On The Irony of National Security: The Case of Zeina Arafa

About two or three days ago, I was sitting on the couch watching "Al-Ashera Masa'an", a famous program that airs at 10 pm. Usually I do not watch the television, especially Egyptian talk-shows or programs, well for obvious, and for this particular post unimportant, reasons.

A prominent issue that took the stage was the case of a girl called Zeina Arafa, aged 5, raped and thrown off the 11th floor in Port Said. What mattered at the time was not the case itself because it occurred several months prior in November. It was the court's verdict that was given to the two animals who committed such atrocious act. 15 years for each. Each 15 years. 15 YEARS.

Granted, they both did not exceed the 18 years old mark to be fully indicted and eventually executed. All that because our esteemed government signed a certain international binding agreement that prevents us from dealing with the assailants of such acts to the limit of execution. They are, in other words, considered children in the eyes of the government.

Let me put it this way. Is that case not considered national security issue? Do we only consider riots and university protests as the only sources of national threat? Do we have to take to the streets to be called enemies of the state? In my book, I am afraid not.

What I sensed is that one's life in Egypt is too invaluable after what I have heard and seen. One cannot proclaim that he lives in a safe country if his own safety is endangered. National security is a bit broad for a simple man to understand. It deals with strategy, tactics and governance. Personal safety is when one feels that he can walk and roam the streets without fear of being robbed or molested.

So what I wanted to shed light on is, if two individuals, however their ages might be, can do such an ungodly act, get 15 years, while others get more than that for "threatening national security," it is in fact ironic.

The show host posed a pretty simple, and unmistakably viable, question. If those two boys walked out of prison before their time because of good conduct, say in 8 or 9 years, can this be considered time served in relevance to their crime?

I dare to say that when they heard the court's verdict, they were silently happy. In fact, they might have been prepared for this, given the aforementioned legislative laws.

What would make others in their age not perform such acts? "Hey, see that girl over there, let's go talk to her." "But we might get into prison." " It's only 15 years."

15 years is not short by the way for all you out there. But if we are to impose a proper civic society, we might as well be able to ensure the safety of Man, before the safety of society. We should be building the pyramid from down upwards, not vice versa. The problem in Egypt is not the recurring protests or violent clashes. It is not the biased media and weak institutional basis. The problem is within the person himself.




If I am not governed, I can do whatever I want. Simple as that.

On Conspiracy Theory: A Response To A Fellow Conspirator

This post will be mainly responding to a blog post written by a dear friend of mine Adam Woodard. If you would like to read his blogs please go to: http://politicmusing.blogspot.com/. The post can be found at the top of the blog.

Well I will not be as eloquent as my friend in his writing, but I hope my message would be conveyed properly.

First of all I agree with most of his post, as his argument is not stated until the latter part of the post (Particularly the last two paragraphs), on which I slightly disagree. He says that conspiracy theories provide an alternative version of a certain issue, so to speak. In other words, they sustain a number of answers without one being THE answer. But the question is, do we have to abide by one? Must we pertain to certain criteria for answering a question?

Conspiracy theories, like my friend said, address unquestioned areas of a certain issue. They do so because some people refuse to let particular facts, information, etc. out in public for a number of security, national or societal reasons. However, they who ignite those theories play on a very basic ground. A common denominator that appeases human beings' curiosity. What If?

Now what if is a very dangerous question in any shape or form. This simple question can raise civilizations or ruin them. Conspiracy theories are like that. They question the reliability of given sets of facts. It is a purely democratic way to address the credible essence of them. Take the JFK assassination issue for example. It is widely acknowledged as the 'Holy Grail' of conspiracy theories. Their Pandora's Box. We all agree that Kennedy was assassinated. But what if the government was in on it? What if it wants to hide something from the populace in fear of resentment or protest? That is what they essentially do.

Governments want their populace like sheep, blind sheep even. Until the fox comes along and eats them. Ironically, and that is the beauty of freedom of speech, no one stops or prevents those theories from coming into the picture. Partly because of democratic institutionalism, but mostly because fear of people's anger. A prominent conspiracy theory advocate is Jesse Ventura. He hosts a number of programs, one of which is called Conspiracy Theory. Let us say the government tries to arrest him for misleading the population. People will take to the streets in protest of such action, even if they do not agree with his opinions. They would do that simply out of respect for him for offering several outcomes and answers. Questioning everything.

Adam said in the last paragraph : ''but if the conspiracy theorists underwent the same scrutiny that the media does there'd be a lot less of them.'' I would go on to say that if the government respects its citizenry and provides reliable and credible sources, conspiracy theorists would not exist at all. In some parts of the world, and surely Adam would agree, if you say anything other than the government's perspective, you will be arrested, executed or exiled, let alone provide a conspiracy theory. He also states that they are called theories for a reason. He means that they are also questionable. But what if the information that the government provides are in essence mere theories? And what the actual theories are trying to do is to give us light and illumination? To think first, not to act. To hold plausibility and accountability.

This was by no means a counter-argument, because he would simply win. I have known him long enough to not to debate with him, let alone refute his writings. This was simply a continuation of his train of thought that, I would like to think, he might have cut on purpose. Maybe to raise a conspiracy theory??

ACT II: A Documentary named "The Square" (Final Act)

They began to think of hows and whys. How were they allowed entrance to a movie that is simply not there. And above all, a ticket for 200 Egyptian pounds. Understandingly, they were mentally ready to kick the usher's face, for a lot of apparent reasons. Again, the cinema hall is empty with no bystanders, moviegoers or even cinema personnel, which drove them even crazier. Only the usher, " Which we gave the money to," was in his designated place. They wanted to let him share a piece of their thoughts.


X: (As usual, with unpretentious, unwilling manner) Hey you, where is the goddamn movie we paid for?

The usher does not seem to be moving or even fluttering his eyes.

X: (He moves towards the usher's kiosk in a way to make eye contact with him) Am I not talking to you?  (He said with a forceful voice) All of a sudden you're deaf. Oh, I got it. You're only focused when there are 400 POUNDS SITTING ON THE COUNTER.

Y: (With calm) You are not letting him speak, you're just yelling and it won't help. (Turning his posture towards the usher) Is there some kind of mechanical failure, or is it just the guard playing a hoax on us?

The usher remains in his mental zone of unresponsive behavior. He only pointed towards something or someone behind their backs. A bit strange they thought and rude. They turned around, not out of fear which might be a factor in this weird cinema hall, but out of curiosity. Two tall men stood behind them in suits and ties. It was as if a scene from the movie "Men In Black". 

Y: (With unheard before sarcasm) What are you going to do? Neuralyze us? ( X and Y began to laugh hysterically)

Man In Black I:  (Conviction in his attitude) Please come with us.

X: Yeah and we are supposed to follow you with daffodils in our minds. (He turns to the usher) Give us back our money and let us get out of here.

Man In Black II: I think it is better for you both if you come with us.

Y: Or what?

MIB I and II start to slowly raise their guns from their holsters in a way to say "You better come with us or it will get nasty down here." At the same moment, a car just squealed its tires just outside the entrance, ready for its next pickup. X and Y knew that they had been entrapped. Either we go with them or get shot. As simple as that. Both of them headed inside the car and then the MIBs followed. The car then went on its way.

The car was big enough to have them all in it comfortably. But what drew their attention was that the MIBs began to dismantle what is apparently their "plastic made guns". 

Y: Of all people, why us? (Saying it to himself)

X: This is not the appropriate question my friend. The question is why did we pay 400 pounds for a lousy documentary? Oh, I forgot. There is none.

Y: Would you shut up already. I have had enough of it all. (He shifts his sight towards his abductors) May I ask why is this all? Obviously you are no government officials or even security personnel. Who are you?

MIB II: Always having this labelling problem. You have to categorize. For now, you can call us "Do Gooders"  Ordinary people.

X:  Yeah, ordinary people flashing guns at peaceful civilians. That's refreshing.

MIB I: The purpose of this all is to enlighten you. As you have been assured by our toy guns, we mean you no harm. They were just a method of force. A tool. And you were successfully fooled by their usage.

Y: Enlighten us? What are we to you? Children perhaps?

X: Wait wait, I get it. You are those guys who turn up and perform tricks and pranks on people on the street. Very elaborate, yet funny. Now get us the hell out of this car.

MIB I: We are not any kind of hoax makers or any of that nonsense.

MIB II: (Sounding more serious now) What do you think of the January Revolution that took place in 2011?

Y: (Giving in to the situation at hand at last) Well, I think it was meant to be. Had to be done even.

MIB II: And you? (Asking X)

X: I'm no political analyst or anything but I guess something had to be done for a change. Anything actually.

MIB I: And I suppose that, by logic, change has to occur with certain compromises. A give and take kind of situation.

X: Yeah so?..

MIB II: Do you know how many martyrs died in the revolution?

Both shook their heads without an answer.

MIB I: Do you know that up until now, nothing was achieved of the revolution's main objectives? The martyrs' names are voiced in every interview, newspaper and T.V. program and nothing was made for their families. A commodity to bargain with for elections and political leverage.

X: (Saying to his friend Y with ridicule) Go ahead Mr. "I know the Revolution". Respond to those questions. "I read everything about the revolution" (Mocking him)

Y: I never...

MIB II: Do you really think that reading about it would make you both experts on it? Is it some contest for you to get ahead in?

Y: Look, we lived abroad most of our lives, but we are Egyptians first and foremost.

MIB II: Yeah well that tells a lot about you both.

X: Meaning what?

MIB I: Well for starters you paid 200 pounds each for movie tickets.

X: How did you know about that?

MIB II: Because we own the place. We priced the tickets.

Y: But why this price? I mean we did not protest the charge in the first place, but come to think of it, it is a hefty price tag for a cinema ticket.

By the time he finished the sentence, the car slowly stopped. It seems we arrived to our destination,they thought. They lowered the window. They saw what felt like Tahrir Square. 

Y: Why did you bring us here?

MIB I: People say that to say something is totally different from doing it or living it. As much as you read, you will never know the truth. As much as you listen or hear, you will never be able to sustain any reliable source.

X: (Sarcasm) That's the whole point of it yeah.

Y: But why again the 200 pounds ticket?

MIB II: Just to make you feel, even for a second, what the martyrs did and sacrificed for their country.

MIB I: We brought you both here for you to know that media, books and newspapers are not the only medium of knowledge. We also do not claim knowledge of it all either. But opening CNN and reading about it does not make you an expert for that matter.

Y: Yes, you are right. But we could not possibly re-live it again. I mean the whole thing.

MIB I: That's true. That is why we will take the 400 pounds and donate it for an organisation that supports the injured in the revolution. To make you feel that it was worth it.

X: (With humility) Now I feel ashamed of myself.

MIB II: You should not be. You are an Egyptian after all.

X and Y shook hands with the MIBs and thanked them. They got out of the car and soon the car was unseen in the Cairo traffic.

Y: Tahrir square was never this beautiful in the television or on the internet.

X: (Sarcasm) Do you mean it was photo-shopped?

Y: No, silly. I mean it really is beautiful.

Both of them begin to think of the past three years and the conversation they just had with the "Do Gooders". Strange as it was, but it was greatly mind-opening. Then X leaned towards his friend, eyeballing him. 

X: You know what; we should have entered that Sylvester Stallone movie.

They began to laugh loudly.





For the first Act, please go to: http://yahiagweifel.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-imaginary-act.html

On The Changing Projection of One's Self

It must have been noticeable over the years that one cannot be the same person for so many long, even if he wants to inhabit the same ideals and thoughts that he grew up by.

Humans are in constant motion and change, and so are their personalities. However, it can be argued that one does not know of his changing status instantly. Nor will he be able to see himself as a different person from within. He would like to grab people's attention to accentuate his own self-esteem and self-image.

Better yet, he might be questioning change in a negative way, thus hoping for some constructive words to help his low self-confidence.

But what if those people whom he seeks for aid, are not what they seem? What if they are the cynical, unworthy type of humans?

For example, when someone who once was fit and thin. After years he started to gain weight for some reason and became fat and chubby. Would people perceive him as the same person he was several years ago? I think not. They would appear calm and supportive. Restrained and collected. Yet deep down they are eye-balling him. How did he gain all that weight? How did he become so ugly? I used to like this guy a lot. He was the best looking boy in college, now he is just an outcast.

Or a girl who was raped by a guy in an alley. Or a guy whose hair is receding or balding. Or a football player turned drug fiend.

The degradation of such behavior is definitely worth delving into. It is fascinating how human attitudes can shape themselves in reaction to external transformation, for better or worse. Let us say for example that I was badly treated in my childhood for whatever reasons. One day I attain a powerful position. The same people who mistreated me are in the front lines to beg for mercy, and of course for personal services.

It is amazing how people can change through change if you know what I mean. People are reactionary by nature in my opinion. They wait. They do not take initiative unless it is calculated and well-organized. They measure risks and consequences. If I can use you for my own want then I will. If you are not of personal benefit then what good are you? Friends are rare in this world. Everybody is looking after himself, even in families.

The unimaginative minds of people only see the material things in the human being, not his spirit. I used to have this kind of perception at times. If I dress right, I will be dealt with respect and admiration. If I just do not wear the right shoes, I will be blatantly attacked. All for what?

When will the time of mind over matter come again and precede over the impermanent?

I know as I am writing this that the same people who will read this post will think " Yes it is very harsh what the world has come to", are the same people I am talking about. Even I had those thoughts and I do not live in denial.

Regretfully speaking, nothing will progress in that aspect. It is a God given nature in us. Greed, Denial, Pity, Gossip.

Hopefully speaking, people who would read this post would realize that even though we are flawed, even though we made mistakes, we still strive for betterment and perseverance. That we own up to our mistakes.

That you who are reading this now say: "Yes I fall into this category of people"