandably) filled with rage. But when she writes, “I know that looking at her, foreigners will never be able to relate” I think that is to some her extent her rage and anger talking there.
I did not see the footage, since we don’t have a t.v. in our apartment here. (Can anyone send me a link to a streaming video version of some of this interview?) But evidently, from her account and from this one on the AJ website, it must be very disturbing– and I think it would be so to anyone who watches it, whether Arab, or non-Arab.
This is how Riv ends:

    And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse.
    Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.

One last question from me. Has this footage aired on any US t.v. channel yet? Will it? Will it provoke the kind of discussion that we US citizens ought most certainly to be engaging in about how we can even start to help repair the damage our government’s policy has wrought in Iraq?
One first step is evidently that we need to stop the perpetration of gross rights abuses in Iraq both by our own troops and by all the allegedly “Iraqi” military formations that have been trained up by the occupation forces and still act effectively under the command of the US occupation forces there.
Under international law the US, as occupying power, continues to hold the responsibility for public security in Iraq. It has failed, utterly failed, to exercise that responsibility. The occupation must end. And everyone concerned– Iraqis, their neighbors, the UN, Arab league, and Islamic Conference– should gather together to do what is possible to repair the damage and re-assemble a working governance structure in Iraq.

J’lem ‘Summit’ fails: What’s the alternative?

Today’s three-way meeting in Jerusalem seems to have failed even more seriously than I and many others had been expecting. AP’s diplomatic writer Anne Gearan reports that,

    Talks between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, initially billed as a new U.S. push to restart peace efforts, ended Monday with little progress other than a commitment to meet again.
    … Neither Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas nor Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert joined Rice as she delivered her statement [which had lasted precisely 90 seconds], and she left the room without taking questions from reporters.
    …State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said there is no date for another three-way meeting.

Gearan also wrote,

    Speaking later, Olmert said he and Abbas agreed to maintain an open channel of communication “which would focus primarily on the need to improve the lives of the Palestinian people in various areas, and of course a continued war on terror by the Palestinian Authority — in practice — to bring terror to a complete halt.”
    Abbas and Olmert also discussed possibly extending a 3-month-old cease-fire covering the
    Gaza Strip to include the West Bank, said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.

I will just note, regarding the avowals one repeatedly hears from Israeli leaders that they intend to work “to improve the lives of Palestinians”, that

    (1) This has long been a code whereby Israelis signal that though they may– or may not– be prepared to talk about a few surface economic issues with the Palestinians, still at the same time they continue steadfastly to refuse to discuss the central political demands the Palestinians raise regarding their sovereignty, national independence, national borders, the status of Jerusalem, etc. I recall that at one “track two” gathering between Israelis and Palestinians that I helped organize back in 1991, one of the (Likudnik) Israelis trotted out this line and the Palestinians were already furious. One of the Palestinians there exclaimed, “You consider us just like animals in a pen who might require some feed from time to time, but you never think of us as humans with full political rights!”
    It’s still the same today. (And of course, in the interim, the Israelis have succeeded in implanting additional hundreds of thousands of their citizens into the illegal settlements in the occupied territories, and have furthered the project of the systematic economic de-development of the Palestinians.)
    (2) Despite the fact that we’ve heard all these Israeli avowals that they will try to improve the Palestinians’ daily lives so many times before, their track record on following through by attending to even the Palestinians’ basic humanitarian needs is atrocious.
    It was Secretary Rice herself who “brokered” the “Karni Agreement” back in November 2005, under which the Palestinians of Gaza were to have assured passage for goods through the Karni crossing with Israel, plus the rapid organizing of convoys of buses for people to travel between Gaza and the West Bank, etc, etc.
    What came of that one?? Almost nothing. What price did Rice and her boss impose on Israel for its anti-humanitarian foot-dragging on that? Absolutely none! So why should anyone take seriously these even vaguer avowals of concern for the Palestinians’ wellbeing being made by Olmert today?

Regarding the prolongation of the ceasefire: Yes! That would be great! But please let it be reciprocal, monitored by a trusted third party, and be considered as a gateway to the swift convening of a final-status peace conference between the two governments.
Approximately 39 years and six months of time that should have been used to broker a final peace between them has already been wasted. The world– and especially the hard-pressed Palestinians both inside and outside their historic homeland– should not be expected to wait for very much longer.
A final-status peace conference. That is the best alternative to failed attempts at (highly coercive) summitry.

Rice’s meeting with two other “weak reeds”

As I write this– 10:30 a.m. Monday by Cairo time– U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is meeting in Jerusalem with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). The first thing to note is that all three of these officials represent political trends that are currently extremely weak within their respective countries.
So in this summit of three weak reeds, can any of the three expect to gain any strength from the support that the other two may– or may not– be able to offer them?
Of these three political trends, Mahmoud Abbas’s is currently (at his domestic level) the least weak. This might seem paradoxical. But his Fateh movement is the only one of these three three trends that has actively engaged with its domestic critics and done the hard work of reaching an agreement for internal entente; he did that through the Mecca Agreement that he concluded with Hamas last week.
By contrast, the administration that Rice represents has done almost nothing to try to reach a workable entente with the domestic critics whose rising power and new willingness to challenge the administration havey been much in evidence in the past two months. And as for Olmert, his complex governing coalition is limping along with little direction, plagued by internal problems and having still failed to recover any of the sense of direction it lost when its main original project– the pursuit of unilateralist “convergence” in the West Bank– was rendered irrelevant by the Hizbullah victory of last summer. (For details of which, see here.)
Though Abu Mazen is currently domestically stronger than the other two summiteers, his ability to give support to the other two weak reeds there is, of course, severely constrained by the terms of that same Mecca Agreement which represented, essentially, his conceding to the reality that Hamas is noticeably stronger and better organized in Palestinian society than is Fateh.
The Mecca Agreement represented a significant set-back to the US-Israeli plan to weaken or break Hamas’s power by using Fateh against it. (Just as, in Iraq at the end of December, the US plan to weaken or break Moqtada Sadr’s power by using SCIRI and other Iraqi Shiite forces against it was also blocked by the indigenous political forces there.)
These days, regarding Palestine, Rice is evidently fnding it hard to come to terms with the Palestinians’ new attainment of national entente. Al-Jazeera English tells us today that she told the Palestinian daily paper Al-Ayyam that: “This is a complicated time, and it has been made more complicated by the (Palestinian) unity government, but I’m not deterred…”
She has been going out of her way to “lower expectations” regarding the outcome of the summit. (Note to Rice: You think anyone even had any expectations of it in the first place?) She has made clear that she intends to coordinate closely with the Israelis throughout all the new bout of Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy of which today’s summit is supposed to be a key first step– and that she thinks the parties are nowhere near to reaching any lasting diplomatic agreement. (See her interview with Aluf Benn in today’s HaAretz.)
Here in Egypt I found veteran journalist and commentator Fahmi Howeidy quite scathing regarding his expectations from the summit. He told me:

    When Rice visited the region before and said she wanted to reach a final agreement on the Palestinian issue I said that she was not here primarily for the sake of the Palestinians but to try to shore up the Americans’ position in Iraq. It’s the same thing today!
    They just want to try to convince the Arabs that they’re doing something about Palestine, in order to help them build an Arab coalition that could support their policies in Iraq– or towards Iran. It’s all a show!

Did he think the Arabs would be taken in?

    Look, for the Arab regimes, it’s not a problem. They don’t need to be persuaded, because they have already stated their support for Bush. Even President Mubarak has said he supports Bush’s ‘surge’ policy. But what the administration needs to do is to convince the Arab people. This, they can’t do, because the Arab people aren’t stupid!”

So, back to my main question: can any of these three weak reeds receive meaningful support from the other two at today’s summit?
However much support Abu Mazen might want to give to Rice or Olmert (and I suspect that isn’t very much, anyway), he is constrained by the terms of the Mecca Agreement– and by the very strong support it has received from within Palestinian society– from making any further concessions to Rice and Olmert at this time.
As for whether they will do anything to support him? That doesn’t seem to be on the horizon, either. In her interview with Benn Rice still seemed quite inflexible regarding the Bushites’ demand that the Palestinian government meet all three of the Quartet’s extremely tough conditions, and she expressed her complete unwillingness to respond to Abu Mazen’s strongly stated request to move rapidly into negotiations of the final-status settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
So I guess that means the answer there would be a “No.”
(I’ll try to update this later in light of any public statements issued after the summit and the lunch that will follow it.)

Farzaneh Milani: “Iran as Enigma to Americans”

I have the pleasure to highlight an important essay by another leading light here at the University of Virginia – Farzaneh Milani. Professor Milani, a distinguished scholar of Persian literature and women’s studies, focuses attention on the misleading narratives about Iran that provide fertile soil for those bent on provoking a US attack on Iran.
Her timely essay in The Daily Progress urges us to recognize the sources of such myths and cast off the blinders that publishers and our government perpetuate and exploit:

“Although the American public has begun to speak out against a catastrophic attack on Iran, it’s important to remember the quarter-century unpopularity of this previously close ally. At a time when the stories we believe can guide U.S. foreign policy, we cannot afford to suspend critical judgment or accept as facts compelling, but misleading, narratives about Iran.
Despite a long history of friendship and cooperation between the two nations, Iran is now seen as a purveyor of aggression in the United States. What used to be Persia, “the land of the rose and the nightingale,” is now Iran, the vanguard of a terrorist apocalypse.
It is an “axis of evil,” a rogue state, a “greater challenge” than any other country, according to President Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy.”

It didn’t start with Bush II or I.

“The genesis of this hostility can be traced back to Nov. 4, 1979, when a group of militant students stormed the American Embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. A sense of anguish etched itself into the collective consciousness of a justifiably outraged nation.
“America in Captivity” was the headline that captured the mood of a country in psychic pain.
“Nuke Iran,” read graffiti and T-shirts and posters.
“The only thing that could ever straighten out this screwed-up country is an atomic bomb! Wipe it off the map and start over,” recommended “Not Without My Daughter,” the most popular book about Iran ever published in the United States.”

Remember that last quote next time you hear reference made to the current Iranian President’s overheated rhetoric about a “map” and “Israel.” As a first step in reducing the temperature between Iran and the US, I propose a mutual moratorium on “map wiping” rhetoric.

Twenty-eight years later, Iranians find themselves hostages of their own hostage-taking.

Continue reading “Farzaneh Milani: “Iran as Enigma to Americans””

Interview with Dr. Issam el-Arian

“The US administration has worked out a package deal with our
government,” key Muslim Brotherhood (MB) spokesperson Dr. Issam
el-Arian told me recently.  “The regime works for US
interests in the region, and the
US remains silent on its abuses.  That deal  worked for many
years.  But it
can’t work now in an era of transparency.”

I met Dr. Arian in his office in the gracious– and
bustling– 1930s villa in downtown Cairo that is the headquarters of
the Egyptian Medical Society.  Arian is the organization’s
treasurer, having been released just this past fall at the end of a
five-year stint in jail.  (He had earlier served two shorter prison terms.) I asked him about the kind of
treatment he had received in jail this time round.  “It was more
terrible under President Nasser,” he said.  But he said that
regime agents had been following him throughout the preceding week, and
there was a risk he might be re-arrested.  “And they’ve prevented
me from traveling,” he said.

We talked February 11.  Four days later, the Egyptian police
arrested an additional 73 MB members, including some individuals who
had run as candidates in the parliamentary elections held in November
2005.  But not Arian. This brought to around 300 the total number
of imprisoned MB members, with the majority of them having been
arrested within the past 12 months.  (Human Rights Watch has a list of
the 226 MB members detained as of February 13, 2007.)

Arian is a friendly, well organized man in his early fifties, with a
slightly receding hairline and the same kind of neatly trimmed beard
that the Hamas people wear. “I feel we are in a border stage between
two eras,” he told
me.  “Our president is 79 and ill.  There are many rumors
about the possible succession of his son, Gamal.  This is a big
problem in Egypt because the army has always been the main power
here.  It still is, though now the “State Security” is much
stronger than it was.  Still, the army has taken to the streets
twice here, in 1977 and 1986.  And that has to be a big concern.”

He said that in his view, the constitutional changes now being
discussed in Egypt “are aimed at preventing the ermergence of all
indpendent political parties, not just the Brotherhood.”  He
explained that though there are some 23 or 24 “official” opposition
parties in the country, “they only have seven or eight seats between
all of them.”  (The parliament contains 444 elected seats– and
ten seats allocated by the President.)  Some of the changes
currently being discussed for the country’s Constitution concern
Articles 76 and 77, which define strict conditions for which
parties  should be allowed to field candidates in the presidential
election.  Though Article 76 stipulates that the president should
be elected in a multi-party election it is in fact true that, under the
current rules and most currently presented changes to them, none of the
“official” opposition parties would qualify!

For its part, the MB now has 88 members of parliament who are loyal to
it, though they ran as independents in the November 2005
election.  In addition, Arian said that six of the country’s
two-member constituencies still have not had their election results
certified.  “And they would give us probably another seven
members.”

Despite the fact he felt he was being closely watched and followed,
Arian seemed relaxed, and he even projected a
certain amount of confidence.  One of the topics I was eager to
discuss with him was the complex relationship between Egypt and
Palestine– and between the MB and the organization that had grown out
of the MB’s Palestinian affiliate, Hamas.

“The main obstacle to the development of strong relations between Gaza
and Egypt comes from Egypt,” he said.  “And the main reason for
that obstacle is the government’s fear of the relationship between the
Brotherhood and Hamas.”  He recalled a news account of the degree
to which Hamas’s victory had distrubed the Egyptian government.

“The fact that Fateh and Hamas reached their recent agreement in Mecca,
not here, was significant, because the negotiations were actually going
well here in Egypt until the Americans intervened,” he said.  “The
Egyptians have no room to navigate with the Americans.  Saudi
Arabia has more…  As for Hamas, it continues to work with the
regime here regardless of what the regime does to the
Brotherhood.”  He indicated that he understood why Hamas made that
choice, and he could live with it.

Later, he said, “If you consider what Hamas was able to do– to survive
for a whole year under those terrible siege conditions– it was really
remarkable.”  He also said that the Egyptian Medical Society had
been making aid shipments to the Palestinians for the past 20 years,
and that the society and the Arab Medical Union with which it is
affiliated now have plans to raise $1 billion of aid to send to
Palestine.

He noted, regarding the demonstrations that had taken place the
previous Friday to protest Israel’s launching of some excavation work
in occupied East Jerusalem, at an entrance to the Al Aqsa Mosque, that

The police response to the
demonstrators here in Al-Azhar was even worse than the Israeli police’s
response in Al-Aqsa!  It is really a bad position for the regimje
to be in– when it is seen as punishing those who only want to defend
Al Aqsa.  It would be different if the [ruling] National
Democratic Party itself were doing anything serious on the issue, but
they are not doing anything to protest.

And then, Olmert says he has a ‘green light’ from the Arab regimes to
proceed.  Which three do you think are most involved in the issue
of Al Aqsa?  Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia… But you know, this
issue might cause the people to explode.

I was also interested to ask this spokesperson for a large Sunni Muslim
organization for his views on the possibility fo a serious split
developing within the Middle East along primarily sectarian,
Sunni-Shiite lines.  “Recently, our Murshed (Supreme Guide) made an
address about this issue, warning about the risk of breakdown between
the Sunnis and the Shiites.  The MB has worked on this since
1940… But why are we seeing this issue re-emerging now?  Because
of the rise of Islamic trends, from Morocco to Indonesia. So the
Americans have been planning how to try to stop this.”

He said he thought the issue was most problematic for Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, and the Gulf states.  “In Iraq, many Sunnis and Shiites
had intermarried.  They were all oppressed under Saddam
Hussein.  He was not a Sunni
ruler, but a dictator.”

I asked what he thought the reaction of Egyptians would be to any
prospective US military attack on Iran.  “At the official level,
the government will probably be quietly supportive,” he said. 

And at the popular level, I imagine they are hoping the reaction will
be weak?  This is why they hitting the Muslim Bortherhood now,
precisely to weaken our ability to organize a response! This crackdown
here is because of the critical situation in the region.

But the Americans are facing many problems for their schemes.  For
example, if the Palestinians make an agreement, and the Lebanese can
also, this would block some of the Americans’ plans.  Yes, the
Bush administration looks quite blind to what is going on in the region.

He also noted the apparent disregard of  US officials to the
troubling rights situation in Egypt.
 

Even ambassador [Frank]
Ricciardone!  I have known him for 18 years, since he was here as
a young diplomat.  But he didn’t say a word while I was in jail,
or congratulate me on my freedom since.  Now, he’s not even saying
anything about the continued imprisonment of [secular reformist
politician] Ayman Nour.  And they never said anything about all
the Brotherhood people detained.

The administration has worked out a package deal with our
government.  The regime works for US interests in the region, and
the US remains silent on its abuses. That worked for many years. 
But it can’t work now in an era of transparency.

There is a lot more that can be said, certainly, about the political
prospects in its birth-country of this veteran organization, which was
founded in Egypt in 1928 and now has affiliates in many other parts of
the Arab and Muslim worlds.  Egypt is now– as I noted here
entering a decidedly fin de
régime
period, in which great uncertainties abound. 
It is doing so, moreover, at a time when the region of which it is a
part is in huge turmoil, the future course of which is hard to predict.

The regime that is approaching its fin
at at the very least, approaching a crucial turning point as the powers
of the president continue to decline– is one in which there are many
different trends and currents, including the representatives of the
different security forces, the power of NDP officials and
bureaucracies, the eroded power of officials in the public sector, and
the “lobby” of the big  business interests that have emerged under
the past three decades of economic infitah
(opening) of what was previously a tightly state-controlled
economy.  And yes, there are some really huge business interests
in Egypt today.  Some of those trends push towards liberalism and
open-ness; others are much more conservative. 

And the Brotherhood itself is, by all accounts, not monolithic. 
Indeed, one look at the relative radicalism of its rhetoric and the
conservatism of its actual political practice will quickly indicate
that there must be many younger members or supporters of the
organization who, fired up by its rhetoric, may not yet have fully
understood the nuances or practices of its political
conservatism.  And the Brotherhood, too, has some big business
interests behind it…  There are, indeed, many ways in which it
might seem to line up naturally with portions of the conservative trend
that is under the regime’s umbrella, and others in which it benefits
from the (relative) political open-ness that is encouraged by the
liberalizing trend within the regime.

One thing seems certain, though.  That is that the opening of the
Egyptian public space– principally, its media– that has occurred over
the past decade will prove almost impossible to roll back.  And in
this new atmosphere of the proliferation of media sources and the
general democratization of the information order both locally here in
Egypt, and internationally, it will be impossible for the regime to
keep all its opponents bottled up and excluded from political power for
very much longer.  The broad crackdowns– against the MB, and all
other opponents, real and perceived– that were possible in the Nasser
era can never be repeated.  Even when Sadat attempted to repeat
those tactics in 1981 it proved extremely counter-productive for
him.  Now, no ruler who is even half-way sane would do to attempt
to repeat such actions.

It strikes me, therefore, that since the MB has proven its staying
power and its adaptability to the changing decades, it is very likely
that within the next few years the regime is going to have to do some
kind of a political deal with it, to ensure the stability of the
country.

For my part, yes, I do have concerns about several parts of the
organization’s agenda.  I wish that, like Hamas, they had done
more to foster the real inclusion of women into their public political
life.  I wish they would do a lot more to start thinking about a
future for the region that would seek to include the Israeli people and
their reasonable political aspirations, on an egalitarian basis. 
I hope that, benefitting as they now do from the agendas of many
human-rights organizations, they will continue to keep the human-rights
agenda very much in mind if and when they move closer to exercising
real political power.

Anyway, I learned a lot from my conversation with Dr. Arian.  I
hope I can explore some of these issues a lot further with him in the
future.

Notes from Cairo, #2

I have gathered such a lot of great material from my time here in Egypt so far that it has been a challenge for me to figure out how to write it. One of the most interesting things has been the interview I did with Muslim Brotherhood spokesperson Dr. Issam al-Arian last Sunday (February 11). But even just to write that has been a challenge for me, as I felt the need to put in a lot of background and it was getting fairly unwieldy.

Plus, I was still running around doing a bunch of other things, as well.

So I finally decided to write the background material separately, and to upload it here. Expect the interview itself within the next few hours.

But right now, I probably need to go out for a long walk and clear my head. Often, when you’re crossing a major street like Qasr al-Aini Street or the Nile-side corniche, this involves playing the terrifying game of Extreme Human Frogger. Cairo is about the most pedestrian-unfriendly city I have ever been in. I haven’t seen a single posted vehicular speed limit within the whole city. Don’t the people here realize that allowing public space to be so hostile, or even potentially lethal, for pedestrians means that a whole chunk of members of society– the disabled, the elderly, mothers with young children– become effectively prevented from real social inclusion?

To say nothing of the damaging effects of the pollution…

But enough whining… I have actually been having a really great time here… And truly, this time as always I really do love Egypt!

1. Entering the twilight of the Mubarak era

Medical science is a powerful tool that has done much to increase
human wellbing and lengthen the productive and hapy lives of miliions
of people. However, no-one has yet found a way to prolong human life
indefinitely.  (Even the kings of Saudi Arabia, who have
unconstrained access to all the most expensive forms of medical
treatment, have had to learn this.)  Egypt’s President, Hosni
Mubarak, is 78 years old.  And though he’s remarkably, as they
say, “well preserved” for his age, still the fact remains that in Egypt
today there’s an almost palpable sense that his powers are
waning.  Everywhere there is talk of the succession– and this,
though he has another four and a half years to serve on his current
six-year term in office.  But already, there are many rumors of
who might be in line for the succession, and how various sectors of
power might be circling around and lining up to position themselves for
the moment when either there’s the next scheduled election (September
2011), or, even before that, his powers might fail to the point that
some other form of succession becomes necessary.

Mubarak has notably never named
a Vice-President, a step that could have muted or even eliminated all
this uncertainty around the succession.  He himself became
President after his predecessor, Anwar as-Sadat, was assassinated in
1981– by virtue of the fact that he had at the time been Sadat’s VP…
and prior to that, Sadat became President in 1970 by virtue of the fact
that he had been the VP of his predecessor, Gamal Abdel-Nasser. 
So having a designated VP did on both those earlier occasions ensure a
nearly trouble-free succession.

So why has Mubarak never named one?  What he says  to people
bold enough to ask is that he considers it undemocratic for a president
to name the person who thereby becomes almost certain to be his
successor.  But other possible explanations have certainly also
been mentioned here, including that he does not have enough trust in
anyone to name him as VP (with an undertone that that VP, if
underhanded enough, might actually undertake some action to speed up
the succession…  ), and that he has been waiting and/or hoping
for his son Gamal Mubarak (named after you-know-who) to have enough
experience of national governance to be able to fit “naturally” into
the successor’s shoes…

Continue reading “Notes from Cairo, #2”

Testimony from an Abu Ghraib “hooded man”

The iconic “hooded man” in those shocking pictures from Abu Ghraib was also a man, not just an icon; and at least one of the men subjected to that form of torture is a very brave man, too. His name is Ali Sh. Abbas, and Faiza al-Araji has today posted on her blog his sworn testimony regarding the treatment he received while he was in US detention in Iraq in late 2003, including what happened to him in the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib.
I say he is brave because I know from my extensive work on issues of torture that (1) The intention of torturers is most often to break the independent personality of their victims, and that certainly appears to be the case in this instance; and (2) The specifics of many of the means of torture used in Abu Ghraib– as elsewhere in the long, sorry history of torture– were designed to humiliate the victim both at the time and subsequent to any possible later release, in order to make it much harder for that individual later to be bring him/herself to be able to speak openly about what had happened.
(See, for example, the recent case of bus driver Imad al-Kabir, in Egypt.)
That is why I say Mr. Abbas seems to be a brave man, because for a while now he has gone publicly on the record with his account of the extremely humiliating treatment he received, which included numerous acts of rape, enforced nudity, etc, in addition to the electrocuting– which he says did occur, though I believe the US military people charged in connection with the case had claimed that wiring up the prisoners was only a “show” for them, to make them talk…
The author of the affidavit on Faiza’s site seems to be the same person as the man in this NYT story from March 11, 2006, Ali Shalal Qaissi, who at that point claimed to be “the” iconic hooded prisoner from Abu Ghraib. I believe he is the same person– look at the photos in this Feb 7, 2007 blog post from the recent “Criminalizing War” conference held in Malaysia, which also features the testimony from Mr. Ali Sh. Abbas, and indeed reveals that that text was sworn as testimony in front of a Malaysian Commissioner of Oaths on, apparently, February 8, 2007. (I see a problem re the dating there? However, knowing the way that names get differently recorded in many Arab countries, I see no particular problem with the apparent “slipperiness” of this person’s name in various versions.)
I note that a few days after that March 2006 NYT story, the NYT ran a follow-up stating that “Military investigators had identified the man on the box as a different detainee who had described the episode in a sworn statement immediately after the photographs were discovered in January 2004, but then the man seemed to go silent.” In that story, Mr. Qaissi (Mr.Abbas) was reported as acknowledging that he was not the man in the specific, Penatgon-released photograph he had held up in a portrait that had accompanied the earlier NYT article. “But he and his lawyers maintain that he was photographed in a similar position and shocked with wires.”
The Pentagon maintains only one detainee was subjected to this treatment. Mr. Abbas claims that there was more than one.
The whole of Mr. Abbas’s sworn affidavit as posted on Faiza’s site should be read as widely as possible. (Be aware that some of the details he testifies to are extremely disturbing. You may need to think of a prayer of other self-care mechanism to help you during and after the reading.)
Many people in the human-rights community have been pushing for further prosecutions, including of people further up the chain of command, for the war crimes committed at Abu Ghraib. However I think it is equally important to pay attention to the victims/survivors of all such crimes and to do whatever we can to reinstate their humanity– including by listening and paying close attention to their testimony.
I therefore suggest that now that Mr. Abbas has shown himself willing to go as very publicly on the record as he did in Malaysia, the members of the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees should be urged to contact him and any and other survivors of Abu Ghraib they can locate, with the following goals in mind:

    A. to find a way to hear their testimony face-to-face or by videolink, whether in Jordan or elsewhere;
    B. to probe any portions of that testimony further if they choose to do so (but to do this with the respect and sensitivity we should accord to any survivor of violent acts);
    C. to use such testimonies to build a much fuller picture of what occurred in Abu Ghraib than the existing, very circumscribed record of court proceedings has allowed us; and
    D. to start to design and run a program to provide compensation and post-trauma rehabiliation to all certified survivors of the torture rooms of Abu Ghraib and the other torture centers run by US government agencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Anyway, here are some of the important parts of Mr. Abbas’s testimony:
He was arrested on October 13, 2003, and was transferred to Abu Ghraib two days later. Immediately, he was subjected to humiliation treatment:

    The first thing they did to me was to make a physical examination of my body and abused me. [Sounds like an invasive rectal examination? ~HC] Together with other detainees, we were made to sit on the floor and were dragged to the interrogation room. This so called room is in fact a toilet (approximately 2m by 2m) and was flooded with water and human waste up to my heel level. I was asked to sit in the filthy water while the American interrogator stood outside the door, with the translator.
    8. After the interrogation, I would be removed from the toilet, and before the next detainee is put into the toilet, the guards would urinate into the filthy water in front of the other detainees.

And then, note what the first question was:

    9. The first question they asked me was, “Are you a Sunni or Shiia?” I answered that this is the first time I have been asked this question in my life. I was surprised by this question, as in Iraq there is no such distinction or difference. The American interrogator replied that I must answer directly the questions and not to reply outside the question. He then said that in Iraq there are Sunnis, Shiias and Kurds.

I find that intriguing. There are a number of possible (not mutually exclusive) motivations behind the interrogators’ insistence on that question. First, very likely, they did not even know the answer from the get-go; but being determined to categorize all Iraqi detainees according to their own evolving means of categorization they want to get this item clear on their records. Second, maybe they were also trying deliberately to strengthen the detainees’ degree of self-identification according to those categories?
Here is what then ensued:

    11. When I answered that I am an Iraqi Muslim, the interrogator refused to accept my answer and charged me for the following offence:
    (a) That I am anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic.
    (b) I supported the resistance
    (c) I instigated the people to oppose the occupation
    (d) That I knew the location of Osama bin Ladin
    I protested and said that Muslims and Jews descended from the same historical family. I said that I could not be in the resistance because I am a disabled person and have an injured hand.
    12. The interrogator accused me that I had injured my hand while attacking the American soldiers.

Now, when the person who translated this affidavit wrote “charged me for the following offenses”, I am assuming these were not formal charges, but rather accusations made in the context of the interrogation. But look at that first accusation there. What on earth relationship does being “anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic” have to the confrontation between the US and the Iraqis inside Iraq?
Then we have this:

    14. When I did not cooperate, the interrogator asked me whether I considered the American army as “liberator” or “occupier”. When I replied that they were occupiers, he lost his temper and threatened me. He told me that I would be sent to Guantanamo Bay where even animals would not be able to survive.

Here is a clear attempt at mind control and the destruction of Mr. Abbas’s freedom of thought and analysis, and therefore of his independent personality.
He was then taken to another part of Abu Ghraib called “Fiji Land”,:

    Each sector had five tents and surrounded by barb wires. When I was removed from the truck, the soldiers marked my forehead with the words “Big Fish” in red. All the detainees in this camp are considered “Big Fish”. I was located in camp “B”.
    18. The living conditions in the camp were very bad. Each tent would have 45 to 50 detainees and the space for each detainee measured only 30cm by 30cm. We had to wait for 2 to 3 hours just to go to the toilets. There was very little water. Each tent was given only 60 litres of water daily to be shared by the detainees. This water was used for drinking and washing and cleaning the wounds after the torture sessions. They would also make us to stand for long hours.
    19. Sometimes, as a punishment, no food is given to us. When food is given, breakfast is at 5.00 am, lunch is at 8.00 am and dinner at 1.00 pm. During Ramadhan, they bring food twice daily, first at 12.00 midnight and the second is given during fasting time to make the detainees break the religious duty of fasting.
    20. During my captivity in the camp, I was interrogated and tortured twice. Each time I was threatened that I would be sent to Guantanamo Bay prison. During this period, I heard from my fellow detainees that they were tortured by cigarette burns, injected with hallucinating chemicals and had their rectum inserted with various types of instruments, such as wooden sticks and pipes. They would return to the camp, bleeding profusely. Some had their bones broken.
    21. In my camp, I saw detainees brought over from a secret prison which I came to know later as being housed in the “Arabian Oil Institute” building, situated in the north of Baghdad. These detainees were badly injured.

So he stayed a month in those conditions… Then this:

    22. After one month and just before sunset my number was called and they put a bag over my head and my hands were tied behind my back. My legs were also tied. They then transferred me to a cell.
    23. When I was brought to the cell, they asked me in Arabic to strip but when I refused, they tore my clothes and tied me up again. They then dragged me up a flight of stairs and when I could not move, they beat me repeatedly. When I reached the top of the stairs, they tied me to some steel bars. They then threw at me human waste and urinated on me.
    24. Next, they put a gun to my head and said that they would execute me there. Another soldier would use a megaphone to shout at me using abusive words and to humiliate me. During this time, I could hear the screams of other detainees being tortured. This went on till the next morning.
    25. In the morning, an Israeli stood in front of me and took the bag from my head and told me in Arabic that he was an Israeli had interrogated and tortured detainees in Palestine. He told me that when detainees would not cooperate, they would be killed. He asked me repeatedly for names of resistance fighters. I told him that I do not know any resistance fighters but he would not believe me, and continued to beat me.
    26. This Israeli dressed in civilian clothes tortured me by inserting in turn first with a jagged wooden stick into my rectum and then with the barrel of a rifle. I was cut inside and bled profusely. During this time, when any guard walked past me, they would beat me. I had no food for 36 hours.
    27. The next morning, the Israeli interrogator came to my cell and tied me to the grill of the cell and he then played the pop song, “By the Rivers of Babylon” by Pop Group Boney M, continuously until the next morning. The effect on me was that I lost my hearing, and I lost my mind. It was very painful and I lost consciousness. I only woke up when the Israeli guard poured water on my head and face. When I regain consciousness, he started beating me again and demanded that I tell him of the names of resistance fighters and what activities that I did against the American soldiers. When I told him that I did not know any resistance fighters, he kicked me many times.
    28. I was kept in the cell without clothes for two weeks. During this time, an American guard by the name of “Grainer” accompanied by a Moroccan Jew called Idel Palm ( also known as Abu Hamid) came to my cell and asked me about my bandaged hand which was injured before I was arrested. I told him that I had an operation. He then pulled the bandage which stained with blood from my hand and in doing so, tore the skin and flesh from my hands. I was in great pain and when I asked him for some pain killers, he stepped on my hands and said “this is American pain killer” and laughed at me.
    29. On the 15th day of detention, I was given a blanket. I was relieved that some comfort was given to me. As I had no clothes, I made a hole in the centre of the blanket by rubbing the blanket against the wall, and I was able to cover my body. This is how all the prisoners cover their bodies when they were given a blanket.
    30. One day, a prisoner walked past my cell and told me that the interrogators want to speed up their investigation and would use more brutal methods of torture to get answers that they want from the prisoners. I was brought to the investigation room, after they put a bag over my head. When I entered the investigation room, they remove the bag from my head to let me see the electrical wires which was attached to an electrical wall socket. [It is a common interrogation technique to make victims see, understand, and dread what is about to come to them. ~HC]
    31. Present in the room was the Moroccan Jew, Idel Palm, the Israeli interrogator, two Americans one known as “Davies” and the other “Federick” and two others. They all wore civilian clothes, except the Americans who wore army uniforms. Idel Palm told me in Arabic that unless I cooperated, this would be my last chance to stay alive. I told him that I do not know anything about the resistance. The bag was then placed over my head again, and left alone for a long time. During this time, I heard several screams and cries from detainees who were being tortured.
    32. The interrogators returned and forcefully placed me on top of a carton box containing can food. They then connected the wires to my fingers and ordered me to stretch my hand out horizontally, and switched on the electric power. As the electric current entered my whole body, I felt as if my eyes were being forced out and sparks flying out. My teeth were clattering violently and my legs shaking violently as well. My whole body was shaking all over.
    33. I was electrocuted on three separate sessions. On the first two sessions, I was electrocuted twice, each time lasting few minutes. On the last session, as I was being electrocuted, I accidentally bit my tongue and was bleeding from the mouth. They stop the electrocution and a doctor was called to attend to me. I was lying down on the floor. The doctor poured some water into my mouth and used his feet to force open my mouth. He then remarked, “There is nothing serious, continue!” Then he left the room. However, the guard stopped the electrocution as I was bleeding profusely from my mouth and blood was all over my blanket and body. But they continued to beat me. After some time, they stopped beating me and took me back to my cell.
    34. Throughout the time of my torture, the interrogators would take photographs.
    35. I was then left alone in my cell for 49 days. During this period of detention, they stopped torturing me. At the end of the 49th day, I was transferred back to the camp, in tent C and remained there for another 45 days. I was informed by a prisoner that he over heard some guards saying that I was wrongly arrested and that I would be released.
    36. I was released in the beginning of March 2004. I was put into a truck and taken to a highway and then thrown out. A passing car stopped and took me home.

So: four and a half months’ detention, some of the most brutal and humiliating treatment one could imagine– and at the end of it all they judged he had been “wrongly arrested” and he was released without a word??
Can you imagine the treatment he would have been given if they had decided he had indeed been some kind of a ringleader?
This is how he ends:

    37. As a result of this experience, I decided to establish an association to assist all torture victims, with the help of twelve other tortured victims.
    38. I feel very sad that I have to remember and relive this horrible experience again and again, and I hope that the people will answer our call for help. God willing.
    And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 [of Malaysia].

Just a few last points from me. First, I believe it is very important to do some further probing into the role that Mr. Abbas alleges was played in his interrogation by all the other actors whom he identifies as present during the worst of the encounters, but especially by these three: the “Israeli interrogator”, the “Moroccan Jew”, and the “doctor.”
Was there really an Israeli interrogator participating in all those interrogations– or was this a ploy of deceit engaged in as a way to further terrorize the detainees? The citizens of both the US and Israel deserve to know this. (It is entirely possible it was one of the many US citizens who also carry Israeli citizenship and who may well have served in the Israeli security services.)
Was the Moroccan Jerw a citizen of Morocco and participating “on secondment” to the Americans from the Moroccan security services– services that, goodness only knows, have a long experience in doing torture? (Or maybe he was on secondment from the Israeli services?)
And the doctor??? What on earth kind of a doctor would agree to play that role of, essentially, assisting torture by helping to establish “medical” parameters for it? What kind of a doctor would behave in the way Mr. Abbas alleges that doctor acted?
Was it really a doctor, I wonder, i.e., someone who has taken an oath to “do no harm”? (There are a couple of other interesting, medical-related points in the testimony too, including the offers to “condition” treatment of Mr. Abbas’s hand on his provision of the information the interrogators sought.)
Secondly, I want to link back to this post I put up on JWN back in August 2005, in which I commented on the extremely important account that the pro-Algerian-independence French Communist Henri Alleg had written about his torture at the hands of the French Army in Algeria in 1957. That testimony was published as a little book, under the title “The Question“. I urged then that the existing English-language version of that book should be republished in full. Today I repeat that plea! In that JWN post I also copied out some of the introduction that Jean-Paul Sartre had written for Alleg’s book.
Alleg’s testimony of what he himself had suffered– including electrocution and a version of water-boarding– was bad enough. But he made sure to write that the treatment given to his fellow-detainees who did not have the “benefit” of French citizenship but were Algerian-Muslim indigenes of the country was far, far worse. (He also wrote very movingly about the degree of care his Muslim fellow-detainees would give to him after each of his torture sessions.)
Anyway, go read those portions of the Sartre text that I put in that post…
Thirdly, I want to thank Mr. Abbas for having agreed to put this testimony on the record, and to thank Faiza for getting it up onto the web. Mr. Abbas, Faiza, the organizers of the “Criminalizing War” conference in Malaysia, and any of the rest of us who seek to work further on this case should know that we may all be subjected to damaging personal attacks for any role we play in continuing to get this testimony better heard. I judge, however, that this testimony has a great degree of prima-facie credibility and deserves to be fully engaged with.
Including– directly– by members of the US Congress.