verbalresistance:

Around August 1, the uprisings in the Middle East will confront an entirely new obstacle: the fasting month of Ramadan, when many Muslims refrain from eating or drinking from sunrise until sunset.

What will the holy month mean for the civil war in Libya, the struggle between security forces and protesters in Syria, the political stalemate in Yemen, and the persistent calls for reform in Egypt?

LIBYA

Earlier this month, NATO said it would consider not bombing Libya during Ramadan if Muammar Qaddafi’s forces also honored a ceasefire, perhaps in part, the AP speculated, because the alliance worried that bombing Tripoli during the month of peace, prayer, and reflection could “provoke a backlash in the Islamic world.” France’s foreign minister, however, later indicated that NATO’s campaign would continue in August after representatives of Muslim countries told him that ”there is no contradiction between the religious rules during the Ramadan period and the continuation of our military intervention.”

Now, as AFP notes today, the Libyan rebels are asking France for arms to help them storm Tripoli within “days” as they ratchet up a “pre-Ramadan offensive” on all fronts. “During Ramadan, the endurance of even the hardiest volunteers will be tested by desert battle without food and water,” AFP writes, especially as temperatures soar. Still, it’s not clear how many fighters will actually fast. Last week, a rebel commander explained, in the words of The Washington Post, that ”Islam permits fighters to forgo fasting during Ramadan in times of war.” One rebel commander tells AFP that ”if there is fighting during Ramadan, we will fight as usual. We will not stop until we have liberated Libya.” A young rebel righter adds, “Ramadan is a good time to be a martyr.” 

Not everyone is as optimistic as these fighters, however. The Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders writes that Ramadan “has become a perilous black hole threatening to undermine” NATO’s Libya campaign. Saunders says the Ramadan dilemma is dominating conversations at NATO headquarters in Brussels and rebel headquarters in Benghazi. “With soldiers fasting all day [the rebels] will not be in a position to make major advances,” he writes, and “a month-long pause or severe slowdown could push an already tenuous campaign into outright failure or retreat, requiring many months more combat in order to return to current positions.” And as the rebels face food, fuel, and cash shortages, he adds, “there is the risk that a fasting, expectant public will abandon a rebel government whose promises of a better life fuelled by democracy and petroleum sales may begin to look hollow.”

Back in Tripoli, the state news agency JANA reported that government officials met today to guarantee that food supplies such as barley, wheat, and bananas “reach consumers as soon as possible before the start of Ramadan.” 

SYRIA

In Syria, the prevailing analysis suggests Ramadan could favor the protesters. Or, as Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounshell tweeted today, “The consensus seems to be that Ramadan (more people in mosques=demos) is bad news for Bashar.” Patrick Seale at Gulf News elaborates:

When the daytime fast is ended at sunset, the tradition is for the rich to feed the poor, often at trestle tables in the courtyards of mosques—or so it was before mosques became centres of protest. If large crowds gather next month for occasions of this sort, there could be serious trouble.

But Kal at the blog The Moor Next Door thinks Ramadan could be a mixed bag for Syrian protesters. Sectarian tensions could be inflamed by Islamist groups exploiting the holiday for political ends or Alawite-dominated security forces continuing their crackdown on Sunni protesters, he notes, adding that “regimes will be presented with extreme risk when confronting their enemies in mosques or communal festivals.” Still, he doesn’t rule out the possibility that governments in the Middle East could reach truces with opposition movements during Ramadan. “Arab regimes regularly offer pardons or commute sentences for prisoners (both ordinary and political) during Ramadan,” he points out.

YEMEN

Ahmad Saif, the director of a Sanaa-based think tank, tells The Media Line that he expects demonstrations against Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to increase during Ramadan even though they’ve recently lost momentum as Saleh recovers from surgery in Saudi Arabia. ”The demonstrations won’t occur because of religious sentiment, but simply because people will meet each other on the street,” he predicts. But Kal at The Moor Next Door warns that Islamist groups may also grow emboldened in Yemen and the Twitter account Yemen Updates points out another problem: ahead of the holy month, supplies in the country are dwindling and prices are rising. In this AP shot from Yemen, Yemeni people demonstrate against the continued presence of anti-government protesters in the capital, Sanaa. One banner reads, “Ramadan is arriving, the tent siege is still on.”

EGYPT

Earlier this week, Al Masry Al Youm reported that protesters in Tahrir Square will continue their sit-in during Ramadan. “We will take into account road congestion before breakfast when everyone is keen to return home on time, for fear that thugs will take advantage of the opportunity to spread chaos,” one organizer explained. Egyptian Twitter user Cheraz Eldin says  Egyptians “are divided of how they view Ramadan’s impact on protests. Some view it an obstacle. Others see it as ‘everyday is a Friday.’” In this post’s lead photo, an Egyptian protester decorates his tent with a traditional Ramadan lantern. This AP photo shows more decorations in Tahrir Square.

The Atlantic Wire

Check this out, this 93-page guide to toppling autocrats was posted on the Muslim Brotherhood’s website. This is just about amazing. Check it out. 

REPEAT AFTER ME: PAKISTAN IS NOT EGYPT (Source)
By Sumit Ganguly.

Will Pakistan go the way of Tunisia and Egypt? Are we on the verge of witnessing throngs of discontented Pakistanis storming the streets of Islamabad and Karachi seeking an end to a wobbly democratic regime with an ever-attentive military establishment keeping a tight leash on its extraordinary privileges?

It’s not completely fanciful. Some key similarities do exist between Pakistan and Tunisia and Egypt. Obviously, they are predominantly Muslim countries, they have all experienced long periods of authoritarian rule, they have significant military establishments, and they are all U.S. allies to varying degrees. Despite the willingness of their political elites to work with the United States, especially on the “war on terror,” significant segments of their populace remain either hostile toward or suspicious of the United States.

These common features might well lead some to conclude that Pakistan could be on the precipice of a political upheaval, and indeed, Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, was recently forced to defend against the comparisons.Despite these seemingly compelling similarities, it is unlikely that Pakistan will witness a societywide political uprising that will challenge the existing political order.

Pakistan did see street demonstrations of some force that helped contribute to the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf in 2008. On that occasion, a large cross section of Pakistan’s legal community spearheaded the movement to unseat him. Yet Musharraf’s resignation, while paving the way to more free and fair elections, did not lead to any fundamental changes in Pakistan’s political order. The country’s constitution remained in place, familiar political figures contested the elections, and the prerogatives of the security establishment remained intact. Consequently, the street protests, though widespread, were almost completely focused on the removal of Musharraf from political office and little else.

Indeed, previous military dictators did resign as a consequence of extensive political disenchantment with their rules. (The most notable example is Ayub Khan, who resigned in 1969, upon facing growing opposition to his regime in the wake of an inconclusive war with India in 1965 and the subsequent sputtering of economic growth.) Yet the end of these regimes did not usher in democracy. Instead, Yahya Khan, another senior military officer, seized political power. It was only in the aftermath of the disastrous and bloody civil war in East Pakistan — now Bangladesh — in 1971, which invited Indian intervention and led to the breakup of Pakistan, that a fundamental shift took place in the country’s political dispensation. Following the breakup of the country, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto helped fashion a new democratic constitution in 1973.

Since then Pakistan has witnessed two military coups — in 1977 and in 1999 — but the constitutional order has remained mostly intact. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq, the military dictator who overthrew and subsequently executed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, did pass some draconian laws, but he did not seek to draft a new constitution.

Why has Pakistan not seen, and is unlikely to see, street demonstrations of the order that have swept aside the regime in Tunisia and now threatens the one in Egypt? The reasons are complex. Despite the elements that Pakistan has in common with both those states, there are important differences. Pakistanis have enjoyed, for varying lengths of time, the advantages of democratic, civilian rule even though they have yet to vote an elected government out of power. The all-powerful military apparatus has frequently stepped in when it has deemed that the civilian regime has either proved to be unstable or breached some invisible but nevertheless real boundaries. Despite the tenuousness of democratic regimes, they are not unknown in Pakistan, as they are in Tunisia and Egypt.

Separately, thanks to spasmodic experiences with democracy, Pakistan has a working judiciary. It is not always completely independent, but it is also not a plaything of existing regimes. Consequently, on occasion it has sought, however feebly, to assert its opinions. Most recently, Musharraf’s attempt to tame what he deemed was an unpredictable chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, provoked the wrath of the judiciary and led to the undoing of his regime. While the judiciary in Egypt had acquired a modicum of hard-won independence from the time of President Anwar Sadat, the same cannot be said for the courts in Tunisia.

Along with periodic, if not regular elections and a quasi-independent judiciary, Pakistan also has viable political parties. Internal democracy in these parties may be sorely lacking, but they do provide avenues for political association and mobilization. In a related vein, Pakistan has also seen the emergence of an incipient, albeit still miniscule, civil society. In Tunisia civil society has been anemic and in Egypt increasingly beleaguered.

Finally, even though it remains highly uneven in quality of reporting, Pakistan does have a free press. Indeed, some columnists and commentators have often displayed extraordinary courage in challenging the positions of the existing regime and have even dared to criticize the security establishment on particular occasions, something that rarely seemed to happen in Egypt and Tunisia. The Committee to Protect Journalists described press freedoms in Egypt as “deplorable” in 2010, and another press-monitoring organization characterized Tunisia as one of the “most repressive” conditions for journalists.

The existence of these institutions — elections, the judiciary, political party system, and a relatively free press — has enabled Pakistan to survive successive waves of sectarian violence, economic distress, political assassinations, and social instability in various parts of the country. Today even as the nation faces multiple social and economic cleavages and routine political instability, it can still cling to its anemic institutions with some hope. For most Pakistanis, the current political structure, though hardly felicitous, is preferable to a societywide struggle to usher in a new but entirely unknown political order. Pakistan’s political future is far from stable, but it is highly unlikely to go the way of Tunisia or Egypt.

Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science, is the director of research at the Center on American and Global Security at Indiana University, Bloomington.

Washington (CNN) — Keeping track of the rapidly changing situation in Egypt over the last few days proved remarkably difficult for American officials who seemed to learn of Hosni Mubarak’s resignation Friday as the rest of the world did, because communications with Egyptian counterparts were few and far between, officials told CNN.

President Barack Obama learned of the resignation when he was passed a note with the news during a regularly scheduled meeting in the Oval Office, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. He then watched TV coverage of the scene in Cairo for several minutes in the outer Oval Office, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Gibbs was coy about whether that was the first indication for Obama that the announcement was coming.

“I don’t want to get into what other — what other information he might have gotten,” Gibbs told reporters when asked at the Friday White House briefing.

But Gibbs said that since Mubarak’s Thursday speech there were signals things were not settled.

” I think that throughout the morning we had gotten — and into (Thursday) night — gotten indications that the last speeches may not have been given, and the last changes, particularly (Friday) morning … with everybody reporting that there would be a statement from the office of the president,” Gibbs said.

Obama did not talk to Mubarak or Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman prior to the announcement, Gibbs said.

Diplomatic channels between the United States and Egypt over the past 24 hours have been somewhat blocked. As of Friday morning, reaching members of the Egyptian government was impossible, presumably because the government was preoccupied with its internal deliberations, a U.S. official said. U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey did have some contact with the Egyptian foreign ministry.

Diplomacy between the countries has been effectively cut off, said a Republican congressman familiar with the administration’s efforts. The congressman briefed reporters Friday afternoon on the condition they not use his name.

“It’s been very difficult to get information through normal diplomatic channels given the rapid changes. And you can imagine, they don’t want to sit down with an American right now when they’ve got their whole world kind of collapsing on them as we speak,” the congressman said.

The White House spokesman admitted officials were led to believe Mubarak would have something different to say on Thursday.

“I think it is safe to say that the very same contacts that we have in Egypt are some of the very same contacts that many of you all had that seemed to tell everyone that a different speech might be what we would hear,” Gibbs said to reporters about Mubarak’s speech on Thursday night.

Despite strong relations between the U.S. and Egyptian militaries, by all accounts Pentagon officials were not given advanced warning about the announcement that included the military taking over the government, officials said Friday. U.S. military officers are close to many in the Egyptian military, which has sent many officers to train at U.S. military academies.

After Mubarak announced Thursday he was staying in office but handing over powers to his vice president, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke with his Egyptian counterpart, Defense Minister Mohammed Tantawi, Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said Friday. It was the fifth conversation the two had since the start of the crisis.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke by phone Thursday night to the Egyptian military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Sami Hafez Enan, according to Mullen spokesman Capt John Kirby. It was the first time Mullen and Enan had talked since the weekend.

While neither spokesman would divulge details of the conversations, sources told CNN that it appears neither Gates or Mullen were given a heads-up in those evening phone calls.

Mubarak’s decision not to step down Thursday seemed to take the administration by surprise, with many officials in the administration, and the Egyptian government suggesting he would step down from power that night.

Sitting at a congressional hearing, CIA Director Leon Panetta, created instant headlines and breaking news when he told the House intelligence committee that “there is a strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down” Thursday evening. Less noticed was his effort to retract that certainty 45 minutes later.

“Let me say, just to make very clear here, I received reports that possibly Mubarak might do that, we are continuing to monitor the situation, we have not gotten specific word that he would do that,” Panetta told the committee.

A U.S. intelligence official insisted that Panetta was referring to press reports about the anticipation that Mubarak was stepping down.

The intelligence community had been under immense pressure, criticized by Congress for not properly anticipating the events in Egypt. But the events Thursday and Friday were fast-paced, a U.S. official said, and changing throughout the day in ways that even spying and diplomacy cannot penetrate.

“There were many indications, including on CNN, that he would exit the scene,” a U.S. official said. “It’s entirely impossible to get into the head of one man who seems to be making all of the decisions,” the official said. “People like Hosni Mubarak are capable of changing their minds.”

(SOURCE)

Hahahaha, justice is served. 

Dear Hosni Mubarak, 

I don’t know what makes you such a fucking special dictator but the golden rule is take the money and run. Don’t stick around. Better leaders than you have gone that path and ended up dead. There is nothing special about you. You’re just a douchebag. Step down, take Omar Suleiman with you, and let there be an election.

Love,
Zainab 

 The Lede continues to follow the protest movement in Egypt, now in its third week. For a summary of new developments, read today’s main news article from our colleagues in Cairo. Updates below mix alerts on breaking news with reports from bloggers and journalists in Egypt. A stream of Twitter updates on the protests is in this blog’s right column.

10:15 A.M. | BBC Reports Mubarak Move Is ‘Being Discussed’

Lyse Doucet, a BBC correspondent in Cairo, reports on Twitter that she has just spoken with Hossam Badrawy, the secretary-general of the Mubarak regime’s National Democratic Party, and he said that Mr. Mubarak will “probably” speak tonight and he “hopes” that the president will hand over his powers to his vice president, Omar Suleiman. Ms. Doucet added that Dr. Badrawy, “confirmed it’s being discussed.”

10:03 A.M. | Mubarak Could Step Aside Tonight, Report Says

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak could step aside as soon as tonight and delegate his powers to his new vice president, a senior member of the Egypt’s ruling party told Britain’s Channel 4 News minutes ago.

Lindsey Hilsum, a Channel 4 News correspondent in Cairo, reported via Twitter that Hossam Badrawy, the new secretary-general of the Mubarak regime’s National Democratic Party, “just told me he expects President Mubarak to pass his powers to his vice president tonight,” in a televised address. She added that Dr. Badrawy “told me in three meetings yesterday and phone call today he convinced President Mubarak to pass powers to” Omar Suleiman, the intelligence chief he appointed vice president days into the protests.

Dr. Badrawy is an influential figure within the party. He is considered a reformer and was formerly close to Gamal Mubarak, the president’s son and presumed heir. This week, he personally accompanied Wael Ghonim, a protest organizer released after 12 days in custody, back to his home.

(SOURCE)

[@BorowitzReport:   I keep hearing that the US has a “lack of good options” in #Egypt. That actually sounds like democracy in the US.]