Mideast Youth » Taboos

Saudi Tweep Escapes

Aalia (Saudi Arabia) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:26:41 +0000

Hamza Kashgari, a young journalist has caused a wide anger among Saudis when tweeting on the Mawlid (the Holy Prophet’s birthday). His tweets included his opinions about the prophet, how he’s equal to him and how he hated some of his characteristics.
Many Saudis were outraged and started a hashtag #hamzahKashghri where they’ve accused him of blasphemy, atheism and apostasy; some asked for his head. Moreover, Some prominent sheikhs like al awdah and others were furious and demanded for his punishment. Others filed for a law suit against him which made the Minister of Information ban him from writing in Saudi Arabia.
Hamza has apologized on his account and even issued an official apology where he acknowledged his mistake and how he hadn’t meant it the way it came out but it wasn’t accepted. While many have defended him after his apology and said it was a misunderstanding, the majority still wouldn’t forgive him and demanded for his prosecution. It was reported that he has escaped to a Southeast Asian country after issuing a court order against him.
UPDATE: He has been detained in Malaysia.

Series of “No To Compulsory Recruitment” articles – Part 2: Why are we Against Conscription?

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:58:54 +0000

1- Because it’s a continuation of slavery system, because it forces the citizens against their will, to do works they didn’t choose, also unpaid… The state doesn’t have the right to force the individuals to do any works without their desire.
Even when we read the history, we know that recruitment appeared at the first time in the new age, along with the movement to liberate slaves. At that time when the feudalists freed the slaves, they made a condition on slaves to serve part of their lives in recruitment… This proves the idea the recruitment is a continuation of slavery system.
2- Because it’s a system of forced labor… Forced labor is forcing the free citizens to work without a fair payback… How does the state take from its youth 3 years of their lives, without a reasonable salary appropriate for the risk and importance of the job which they do?
3- Because we are in a state of peace for more than 35 years and we don’t need to recruit all the numbers of who are currently recruited… If we were at war, recruitment becomes justified, but what’s the use of it at the time of peace? Why does the state spend all that money on those recruits for no need? Isn’t it better to direct that money in favor of development, education reform and combating unemployment?
4- Because the concepts of armies and militarism have changed in the whole world, the armies aren’t measured by its numbers anymore, but by the efficiency of its soldiers, their experience and their desire to combat, by the progress of weapons and the equipment they have… We want to have a small army of professional, well trained having the newest weapons. This is better than having a big army dragged from the reserve directly to the front, fighting with wooden rifles.
5- Because the current recruiting system is racial, differentiating between citizens based on gender, religion, the age of the father, the gender of siblings, the second citizenship and the citizenship of the parents… We want one law applied on all citizens without discrimination between them.
6- Because it reduces the Gross domestic product (DGP)… In other words, if we assumed that the producing age for the citizen is about 40 years (from 20 to 60 years old), when the state takes 3 years of them (about 10%) wasting them in the army, this means that we lose 10% of our GDP without any logical justification… If conscription was abolished, the youth are going to exploit that period in building their careers, consequently, about 10% increase in the GDP, this would lead to an increase in supply against the demand on goods, this would lead to a decrease in prices and a reduction in inflation.
7- Because it gives authority for militarists over civilians, while this contradicts the idea of the civic state… The true civic state is the state that militarists in it have not any authority over civilians, but the laws of conscription give militarists the authority over civilians in the mobilization, the traveling permission and in military trials… We are against all the forms of the authority of militarists over civilians.
8- Because we believe-in the right for citizens to choose, we believe-in that the peoples are mature and can decide their destiny by themselves, we believe-in that we don’t need one militarist of the army to impose his guardianship on us and tells us that this is in your interest and this is not in your interest… We see that any law enforced has to stem from the people, and any law which was enforced through undemocratic establishments is an illegal law.
9- Because according to some statics, there exists about 8 million Egyptians who paid the fine for the evasion of recruitment, which means that about 30% of the adult males have evaded the military service, and this is a number which reveals that the Egyptian people don’t believe-in the importance of conscription, and that the people see that as long as we are at a time of peace, then the state isn’t in need for us in the army… This isn’t a deficiency in patriotism or anything, because after the defeat of 1967, many Egyptians volunteered in the army by themselves, and the volunteers were a big percentages of the combating forces in 1973.
10- Because recruitment takes away the political rights of recruits, which means the recruit loses his rights to nomination or elections during the period of his presence in the army, all that and he’s inside the army against his consent, so how the state forces someone on the national service and at the same time taking of him his right to election?
11- Because the ones who didn’t do their military service are banned from practicing their political activity, and this contradicts the constitution which explicitly states that the state has to ensure equal opportunities between citizens to reach the positions of authority.
Related links:
* No to Compulsory Military Recruitment – an overview – (page)
* Series of “No To Compulsory Recruitment” articles – Part 1: Conscription System and it’s Legal Framework
* No To Compulsory Recruitment: 3: The Unconstitutionality of Conscription

Map for conscription in the world:-

Green: No armed forces
Blue: No enforced conscription
Orange: Plan to abolish conscription in the near future
Red: Conscription (notice that European countries which have conscription don’t mistreat recruits and acknowledge conscientious objection to refuse recruitment)

Series of “No To Compulsory Recruitment” articles – Part 1: Conscription System and it’s Legal Framework

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:53:19 +0000

The military service in Egypt is regulated by the law of the military and national service, (law number 172, year 1980) with its amendments.
The law simply includes:
- A compulsory military service for Egyptian males (without females)
- Females are legally obliged to perform the public service (in a civilian establishment not in the army), but practically speaking most of the females don’t perform the public service, and no harms happen to them as a result of not performing the public service.
- The conscription period for a male youth varies between one year to 3 years, depending on the qualification and the grade that the youth is recruited in.
- The age of conscription is 18 years old, taking into consideration delaying the military service for students till they finish their studies.
- There are a group of reasons which the youth can be exempted from conscription, based on most importantly the medical and the social reasons (as the death of the father or his disability to work or being on pension).
- As soon as the recruit is recruited he becomes a militarist person, many of his civilian rights are dropped (as his political rights), also during his recruitment period, the law of military provisions is applied to him, and he is tried before a military judicature (not the civilian judicature).

The legal framework
The relationship between civilians and militarists in Egypt is regulated by a group of important legislations, which most of them have a relation with the recruitment:
1- The Egyptian constitution (the constitution of the year 1972): in some articles related to the armed forces (180, 181, 182, 183), and the article related to police (184), the article related to recruitment (58) and the article related to the veterans (15).
2- The law for the military and the national service (the law number 127 for the year 1980).
3- The law of military provisions (which regulates the military judicature and its provisions).
4- The law banning publishing any information on the armed forces (the law number 313 for the year 1956, the amended by the law number 14 for the year 1967).
5- The law for exercising of political rights (the articles related to seizing the political rights to members of the armed forces and articles related to seizing the political rights to the ones who didn’t perform their military service).

Map for conscription in the world:-

Sexphobia and Islam

M. Mohamed (Iraq/Palestine) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:44:17 +0000

I recently found myself interested in the roles of women in Islamic (Arab) societies. There is no doubt that women are extremely oppressed with everything that makes them human being shunned away and buried by overuling men. I even found some Islamic scholars who believe that it is haram for a Muslim women to have an orgasm with her husband. Can you believe this? A human being denied the most satisfying physical pleasure with their own spouse?? While a man can orgasm all he wants… What is this obsession and sex phobia that drives the religious leaders of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Yemen to cover up women from head to toe, make it socially immoral to even look at a women, haram touch a women even if you were going to give her change or something at a store and your hands touched, and there are even imams who say women should not talk in a manner that is soft and feminine as to arouse the male horndogs of the middle east. So what is the root of this sex phobia?

Nobody really knows, but it probably can probably be rooted in Pre-Islamic middle east. Women in that society were considerably stronger, emotionally and mentally than other women of that time. (Do you think there would be female business women like Khadija now??… I dont think so). It has been postulated before that women would often initiate sex with their husbands and would have very satisfying sex lives, but this increase power in the bedroom could perhaps lead to increased power in society. Now this is merely my own speculation (but how it happened isnt really that important because its undeniable that women were more powerful sexually and mentally in pre-islamic middle east) but i think that in an attempt to lower women’s status in society and make them weak and subservient, the big players during Islam’s early days created rules, some of them added to the Quran perhaps and others said by scholars that became part of regular life for women and men….and thus we are now in the 21 century.

This has huge implications for Arabs and people in the middle east as it always has. This sex phobia has created a society of super horny 17 and 18 year olds that jump at the intital chance to get married to anybody just because they are dying to have sex. I have a female cousin (she hasnt told me that sex was the reason but its pretty obvious) who got married at 18 and then divorced a year later because she said the guy was an asshole. There are other women (and men) who went through the same thing. They hold of sex their whole life, dying to have physical contact of any kind with the opposite sex, they marry, have sex, and within 2 years they are divorced because they actually had the ability to think now that they werent superhorny anymore. Sexphobia also leads to an immense obession with sex. Yes..OBSESSION. These people are so sex deprived that they are looking for any excuse to talk about sex, usually ways to make it less noticable and more haram, but nonetheless, they are looking for any excuse to talk about sex. This is not the way to raise a healthy society, and it does not “honour” women, it degrades them by covering them up and making them afraid of men, it destroys their intellect since they are not taught to be independent at all and it leads to generations of 21 year olds who are already divorced and living in their parents’ flat.

Yes to Peace for Egypt

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:28:01 +0000

Yes to Peace
for Egypt
Before it is for Israel

When Ismail Sidqi pasha refused that Egypt would get-in the war of 1948, he wasn’t a traitor to Egypt or loving Israel. All about it is that Ismail Sidqi was responsible for an economic renaissance in Egypt; he was the one to develop Alexandria and its beaches… The man feared that the war would destroy all the economic steps which Egypt took in the past years preceding the war.

But, Ismail Sidqi didn’t continue on his stance, El-Wafd party took a populist stance and went with the flow, supporting the war decision. Ismail Sidqi felt as a politician that he would lose people if he kept his stance, so he withdrew and supported the war, preferring popularity between the people over the interest of Egypt.

We are all subjected to Ismail Sidqi’s situation and we are required to to ask many questions, such as: Is this war in the interest of Egypt? Are we obliged to get involved into the war? Would we choose between the interest of Egypt and our desire to go with the flow along with the crowds to achieve personal political gains? This article discusses these barbed questions.

Firstly: Peace and Democracy
We all know that Egypt had a democratic parliamentary life till the coup d’état of 1952, and since this coup till this moment, we suffer from a totalitarian bloody militarist rule. But, we have to ask ourselves: Why did a coup happen? Does that have a relation with the case of peace and war?

The historical sequencing of events… Egypt entered a war in 1948 despite it wasn’t qualified to fight Israel from the side of development of weapons and efficiency of combatants, so this war changed two important elements:
1- Egypt’s commitment to the treaty of 1936 concerning to the evacuation of the British of Egypt. The treaty included the emergence of the British army after 20 years (in 1956) on a condition that the Egyptian army be advanced and able to defend Egypt. The palace deliberately intended to plunge Egypt to the war, from one hand for king Farouk’s desire for becoming a caliph of Muslims and on another hand, to destroy the Egyptian army, therefore to disable the evacuation process. That exactly what happened, after the defeat of the Egyptian army in the war, the weakness of the Egyptian army appeared to everyone, everything which was already built inside the army was destroyed, therefore, Egypt lagged what it pledged in the treaty of 1936, therefore, the evacuation won’t be on its time… That resulted dangerous political complications, most importantly the cancelation of the treaty of 1936, cutting-off of the diplomatic solution to solve the conflict, which paved the ground for a coup d’état solution to the evacuation issue. The war occurred on the way of Egypt independence.

2- The Egyptian soldiers were subjected to a huge defeat in the war of 1948, the toughest of it was the fall of many Egyptian soldiers under the siege of the Israeli army, the Egyptian soldiers became under the mercy of the Israelis who allowed the passage of food to them in order not to die of hunger. Then, in February 1949, Egypt was compelled to sign the armistice agreement with Israel in order to be able to get back its besieged soldiers. Those soldiers came back to Egypt in shame and dishonor (Gamal Abdel Nasser was personally of them), they went to a war and strongly lost it and were besieged, because of them Egypt was compelled to sign an armistice agreement with Israel to get them back.

In order for those soldiers to take away their shame of themselves, they created the lie of the corrupt weapons, despite the nonexistence of any proof on it. When the judiciary investigated in these rumors and proved their falsehood, they accused the regime of corruption. They didn’t have the courage to admit that the war was lost because of their failure. Starting from here, the claims to cleaning the army began, so the movement of the soldiers happened, which was at its beginning (as the statement of Muhammad Naguib) a movement of military soldiers aiming at cleaning the army, then the army would move back to its barracks. But, after the soldiers found themselves in control of everything, they didn’t abandon the authority, despite that the revolution court proved the nonexistence of any corrupt weapons in the war of 1948 which was the rumor that the coup d’état happened for.

We lost democracy and we suffered from oppression for 60 years, we were obliged to make the 25 January revolution, all of that because of a rumor or the soldiers shy of their defeat in the war of 1948. If we hadn’t entered the war, there wouldn’t had been the defeat and there would had been the rumor, there would had been the coup d’état and we would have been now celebrating 90 years of parliamentary democracy in Egypt. The relationship between peace and democracy is very strong. War opens the door for internal tyranny under the slogans “military secrets, the homeland interest, national security, no voice comes above the battle”. In wars, countries enforce “state of emergency/marshal law”, these are procedures to limit freedoms of citizens, not the enemies. In wars, armies inflate, opening the way for military coups (that’s why Ancient Rome banned the entrance for armies to the capital). Moreover, tyrants exploit wars to turn away the attention of their peoples from democratic reform, we all see how Arab tyrants exploit Israel to distract the Arab peoples from democratic reform issues and to distort the image of honorable opponents with silly charges of the type “Zionism, normalization, agent…”.

Secondly: Peace and Economic Growth
Regardless od the case of Ismail Sidqi which started my article with, Tawfik el-Hakim narrates, in his masterpiece “The Return of Consciousness”, information uncovering for us how wars destroyed the Egyptian economy.

- Tawfik el-Hakim narrates how the Egyptian army, under commands of Nasser, threw sacks of gold to the tribes of Yemen during the Yemen war, in order to sway them to the Egyptian side, which cause the depletion of the Egyptian gold stock… At the time when simple Egyptians were happy with Nasser who made them employees in the government, earning a few Egyptian pounds monthly!

- Tawfik also includes, the cost that Egypt paid during the 6 years between 1967 and 1973. He spread the numbers and said that what Egypt spent on the wars, if it had been spent on internal development, the share for each village would have been a million dollars (noting the difference between the value of the currency at that time; a million dollars in 1967 is equivalent to 5 million dollar by today’s standards). Imagine, what would Egypt look like now if we didn’t enter those wars, and spending this money on building schools, hospitals, streets and developing the civil society? What’s really silly is the governmental non-sense, in order to escape this question says that Israel was the one to start the war and occupied Sinai, when in reality, Nasser had announced the war in his speech on 15 July, 1967, before that he had used the right of land blockade against Israel which is of the rights of the the belligerent country… That if we ignored the historical novel which says that the decision to expel the international forces was taken by the Field Marshal “Abdel Hakim Amer” without Nasser knowledge, at the time when the Field Marshal the Army Chief of Staff, contesting Nasser in his authority!

Taking a look at the world around us… Look how America was hit from its war budgets and how America is solving the problem now by pulling its armies from Iraq and Afghanistan, also by dismantling some of the military bases in Europe.

See how the civil war weakened the Somali people and turned them into poor people despite the natural resources which Somalia has. See how the nuclear ambition of North Korea transformed the citizens into poor people, thousands of them die of hunger monthly. Look at the Axis countries in the second world war (Japan, Germany, Italy) and how they entered the war as strong countries and went out of it smashed under foreign occupation, and still are paying the price of this war till our day.

Peace is the strategic choice for all the people who want to live in luxury. On the other hand, the people who choose the wars would suffer poverty forever till they realize that wars drain their resources and the effort of their people.

Thirdly: Peace and Life of Humans
Does the one who takes the decision of war realize that he is making a decision of execution tens of thousands of humans, including who are going to have permanent disabilities in the war? The life of the one who takes the decision of the war won’t be subjected to danger, he would keep sitting in his air-conditioned office in the capital, while the youth and the patriots from both side are paying their souls because of the failure of the political leadership in reaching a diplomatic peaceful solution.

I can’t believe any official numbers regarding the Egyptian victims in our wars with Israel. Some militarists estimated the victims of Egypt in the war of 1973 as million martyrs! Other than the injured, the lost and the prisoners of war. I can say that when Israel aired the documentary “Spirit of Shaked” about executing Egyptian prisoners of war, Egyptians asked themselves if there were still Egyptian prisoners of war in Israel, but none of the officials knew the answer of the question.

What is the reason to make a country enters a war to lose its youth and the rest lose their limbs, imagine the population percentage between both genders (as what happened in Germany after the second world war, the percentage was one man for every 5 women)! Why all that when there are alternative solutions to solve conflicts?
I know that in the last decades, suicidal orientations have appeared under the naming “martyrdom.. industry of death, asceticism in life, challenging death…), but here I speak to reasonable who seek the interest of their homeland and not committing suicide, who search for life not death.

The goal of any conflict is to solve the conflict, not to exterminate the other. The goal of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is to achieve the full Palestinian right, not exterminating the Israelis. If you were looking for the Palestinians’ interests, then the solution is in peaceful negotiation, not in entering war which both sides die in, the Samson style (on me and my enemies)? But, if you were seeking suicide, please, commit suicide quietly without killing millions of innocents with you.

Epilogue
When I was choosing the title of the article, I wanted to title it “Peace to Egypt, not Israel”, but I preferred it to be “Peace to Egypt Before it is to Israel”… Because, peace would benefit everyone, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, even Iran and Turkey. Peace will benefit the whole world. Our role as Egyptians is to think sanely of the interest of our homeland, the interest of our revolution, the project of democratic transformation, our ambition for economic growth and our fear on lives of our brothers, our children and friends.
The peoples have to choose and each reasonable society have their mind and know their own salvation.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg prison – 2 ع [‘ayn]
2011/8/7

Dying of Hunger for Freedom

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:40:39 +0000

Of the books which I started reading in prison, was “Natures of Tyranny and Slavery Wrestler” for sheikh “Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi”… I liked the book very much and I was surprised that there exists an Islamic cleric with this enlightenment, openness and modernity. When sheikh “Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi” was talking about freedom he was praising wild animals which if were hunted by humans, they refuse to eat, preferring dying of hunger than the life captivity… Ever since, I ask myself: How would I be less than animals? At that time, I decided to also refuse to eat in captivity, because dying of hunger is better than the loss of freedom.
The words of “Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi” reminded me of the words of “Francis Fukuyama” about the master and the slave in his wonderful book “The End of History and the Last Man”… Fukuyama was saying that the master is the one who combats for his freedom, either he dies or wins and live free, while the slave is the one who fears death so he accepts life of slavery instead of combatting for freedom… Thus I decided for myself, I would combat for my freedom, and because I’m a master and not a slave, I won’t give-up till I die or recapture my freedom.

Also, of the books I read in prison “In Search of Identity” for the former president “Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat”. He narrated a story, thought to be about Napoleon Bonaparte, which caught my attention. The story says that when Napoleon was in captivity, his jailers wanted to humiliate him, so they made the gate of the cell low so that he would be forced to bend his head whenever he wanted to exit or enter from the cell. However, Napoleon refused to bend his head, so he used to sit on the floor and enter sitting, so that he wouldn’t bend his head. This story reminded me of a saying for Amal Donqol in the poem “The Last Words of Spartacus” when he said “I’m hanged on the gallows and my head is bent, because I didn’t bend it alive”… So, I decided that I won’t bend my head to my enemies as long as I’m alive, even if that lead to my head being bent on the gallows.

Also, in Sadat’s book, he talked about circumstances of his imprisonment and rumors about that there was at one of the prisons an imprisoned count who was never acting as a prisoner, but as if he was still a count. Prisoners used to laugh at him continuously because he doesn’t live his reality, while his dignity refuses that he detracts his self-esteem… Here in prison, they continuously want to destroy the strength of my personality and always tell me “you’re imprisoned, you’re guilty, you’re sentenced to 3 years in prison”. As for me, I still see myself as the blogger and the famous political prisoner who tens of thousand are interested in his views. I will never allow prison to break me.

Despite my great hatred to Hitler, I can’t prevent myself from strong admiration for committing suicide when he was defeated in a battle… Hitler had a great feeling of dignity and megalomania, he didn’t accept the handcuffs be put on his hands or to be subjected to insult by armies of his enemies, so he preferred death over the insult of his dignity… My dignity also prevents me from accepting insult from militarists, I refuse life in the circumstances of continuous attempts to break my pride.
I’m not the first one to enter a hunger strike objecting my imprisonment… Sadat did it before me… Gandhi did it as well and when the Indian people came violently to free Gandhi, fearing his death because of his strike, he commanded them to step-back, because he refuses to be freed by violence.

When I feel that I could die because of the strike, I remember Mohamed Bouazizi… Mohamed Bouazizi is my greatest source of strength in my strike… Mohamed Bouazizi’s death was the reason for the start of the Arab Spring and changing history… That’s what I tell myself: never mind dying, if my death is going to benefit millions after me.

Ernesto Che Guevara was used to saying “I prefer to die standing to live kneeling”. It is said that when he was executed, they made him kneel, then started shooting bullets to his head. His enemies wished to see him kneeling… OK, the man doesn’t concern me, only his wonderful saying concern me. I won’t kneel for injustice and I’ll die with my dignity and it’s more honorable to me than a life with no dignity.

Holy books for Jews mention a story of the Babylonian captive when the people of Israel captives in Babylonia were living the life of slavery. At that time the Jewish people were invoking their god to free them from eating the bread of slavery (the bad bread which was given as food to slaves). But, I decided not to wait for anyone to free me, I’m a master and I refuse to eat the bread of slavery, I won’t eat any food as long as I’m in prison, till I get my freedom.

I could die as a result of my hunger strike, but that would benefit thousands of prisoners after me. After that, the authorities won’t ignore any hunger strike. There have be some sacrifices so that the extent of human rights in any homeland extends.

If I were free these days, I would have organized for a general hunger strike for all who were militarily tried… It is said that another 12 thousand were militarily tried in the past months. If only a thousand prisoners of them made a strike demanding to be be civilly tried, then that is enough to shake any regime in the universe.

Freedom has a price and we should pay it

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg General prison
The interior section – prison hospital
2011/9/11 after 20 days on a hunger strike

Psychology, Field Study – Psychology of Criminals in Jail

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:01:22 +0000

Psychology, Field Study
Psychology of Criminals in Jail
May 2011

I think I started reading psychology in the year 2000 when I was about 15 years old. Psychology helped me a lot in understanding motives and ways of thinking of others, so that was a great help to me in my political activism. Also, a book I read before, about psychology of militarists for Sigmund Freud,, helped me dealing with militarists in my struggle for peace and non-violence. My activism led me to jail, so I thought to use the wasted time here in making a field study doing some psychological analysis for criminals jailed with me. I’ll try to summarize my major notices, categorize them, even knowing that these information could have been written before by researchers on criminology and psychology, but I believe that adding a new field-study from a prison in Egypt, made by a prisoner could be of a positive value.
* Sample of study
- About 30 prisoners (drug dealers, thugs, robbers, killers)
All came by military trials

1- Denial
* Denial was the greatest psychopath. I saw here criminals are living in a parallel world, different from reality.
* Nearly, every prisoner believes that he is innocent, everyone denies his crime. For moments, I felt that I’m the only one made things against the law. Some people claim that they didn’t commit their crime, but police faked the case to harm them. Others don’t see anything wrong with their crimes; just as the drug dealer who says that there is nothing wrong in selling narcotics (even he knows that it causes harm). Also, the killer who sees that it was a normal reaction from him to kill the person who insulted him or tried to get close to one of his females.
* One of the prisoners usually says “I believe that God would stand with me, because I didn’t harm anybody ever in my life”… This man killed, injured, hostaged, was jailed in lots of countries for more than 25 years and was active in trading drugs in more than 5 countries, in Europe and Middle East!
* As being with a group came by military trials in a very exceptional time, this made us very interested to follow the political news. Everyone was hoping that a political change could happen, leading to canceling military trials and freeing them. They can’t accept the idea that they harmed innocent people and deserve to be punished and rehabilitated in jail to be good citizens… But, look at it from another view, I, myself, don’t believe that I’m guilty, I don’t believe that I made anything wrong and I intend to continue my activism when I be released!

2- Schizophrenia
* Denial leads to having two identities; real one outside the prison and the other identity is the innocent one inside the jail and in front of investigators.
* I noticed also that most of criminals have two or three names. It’s common in Egypt to have two names (without a noticeable cause for that), but criminals have lots of names for lots of purposes. They use this variety to run from investigations and trials (as an accusation to Mr. A doesn’t lead to accusing Mr. B, when the investigator doesn’t know that Mr. A is Mr. B). Having two names helps them to hide their crimes from their families or any other people they don’t want them to know about their crimes. Also, having two names helps them escape from police officers and secret service.
* The direct result of having two names is having two identities (personalities) and you can be surprised at any second of changing in manners of the man in front of you. He just switches between both of them or switch on and off the other identity he doesn’t want to show in jail.
* Practically, when you deal with them, you find some of them faithful, religious, courageous, slightly enlightened… etc. But, all of that can change in seconds to see a selfish bloody person, full of hatred.
* Prisoners are also pretending all the time; pretending being rich is a common thing here. Lots of prisoners here pretend to be millionaires, they act as if they are going to buy you and your family. By time, you discover that they are poor people. Even if you didn’t get information proving they aren’t rich as they claim, their way dealing with money and how they fight for small and cheap things, make you believe that those people can’t have the amount of money they claim.

3- Lying
* Prisoners lie just for lying. One of them says a piece of a poet every day (the same piece); a part of it says, “tell me about prisoners and their lies; tell me about lies which run in their views”… Also, this man claims that he never lies, even though he lies every second!
* Prisoners don’t lie for a logical cause, they are just used to giving wrong answers as a normal reflex. They also feel power in deceiving others. They keep telling opposite (contradicting) stories about their lives. They tell false names for their sons. They could even claim of being sons of families, other than their true families.
* Dealing with prisoners taught me that you should believe that he is lying until he proves the opposite. You can’t deal with them as if they are telling they truth.

4- Ego
* Prisoners have enlarged egos. I think that the ego is the cause of all crimes. The man who kills another man because of a couple of words, the ego forced him to kill. The same with stealers and rapists. Ego is the mother of all crimes.
* The criminal doesn’t understand the idea of having borders between him and others. He sees it’s normal to interfere in others’ lives, insult them, use them, make fun of them, on the other hand, he can’t accept being treated the same way.
* Criminals also don’t believe in private property. When he sees something he likes, he just goes on and takes it (without a permission from its owner) and he doesn’t see something wrong with this. That’s why stealers don’t see something wrong in taking others’ money.
* Ego of criminals also gives them the impression that they have the right to use others and use them as slaves. When he wants something, he just orders any weak prisoner to do it. You need to have also an enlarged psycho-pathetic ego to make them fear you, and so fear of treating you the same way.

5- Complicated relation with religion
* I think this could be part of the schizophrenic point, but it has notices which should be focused on.
* Criminals have very fantastic opinions. They don’t see that Bin Laden did anything wrong. They don’t respect Jews or Christians in general (even though they respected me, thinking I’m a Christian). They hare non-believers and atheists. They are ready to kill or injure anyone telling them a bad opinion about their religion.
At the same time, they don’t pray nor fast. Their crimes (killing, injuring, stealing) are banned in their religions and they don’t see anything wrong in committing them. They use narcotics everyday, even they believe it’s forbidden by God.
* Criminals also are superstitious. They believe that dreams are messages from God which will come true. They feel good or bad when they hear specific types of birds. They believe in ghosts. They also believe in lots of myths not related to Islam.

6- Self-hatred
* This gets on surface when he is weak. It becomes obvious that he hates his life, his principles, may be even himself.
* When someone emotionally close to him tells him bad news, talk to him hardly, he starts blaming everyone led him to that crime, takes decisions to stop making crimes when he is released. Deep inside, he wishes if he had a different (regular/normal) life. Maybe, the hard time we live here in jail is the cause which makes him hates his crimes.

7- Sex-phobia and homophobia
* I believe it’s normal to be a homosexual when you are forced to live years without seeing a female. But, even if it’s spontaneous and good for them, they are still homophobic. When they know about a gay prisoner, they start insulting and beating him.
* But, this behavior isn’t related only to homosexual behavior, they nearly do the same thing towards whoever they know that he masturbates or owns sexual pictures with him.
* Schizophrenically, they like to talk a lot about their sexual adventures, with stimulant sexual details!

8- Continuous making of troubles
* Life in jail is very boring. Some prisoners will have to spend in prison 20 years or more. Egyptian prisoners have nearly nothing which can help you spend time without being bored. That’s how prisoners discovered a new way to kill time: making troubles.
* One of the prisoners told me, “the prisoner is a son of a bitch, if you gave him a finger, he will take you all, he will step on your head”… He was describing how prisoners deal with each other inside jail.
* The advantage of making troubles is that it kills lots of time and it brings with it lots of positive and negative feelings. They need those feelings while they are isolated by speechless walls.
That’s why prisoners fight each other every moment, interfere in others’ privacy, deliberately understand every word as an insult to use it to begin a fight… etc.
* Prisoners don’t know how to spend time positively and prison management doesn’t try to teach them how to do that. They don’t like to read newspapers or books. They usually aren’t interested in continuing their study from within jail.
* Long boring time and the inability to use it pushes them to use narcotics continuously to kill time and drugs make them make more troubles, and the cycle goes on.

- Final general notices

Being a prisoner myself, made it hard for me to focus more than this. I wish I could make larger and more detailed research.
Also, I felt changes in my behavior inside jail. Some changes are good adaptation, others are bad changes, I’ll need to visit a psychiatrist to fix them. What I’m trying to say is that in prison, there is a behavioral state affecting anyone inside and each prisoner is forced to take reaction towards it.
Legally, there should be a psychiatrist and a social professional in jail to help prisoners. I don’t know if they exist, but if they do, we are not in contact with them in an way. This way in prison management doesn’t fight crime, but produces new criminals to society.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg prison
18-5-2011

Message from Maikel, 13 September, El-Marg Prison

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:37:32 +0000

I tell Mark, happy birthday.
I’m on a hunger strike since 23 August, also on a medicine strike and on a strike against taking a solution transfusion since 31 August and yesterday on Monday 12 September, on a thirst strike and won’t end it until I am released.
Do not believe so much the army officers or the military judges, because they lie too much. Do not believe except after I be free.
If I died, I don’t want anyone to pray on me in a church and don’t allow any cleric to pray on me. A purely civic funeral.
For your sake, I would accept visits starting from tomorrow. Anyone who wants to come, is welcome.
I don’t need anything, because I don’t eat. Greet all people and tell them that Maikel is still strong and was never broken.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
2011/9/13

Why don’t we also be peaceful with Israel?

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:16:43 +0000

In the seventies and eighties of last century, militant Islamist opposition appeared, which was the strongest of the opposition movements, which was able to challenge the July militarist regime… This opposition reached its peak on October, 1981, when it assassinated Sadat and controlled some police zones as Asyut Security Directorate… But, did that opposition succeed in changing the regime or to reach power? The answer is of course “no”.

(A picture of the “sign of peace”)

Over 6 decades, Egyptians tried many strategies for opposition, starting from opposition from within the ruling party (and it’s the weakest strategy), to the militant opposition (and it’s the most violent strategy) – all these attempts failed. Till Egyptians discovered a new strategy, “the peacefulness” and the Egyptian revolution came out chanting “peaceful… peaceful”, and the peacefulness succeeded in achieving what the Kalashnikov couldn’t.
6 weeks as well is approximately the period of the Arab-Israeli conflict… For 64 years, Arabs tried many strategies dealing with Israel (starting from being agents to terrorism), and also all the attempts failed… So, why don’t we start adopting a peaceful strategy dealing with the state of Israel to reach full rights to all the peoples of the region? That research paper is an attempt of me to explain how peaceful means can end that conflict completely, thus all the peoples of the region rest and their suffering ends.

However, dear reader I have to warn you, if what leads you to deal with that case is the motivation of revenge and the desire to get-rid of Jews then that research isn’t directed towards you, so don’t waste your time reading it. This research is directed toward who wish to end the conflict by fair way giving all parties their legitimate rights.

The first scene: Security Council decision – November 1947
The first scene which I’m going to concentrate on between numerous historical scenes I’m going to present. It’s the events which followed the decision of Security Council to divide Palestine in November 1947… What were the reactions on the decision? Were these reactions correct or wrong?
After 6 days of issuing Security Council decision, the Arab League met and took a decision to prevent Security Council decision by force (by weapons)… Arabs ignored the peaceful and the diplomatic ways, they didn’t resort to a dialog and didn’t discuss Security Council in its decision. All they did was each one of them went to bring his weapon and chant “death to Jews”.

At the time when Arabs were drunk with the fever of blood-shedding Jews, Israelis were making a world-wide diplomatic campaign to convince the whole world to support the born state of Israel. The United States of America felt that Security Council decision will ignite a war in the region, so it provided a recommendation that to Security Council demanding canceling the partition plan. As usual, Arabs were busy preparing violence, they didn’t care for that American step, and Israelis didn’t go back to their homeland until they convinced the Americans to take back their recommendation from Security Council.

Here, a question arises: What if Arabs thought about peaceful means, and traveled as well to to convince the Americans with their point of view, also the rest of Security Council members? What if America didn’t take back its recommendation about canceling the partition plan? Arabs could have canceled the Security Council decision, therefore obstructing the establishment of the state of Israel from the first place, but unfortunately they were busy with violence, weapons and the desire to kill, so they lost everything.

The second scene: declaring the state of Israel – 15 May 1948
Days passed after the decision of Security Council and it wasn’t canceled. Based on the decision, Israel declared its independence as soon as the British mandate for Palestine ended. So, why didn’t also the Palestinians declared their state at that time, backed by the legitimacy of Security Council decision, and it’s the decision in which Israel adheres to strongly because it’s the decision which gave it legitimate existence? The answer simply is that Palestinians and Arabs were busy with war and blood, and they weren’t interested in peaceful ways, of the type of holding a parliament and heading to the United Nations to declare a Palestinian state.
Once more, Palestinians wasted a golden chance because of being busy with violence.

The third scene: Moshe Sharet initiative – 1953
After declaring independence, David Ben-Gurion headed the Israeli government, who was a Zionist leader adopting radical stances firm against Israel. The chance for achieving peace at his era was very weak. In the year 1953 the Israeli Knesset had its second Prime Minister for Israel who was Moshe Sharet, who was contrary to Ben-Gurion, believing in peace and giving Arabs their rights. Moshe Sharet demanded from the Israeli Knesset to delegate him in making peace talks with Arabs. The Knesset agreed to delegate Moshe Sharet in negotiating on anything and everything (including the right of Palestinian refugees to return inside the Israeli lands).
Moshe Sharet went to all Arab leaders asking for dialog, all of them refused and insisted to settle the conflict by war and violence. Gamal Abdel Nasser agreed on the dialog on the condition of secrecy, because Gamal Abdel Nasser didn’t have the courage to face his people that he was making peaceful negotiations with Israel.
Thus, Moshe Sharet fell in 1954 because of Moshe Sharet failure to convince Arabs of peaceful mechanisms to settle the conflict. David Ben-Gurion became once again to be Prime Minister closing many doors for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Why Arabs don’t ask themselves: What if they accepted Moshe Sharet initiative? What if these negotiations succeeded and the Palestinian state was established at then, and the refugees came back home? Once again, Arabs lose because of their adherence to violent mechanisms and their objection to peaceful mechanisms.

The fourth scene: the assassination of king Abdallah – 1951
After the Arab defeat in in 1948 war and the truce agreement with Israel in Rhodes – February 1949, and because of not declaring a Palestinian state, Gaza became under the Egyptian administration while the West Bank under the Jordanian administration.

King Abdallah Ben Al-Sharif Hussein, king of Jordan, realized the importance of reaching a peaceful solution to the conflict after the failure of the military attempt. He went to visit Jerusalem along with his peaceful efforts, but the Palestinian terror was waiting for him. He was assassinated inside Aqsa mosque, so that the first peaceful Arab effort be assassinated towards Israel.

After 60 years of assassinating king Abdallah, we ask ourselves: did Abdallah’s benefited Palestinians? Of course not, because Jordan was dragged to a conflict with Israel which didn’t end except after the agreement of Wadi Arabah in 1994, while the West Bank was subject to Israeli occupation and still to that day suffering of a spread of the Israeli army and Israeli settlements in. If king Abdallah hadn’t been assassinated, the West Bank would have now been without settlements and Jordan wouldn’t have lost in its economy and its youth in a conflict for 40 years with Israel. Once again, Arabs lose because of their inclination toward violence and their objection to the peaceful means.

The fifth scene: the Egyptian peace treaty – 1979
In the year 1977, Sadat realized the importance of what king Abdallah was doing in the year 1951, so he decided to start an Arab peace initiative. He visited Jerusalem in November, 1977 and afterward, immediately the Egyptian-Israeli peace talks started. All the Arab parties in the conflict were invited to to join the peace talk, but the Arabs found it hard to make a peaceful work. They launched the “The Three No’s of Khartoum”, objecting any peaceful solution to the conflict, adhering to militarist settlement.

Today, after 32 years of signing the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, we ask ourselves: what if Arabs accepted the peaceful negotiations in Sadat era? What would the Arabs have lost if they negotiated at that time without a result? Was what Jordan take in 1994 more than what it would have taken if it joined Sadad initiative in 1979? Was what the Palestinians take in Oslo, 1993, more than what would they have taken in 1979?
Once again, Arabs waste the chance because of their adherence to the armed solutions not the peaceful solutions.

The sixth scene: Camp David 2 – year 2000
In the year 2000, many positive circumstances gathered. President Bill Clinton was at the end of his presidency and wanted to end the conflict in the Middle East before he leaves office. At the same timing, Israel was lead Ehud Barak of the Labor Party of Israel – Labor Party is a leftist political party known by its support to peace process. Israel was on the eve of parliamentary elections, so Barak needed a success facilitating obtaining many seats in the next Knesset.
The talks had actually started at Camp David, Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, and who views what Israel offered at that time, would realize that Israel offered an offer in which Palestinians won’t obtain a similar offer forever. A state on the borders of 1967, Eastern Jerusalem the capital city, dismantling of settlements and the return of a percentage of refugees. Palestinians will go after two month from now (in September 2011) to the United Nations too declare a Palestinian state and they know well that they won’t obtain what Israel offered them in Camp David 2.

Yasser Arafat signature was only required and the United States guaranteed the agreement, in other words America would compel Israel to implement. However, Mubarak was annoyed of his absense in the talks, so as, he realized that it is of his interest that the conflict continues, so the relationship between Yasser Arafat and the Egyptian Intelligence was exploited, and he was pressured into objecting to sign the treaty. Emotionally provoking vocal phrases were raised, of the type: resistance, occupation, martyrs, uprising, treason, agents, Zionists. Arafat apologized and didn’t sign the treaty saying to Bill Clinton, “if I signed the treaty, you’ll walk in my funeral soon”.

What happened later on? George Bush, the son, came to White House, he wasn’t a man of peace of any kind. In the Israeli elections, Israelis felt that what Labor Party says is useless with Arabs, so Labor Party together with Meretz lost most of their seat and the Israeli right rose to authority, represented by Likud of the militarist background, allying itself with religious political parties of type of “Shas” and “The Jewish Home”. It objected to Camp David 2 and almost destroyed Labor Party, to the extent it’s now a very weak political party in Israel which isn’t influential in political life. Ehud Barak who used to be a hero of peace, didn’t forget at all the Arabs destroyed his strength and transformed him from a strong leader to a chief of a weak political party, so, Barak became an impeder to peace more than a supporter to it.

So, what do Arabs benefit of objecting Camp David 2? Did the Palestinian uprisings give the Palestinians 1% of what would have Camp David 2 give them? What would Arabs do now after the partners of peace in Israel have been destroyed and the governance there was took-over by fanatics and religiously-biased? Do Arabs imagine that they would get more than what was offered to them? What would happen now to any peace agreement after half of what Israel offered in 2000 became unacceptable and not possible to be offered in 2011? What did the Palestinians benefit of being the “sons of stones”? Wouldn’t be better for them to be the “sons of peace”?

Seventh scene: Arab Spring – 2011
When the Tunisian revolution started in December 2010, everyone looked at it as an exceptional case specific to Tunisia, and everyone dealt with the approach of “Egypt isn’t Tunisia” and “Libya isn’t Tunisia”. But, when the revolution succeeded in Egypt in overthrowing Mubarak and when the revolutions in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain erupted, everyone realized that the Arabic-speaking peoples knew the strength of the peaceful revolutions.

The Israeli right stood confused in front of a fateful question: “what if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution”? Israel was accustomed to that the Palestinian resistance is militant, because using violence against Israel allows it to use its army in the framework of self-defense and no one would blame Israel when it chases child-kidnappers or killers of civilians. But, if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution, Israel won’t be able to use its army, so what would it do? No one in Israel (and specifically the Israeli right) found an answer on that question, and the fear remained to them of a Tunisian revolution.
But, as one of Israel leaders said that “Israel’s success doesn’t depend on its smartness, but on the stupidity of its enemies”. The Palestinians wasted the chance in the second uprising in 15 May 2011, contrary to the rest of the Arab peoples, the Palestinians didn’t look for a Palestinian Tahrir square to protest in peacefully. Palestinians didn’t realize that the peacefulness has no relation with penetrating the borders, infringement on the territorial waters of Israel and chanting racist words. A peaceful sit-in disseminating racist ideas is exactly as the sit-in of Mostafa Mahmoud square, where peaceful protestors chanting shit thought, and of course that won’t lead to a result. The chance is still available for Palestinians to adopt the peaceful method of Tahrir before it’s too late.

(A picture of the biggest demonstrations in the history of Israel, Tel Aviv, 6 August 2011)

Peaceful Strategies toward Israel
- Why won’t we start trying peaceful strategies with Israelis and see if it would succeed as the peaceful Egyptian revolution succeeded? We tried violence for 6 centuries, so why don’t we try the peacefulness for 6 months?

- Before the eruption of the Egyptian revolution, the Egyptian demonstrators were at the beginning of their demonstration giving flowers to police officers and tell them “we’re not demonstrating against you,but against the regime”… So, why don’t we send flowers to Israelis and tell them “we are not antagonize you as individuals, but we are against your policies toward us and Palestine”?

- Also, before the Egyptian revolution, one of the opposition groups published on the internet a list with telephone numbers of Egyptian police officers and we started a campaign of calling those officers, trying to convince them to stop assaulting demonstrators… That campaign succeeded in attracting numerous police and army officers and ex-officers and their families, and they participated in our revolution.

So, why don’t we start in the same thing with Israelis? Why don’t we start communicating with ordinary Israeli individuals and tell them that the Mossad and the Israel Defense Forces actions are unacceptable, inhumane and obstruct peace in the region? Why don’t we convince try to them with the justice of our cause, if we really believe-in its just.

What if we each Egyptian person started adding two Israelis on his friends list on Facebook? If there were million Egyptians, each one of them can only affect two Israeli citizens, that means that we are affecting 2 million Israeli citizens (or a quarter of Israel census)… So, what if we put in consideration that Egypt has approximately 10 million Facebook users, and that each on of them has the ability to add 5000 friends to his friends list. The soft force is much stronger than any other violence you imagine.

It’s of my interest, of your the interest and the whole world’s interest that the conflict ends in Middle Easy, therefor I wish that we start a true beginning in Arab peaceful attempts for the sake of putting an end to the conflict and blood-shedding, and to establish a fair warm peace built on coexistence between the peoples of the region.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg general prison
2 ع [‘ayn]
2011/7/29

An Important Letter from “Maikel Nabil” to Lieutenant General “Sami Anan”

Maikel Nabil Sanad (Egypt) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:40:34 +0000

Lieutenant General/Sami Anan Chief of Staff of the armed forces
Greetings,
In a press interview with me to a European newspaper, the following day of Mubarak’s fall, I said that I trust that the military council would keep its promise and lead Egypt towards democracy… Of course, that was a rare speech by me, it wasn’t out of fear or flattering for sure, but based upon information which was reaching us internally and externally saying that we have a man within the military council that many make a bet on. Also, that man’s existence in that position is a guarantee that we are heading to the correct path… But, days passed and we saw you appear scarcely and rarely reacting, we found ourselves in confrontation with a group of radicals; we found them beating us, threatening us, disseminating rumors against us, force disgraceful tests to our sisters and try our friends before mock trials. So, we rushed toward them in a confrontation – I am honored to be one of its victims – and it’s the confrontation which didn’t end up till now and no one knows how will it end.
Here, from my confinement, I follow statements of members of the military council which say that the army didn’t arrest anyone from his home and that there is a respect for freedom of opinion and expression… All these statements reflect an obvious meaning, that the military council realizes that my situation is not natural and not acceptable, also can’t be defended or repeated.
From its first statement, the military council perseverated starting from its first statement stating that it wants the transition of Egypt to democracy… But, your excellency, Lieutenant General, the democratic regimes don’t throw their opponents to jails. Democratic countries do not imprison citizens because of their opinions or beliefs. Democratic countries don’t have someone to force his mandate on citizens to decide for them what to say and what not to say.
All democratic countries didn’t act in embarrassment in negotiating peace proponents and opponent groups to compulsory recruitment. In all these countries, the deluge reached a situation which was in the interest of their homelands. Of course Egypt wasn’t a democratic country before 25 January revolution, so, is the army now ready to act like the armies of democratic countries do and start a serious dialog with virtuous Egyptians who disagree with it in envisioning what is best for their homelands which they love.
One needs no great intelligence to realize that the reputation of the Egyptian army between their citizens now reached its minimum levels for more than 6 decades, and that the love of Egyptians for their national army is decreasing each day more than its predecessor. No argument about the Egyptian army’s important role in protecting the borders of the homeland, as well as, its interests and its citizens, but if the appreciation of the people toward their army continued to deteriorate in the future, will the army protect people who averse it? How would you protect people who chant for your fall?
For all of these reasons I invite your excellency to start a new initiative with the reasonable people between members of the military council to fix the faulty situations which prevailed for the past six months and to stop the severe bleeding of the trust of our people in its national army. I invite you to release from captivity all revolutionaries (civilians and militarists). I invite you to adopt a national dialog initiative between the army and who disagree with it for the interest of Egypt, a purposeful dialog and not to earn some time and contain the other party. I invite you to adopt a bigger role within the military council to steer the country towards democracy and the civilian country, towards achieving the rest of the stages of the revolution, to build a state of understanding between the different societal groups of the nation, based on that Egypt is the homeland for all of us and that no one has the right to monopolize determining its identity or the relationship between its different elements.

With profound respect

Maikel Nabil Sanad Ebrahim
A pacifist activist and the chief of No for Compulsory Military Recruitment Movement
and the first prisoner of conscience after the revolution
1 August, 2011
El-Marg general prison