Arab Regimes 91

Live From Egypt: The True Face of the Mubarak Regime
Sharif Kouddous
February 2, 2011 

Editor’s note: This piece is cross-posted at Democracy Now!
 
February 2, Cairo, Egypt—The Mubarak regime launched a brutal and coordinated campaign of violence today to take back the streets of Cairo from Egypt’s mass pro-democracy movement.Pro-Mubarak mobs began gathering near Tahrir Square shortly after Mubarak’s speech on Tuesday night and held a rally in front of the state TV building on Corniche El Nile Street. In the morning, they began marching around the downtown area in packs of fifty to 100.

These were not the same kinds of protesters that have occupied Tahrir for the last few days. These crowds were made up mostly of men, in between 20 and 45 years old. Many wore thick leather jackets with sweaters underneath. They chanted angrily in support of Mubarak and against the pro-democracy movement. They were hostile and intimidating.

They repeatedly cursed Al Jazeera, asking cameramen at the scene if they worked for the Arabic news network. One man drew his finger across his throat to signal his intentions.

By midday their numbers had swelled dramatically and they began pouring into the downtown area heading straight for Tahrir Square. The army, which had encircled Tahrir since Saturday, simply let them in. The pro-democracy protesters inside formed a human chain inside to try and hold the mob at bay. Utilizing their greater numbers, they initially succeeded in pushing them back nonviolently and appeared to have them in full retreat. But then, the mob attacked.

“Suddenly, rocks started falling out of the sky,” said Ismail Naguib, a witness at the scene. “Rocks were flying everywhere. Everywhere.” Many people were hit. Some were badly cut, others had arms and legs broken. The mob then charged in; some rode on horseback and camels, trampling and beating people. Groups of them gathered on rooftops around Tahrir and continued to pelt people with rocks.

“It’s a massacre,“ said Selma al-Tarzi as the attack was ongoing. “They have knives, they are throwing molotov bombs, they are burning the trees, they are throwing stones at us… this is not a demonstration anymore, this is war.”

Some of the attackers were caught. Their IDs showed them to be policemen dressed in civilians clothes. Others appeared to be state-sponsored “baltagiya” (gangs) and government employees. “Instead of uniformed guys trying to stop you from protesting, you’ve got non-uniformed guys trying to stop you from protesting,” Naguib said.

Meanwhile, pro-Mubarak crowds blocked all the entrances to Tahrir Square. They chanted angrily and pushed people back trying to get in. The army was complicit in the siege, preventing anyone, including journalists, from entering. The attack inside continued for several hours. At least 600 were injured, and one man was killed.

Egypt’s popular uprising has come under a heavy and brutal assault nine days after it began. This is the true face of the US-backed Mubarak regime, the one that has repressed the Egyptian people for so many years. But this time, the whole world is watching.

While many pro-democracy demonstrators have left Tahrir for the safety of their homes, a significant number remain inside, vowing not to leave until Mubarak does. It remains to be seen how the protesters will respond, but Friday, when another mass demonstration is scheduled, will undoubtedly be a decisive day.

Sharif Kouddous

The deliberate ambiguity and equivocation by the Obama administration shows exactly where Obama stands on the crisis in Egypt. He calls for an “orderly transition”, what does that mean? Is the emphasis on “orderly”, is “orderly” more important than “transition”, is “stability” more important than democratic change? He calls for transition now, what does “transition” mean? Does that mean that Mubarak give up the reins of power now, or does it mean that he serve out his term without seeking re-election? Isn’t Mubarak feeding off the ambiguity of those words? Isn’t Mubarak saying that an orderly transition means that the protestors must get off the street and let the process that he has set into action (that he will be leaving at the end of his term) take place. Isn’t he interpreting “transition now” to mean that leaving at the end of his term is “transition now”? Aren’t his thugs claiming that they are for stability, i.e. “order”. Obama has said nothing of significance about events in Egypt; he has been ambiguous, using the need for diplomacy as a cover for his lack of support for the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people. It used to be said – If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Obama, by wanting to continue the foreign policy in the region without real reform, is definitely part of the problem.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158235/live-egypt-true-face-mubarak-regime