Who is Caring About Egypt’s Displaced Children? 

     Today’s news features stories about the horrid situation faced by Syria’s refugees as a result of the conflict in that country. The numbers rise to more than 450,000 children, with totals skyrocketing to over 2 million running to safety in camps set up in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Iran. Their situation is appalling; Save the Children administrators in these countries bring to light the predicament of this new “lost generation” of children – what will be their fate, will the civil war in Syria ever end? The latest frightening information is that Syria’s youth are now being recruited by both rebel and government forces as the newest soldiers. Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall visited the Jordanian King Abdulla camp today, and they commented on the terrible conditions in which these refugee children are forced to live. All of these groups and individuals are most certainly correct; no person, child or adult, should be subjected to conditions which strip them of human dignity and basic human rights including the merest need, clean drinking water. 
     Yet a greater question arises. With all the focus on the drastic situation facing Syria’s refugees, has anyone considered the in-house Egyptian refugee children? They can be called in-house because Egypt, in Cairo itself, not considering Alexandria, has as many as 250,000 homeless, nameless, beggar children roaming its streets...half the total number of Syrian children refugees in one Egyptian city alone. These children--over half of whom are girls, are dumped, raped, abused, underfed, given no identity, with no papers or family, thereby nonpersons--receive no national, international, or even local attention, aid, or assistance. 
     Egyptians themselves are so accustomed to the dirty street children selling bags of lemons or boxes of tissues that they’ve become inured to the problem. No one cares about the lost generations of Egyptians denied basic human needs, dignity, human rights, including a place to sleep that isn’t a concrete gutter or alleyway. The Egyptian government sees to it that statistics regarding their nameless and numberless children do not leak out to the international community; otherwise, the funds given to Egypt might have to find specific designation to aid these unwanted and neglected children. The $450,000,000 promised by the new U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry might then not be given so freely to a government that among other objectives, is working to re-legalize FGM [female genital mutilation], and one that believes girls and women are irrelevant to the promotion of any kind of equitable living conditions, employment, or education. 
     Yes, the situation for Syria’s displaced and homeless population is tragic; the world community at large is aware, and international pressure may eventually bring positive change, but Egypt’s street girls have received no attention or help for more than two generations and still counting. Where is the international outcry for their unimaginably heart-rending plight?

God-ordained rape

The 2012 Presidential election is over and voters have decided where to put men like Mr. Mourdock and his flagrant anti-women comments regarding rape. As a woman and a rape survivor, the need to expostulate and add my voice to all those women who answered his challenge with their votes against this rhetoric, it’s important to say that the fight is not over. Not merely in America, but globally, all women, regardless of their personal religious beliefs or non-beliefs, feel a distinct outrage at views like Mr. Mourdock’s, not only at his comments but that so many men have now taken the ball and run with it to justify Mr. Mourdock’s statements. They attempt this by saying the refs were confused, took the play out of context, and then make the monumental effort to recall the points.
               I make no apologies for using the football analogy, because this is what men have been doing with women’s bodies from time immemorial, using us as the football in their game of running to the goal line. We’ve been tossed back and forth between the teams of men whenever they need to score a goal. Sadly, we are that inflatable and deflatable football; we go up and down depending on the current coach. Oh yes, they’ll use us whenever necessary, like the valiant women during WWII who picked up the ball and ran interference to get the job done. But once the war was over, men decided we must have the air let out, flop us back again into domesticity and submission because truly, women just don’t have the stuff to participate in the “real world.” Nothing changes, and now we’re told that even if raped, it’s ordained and sanctioned by god and whatever the outcome, men tell us what to do with our bodies and how we should feel about the entire business.
                This issue cannot be confined to one country, one political campaign, or one religious dogma. Globally, women suffer rape every day, whether victims of war or domestic violence. Rape is a global male atrocity and an insufferable part of male domination. Mr. Mourdock and his supporters try to gloss over their statements, although Mr Mourdock does not believe he needs to apologize as he spoke from very deeply felt beliefs, but they’re the players in this issue who dominate because they are men and like father, know best. I have watched women attempt to weigh in on this debate with a panel of men, it doesn’t work; men raise their voices as if shouting out the all-important play in the last seconds will bring in the game-winning field goal. They don’t want to hear our issues, we’re merely women; we don’t know how to read maps, change car oil, or think responsibly, nor are we capable of making decisions about our own bodies. We’ve been told this for so long that without doubt it must be true, so then, naturally if a man tells us rape is ordained by god, then this, too, cannot be doubted – our coaches have spoken. And unfortunately, it’s not only men who have these unbelievably Machiavellian attitudes. One woman researcher from Texas seems to believe she’s proven that women vote with their hormones and ovulation periods. Ovulate, you’re liberal, in a stable relationship, you’re conservative, hormonal, you won’t think clearly on any issue, therefore can’t be trusted.
                Ancient Greeks, those philosophers of note, felt no compunction in placing and keeping women under their power. Women, according to a star of Greek philosophy, Aristotle, possess neither the mental, physical, nor the emotional acuity for decision – making; therefore, their roles must be relegated and kept to the home. Now, over two thousand years later, in spite of the incomparable achievements by women, men still do not want to put women in as quarterbacks, coaches, or any other role which tips the balance and brings home a win. And in the few instances where a woman is given power, the scrutiny under which she comes surpasses that for men. This, too, is a form of rape, because rape takes many forms, physical, emotional, and psychological. In the Middle East, women suffer from this male attitude that women must remain as chattels. In Saudi Arabia, they are not allowed to drive or even leave the home without covering and must be accompanied by a man, even if he’s a ten-year old brother. Consider, for example, the recent incident in Pakistan where parents threw hot acid on their young teenage daughter who happened to look in a man’s direction; she died, and her family believes they are justified because they had already been dishonoured by their eldest daughter. Then, there is the very tragic occurrence in Pakistan by the Taliban as one man with murder in mind and heart sought out a young girl because she spoke out for the rights of women to be educated.
                Where will it end?  We cover our hair because no man can see your hair except your husband; we wear gloves, because our skin cannot touch that of a man, otherwise he will become totally inflamed with lust and of course it’s the woman’s fault. We bow our heads in submission, we do not pray in the same place with men, we are too much of a distraction. A man in prayer has a difficult enough time concentrating on god without the enticing presence of a woman. She is only there as a temptation, to lead him astray. We submit to the tyranny of male opinion, vote the way our husbands or fathers tell us because we are incapable of making a well-formed opinion. These are extreme but powerful examples of women being raped of their lives and rights to opinions, to be heard in the roaring male crowd overcome by the tensions of the game. Unfortunately, these extremes creep insidiously closer to reality every day, as witnessed by Mr. Mourdock’s proclamation, without forgetting the other very outspoken comment by Mr. Akin, that if it’s a legitimate rape, then pregnancy won’t occur. Combine this with Mr. Mourdock’s belief that rapes are god-ordained, then women have no cause to complain, everything is okay with god and with the world.
                Let’s wonder, though, how Mr. Mourdock and those of his fellow thinkers might react if and when the terrible tragedy of rape is wrought upon any of their daughters or wives. If they become pregnant from this horrible event, will they still believe it’s a god-given blessing and ordained, allowed by this god they worship?  I wonder what happened to the god of the New Testament in whom they declare absolute faith, the one Jesus preached about, this god of love?  Did this god lose the game and drown in the deluge of vitriol wracking the presidential campaign? Has this god disappeared from the global horrors when strong men decide it’s time to exercise their right to dominate the “game” and rape the cheerleaders?  And if they are raped, they better learn to appreciate the value of that rape, it is ordained by god, and they must love the consequences, not to fret or worry, because once the game is over, men return to the locker room, gloat over their wins, and go home to be the men they are, intelligent, capable, strong, and in control. Never mind the cheerleader-she got what she asked for!

Egypt again...

Once more Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square, this time not merely a few stragglers bent on continuing protests, but a huge contingent of warring factions. Supporters of Mohammed Morsi and those violently opposed to the first 100 days of a relatively lacklustre regime. This past Friday, October 12, 2012, frustrated and bewildered, thousands of Egyptians gathered again in Tahrir Square, angered at Morsi’s decision to acquiesce in the high court’s decision to release from prison the thugs who galloped through Tahrir Square last February 2011 riding camels, and horses, shooting into crowds of peaceful demonstrators. These thugs killed an unexposed number of young men and women protesting Hosni Mubarak’s reign, but this high court decision unleashed another spate of Egyptian fury. The high court now maintains that after reviewing filming of the situation, they did not witness any one of these men killing protestors. Words and decision to create absolute unrest in Egypt, more than 300 men and women were killed, how then did they die?
           A myriad of questions arises from this latest incident. First, why is the high court making this decision?  Then, who really is behind the high court’s decision, a very loaded political question. Additionally, what will be the outcome of this decision?  And of course, once again, is Egypt safe for tourism to or relocating in – especially just when Minister for Antiquities Mohammed Ibrahim, reopened the pyramid of Cheops in Giza, and announced that Egypt welcomed all visitors. The complexities behind Egyptian society strip any possibility of simple answers to these questions, but it’s good to keep in mind several points. As demonstrations go, in Cairo, they are kept in Tahrir Square. The Square is becoming the visible representation to Egyptians and the world at large of the country’s infant struggle toward democracy. Egyptians developed a taste for this fundamental democratic right of protest a year and a half ago when their united efforts brought down a regime under which the nation felt suffocated. If this could happen in a few short days, then when other issues developed to which the public objected, what better method for change than a united protest.
           However, this most recent protest took on a disturbing face. Rather than peaceful, it became violent almost immediately. Two factions clashed, supporters of Morsi and those opposed to the president and his Muslim Brotherhood Party. These latter claimed that the February 2011 thugs were released because they had the support of the Mubarak regime, and although deposed, broad suggestions abound that Mubarak’s family and friends continue to manipulate governmental decisions, in particular decisions made by those remaining in power via Mubarak-appointed positions, in this case, the high court judges who released the thugs. Other instances reflect on the situation that many of Mubarak’s appointees remain in their offices, thus easily able to manipulate governmental decisions. The old regime’s hidden funds circulate, according to many, those deserving punishment receive none, others demonstrating against the regime, strangely prosecuted. Thoughtful Egyptians worry about the lack of substance in Morsi; he appears to be a puppet of his party, and seems afraid to make substantive decisions. Add to that the level of poverty and hardship among Egypt’s millions has worsened over the past months. These reasons were enough for those dissatisfied with Morsi to call for another major demonstration.
           These dissatisfied Egyptians clashed violently with supporters of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood Party on Friday. However, the clash has deeper roots than a disagreement over the high court’s decision, because many in the opposing faction believed this decision to be wrong. The roots of disputes are based in those who support Morsi and his party and those who do not. Those who believe that Morsi’s gradual imposition of Shari’a law changing Egypt from primarily a secular state to one ruled by Islamic law is the correct direction in which the country must head, while those supporting a secular democracy with secular laws and freedom from influence in any fashion of the old regime, must be the implemented changes. The conflict on Friday became violent; the media, of course, made the most of this violence.

   So the last question, in spite of efforts to reopen Egypt’s doors to tourists and others, is Egypt safe?  Throughout the past year and a half, the demonstrations remain isolated to the Square; outside the Square, life goes on with the exception that life for the typical Egyptian is more difficult, less prosperous, therefore, a degree of resentment occasionally exhibits itself. For the most part, the demonstrations dwindled in size and exuberance, but this last rivalry once again saw tents established and a determination to sit in until more obvious and actualizing changes take place in the country. Yet, in spite of these problems, visiting Egypt remains an incredible experience, it is a land of rich history, heritage, culture, an incredible past on the verge of a new future, an experience not to miss.

Syria’s Unwarranted Attack on Turkey – What does one do?

With the Middle East in turmoil, elections, although over in many of the Arab Spring countries, still have a long way to go toward uncompromising settlement.  Syria, the revolutionary “bad boy,” ripped open a new floodgate of aggression last week on Turkey’s border town of Akcakale which suffered an attack by Syria’s Nationalist Army. Five people, including a child, died.
              Will Turkey retaliate?  Should Turkey retaliate?  Some of the headlines already blaze with “World War Three” if Turkey advances into Syria in defense of its borders.  The Istanbul atmosphere vibrates with demonstrations against that very event. The United Nations warns Syria against further aggression toward its northern neighbour. At the moment, Turkish response is firm about protecting its borders against attack, yet maintains a view toward avoiding all-out war. Turkey established itself as a stable, secular government with a tolerant attitude toward the diverse peoples inhabiting the country. Lately, its governmental policies combine with Islamic principles of rule, but currently, in spite of the many factions vying for primacy, Turkey maintains its stability. Syria’s incursion over Turkey’s borders puts a new twist on global worry about the Syrian situation, in addition to many who might be concerned over prospects of visiting Turkey.
                During the past few days demonstrations in Istanbul speak out loudly against any outbreak of war. The Turkish people are adamantly opposed to invading Syria even though their prime minister absolutely stated the country will not tolerate Syria’s moves over Turkish borders, an argument concurrent with that of the United Nations, world leaders, and a general outcry against Syrian aggression.  In light of these very recent events, should one plan a visit to Turkey?  Can the Turkish government be trusted to maintain a firm stance without declaring war so that visitors and foreigners may continue to visit or live in the country? 
                Without hesitation, touring the country, albeit out of harm’s way near the Turkish-Syrian borders, the country offers so much to the visitor.  From Istanbul in the northwest with the Hagia Sophia and Blue Mosque overlooking the city’s historic centre, through the beautiful Cappadocian mountains in the eastern region, continuing to points south and west on the Mediterranean coast, Turkey beckons to the visitor, and if one is fortunate enough to live and/or work in the country, many opportunities await.  If in any doubt about where to go, what to see, or how to move to and about the country, seek professional advice helping to ease personal arrangements.  Relax, enjoy, and reap the rewards of adventure in a beautiful land!

Where to go in the Middle East now?

Will you be safe or sorry for visiting the once-mysterious wonders of the Middle East? There is so much going on in the area, politically as well as otherwise, that myriad questions arise.
            Here is what a reliable ex-pat resident of Cairo has to say about the current situation: “Wow…the media must be really exaggerating things! As usual, the current demonstrations involve only a three-block radius. Just one night had large numbers, but only about 30-40 (Zamalek Ultras, it seems) scaled the wall. Generally, it’s dozens, or at most hundreds, gathered in the Square. People feel humiliated by the attack on the Prophet -- of course, they don't understand that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the film; Hillary Clinton and the Embassy have issued strong condemnations of the film. The Egyptian government and key Islamist parties have denounced the attack on the embassy; the Nour Party is very clear in its opposition to that, as is Tareq al-Zomor (Islamic Group), saying it is against Shari’a to violate the embassy and tear down the flag. Meanwhile, elsewhere life goes on as normal. People are out late at night visiting street-side cafes, schools are about to start (public school teachers are threatening to strike), etc.” These comments demonstrate a variety of contradictions regarding the Middle East.
            Politically, Egypt’s government is attempting to develop some form of democracy, some form of meaning that even the humblest Egyptian can understand. But with so many factions vying for power and position in the country, confusion often reigns. In its desire to bring news to the world, the media can be guilty of sensationalizing events in Tahrir Square, but the demonstrations in the Square remain contained to that very small centre of Cairo. The rest of the city, as a microcosm of the country, struggles daily to survive. Find enough work to feed the family, to survive, and maintain some small semblance of life in the midst of chaos.
            In the minds of Egyptians, from those in power down to the least of its citizens, the concept of democracy remains in its infancy. Leadership divisions include revolutionaries, who could not sustain power although their democratic idealism brought about the first stages of the 25 January 2011 revolution; Islamists to the far right including, but not limited to the Salafi, an extreme group determined to bring Egypt under complete Shari’a law with all its decrees, limitations, and demands; the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a combative group within itself, but one attempting to juggle Islamic extremists with democratic idealism, a problem of massive proportions especially in a country suffering more than 50% illiteracy.
            Egypt’s political and religious bases don’t often function in harmony. While some in the political arena attempt to incorporate secularism into its policies, the religious factions refuse, sometimes with belligerence, to adopt anything other than strict Shari’a law into their country’s laws and procedures. What sets Shari’a law apart from the understood forms of democratic law codes, whether American, English, Napoleonic, or other adaptive forms of practiced law?  Shari’a law is based solely on the Qur’an and is implemented according to the interpretations of Imams, Islamic spiritual leaders. In some countries, interpretations of Shari’a law reach a severity far above that of other countries, for example, the implementation of Shari’a in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, even Pakistan, have in the past made Egypt appear very western and sometimes lax in its legal system. Egypt’s varied and rich history even over the past sixty years created a dichotomy of leadership and confused laws that, during the course of independence from colonial rule, set Egypt’s rulers a difficult path.
            To understand this very complicated situation, a brief examination of Egypt’s recent historical changes may prove enlightening. In 1952, the Egyptians, led by a group of semi-Marxist radicals following Abdul Gamal Nasser, overthrew the last of the Ottoman kings of Egypt, King Faisal. They quickly established a regime which removed property from wealthy plantation owners usually known as Pashas, and began dividing up land into smaller farming parcels. They also introduced systems based on the communistic principles of government provisions for everyone, from education to health. Unfortunately, the extremes to which they went divested the Egyptian people of initiative or even the desire to be individually productive. A further unhappy result of this situation came from the application of Shari’a law. Property is actually divided among heirs, thus reducing the size of any viable farmland, ending in an increase in poverty as these farmers become mere subsistence livers rather than having a way to earn a substantial living. With poverty on the increase, illiteracy virtually unchanged, political problems rising, the question remains, is it safe to work in, travel to, or study in Egypt, and if so, where, for how long, when are the most favorable times to be in Egypt?
            Cairo and Alexandria are the major and most important centers for study and work in Cairo, with most people settling in Cairo with its many foreign universities, schools, and businesses. Being in Egypt now may present a few more difficulties, the events of the past month a tragedy by any measurement. Most Egyptians do not agree with the violence created by the infamous You Tube video. Other problems involve money; traders work harder to earn the fewer tourist dollars. However, as in the past, most Egyptians are kind, welcoming, and happy to meet anyone interested in their country, but precautions must be taken, more so now than in the past. In places, some crime such as theft, virtually unheard of in earlier times, is on the increase, so visitor beware, but with care. Egypt’s mysteries, its lovely temples, the beautiful Nile, the Valley of the Kings, and so many other magical places still await. There is so much to do and see, bringing the incredible Egyptian past to visibility. If the opportunity offers, plan carefully, make prior contacts, seek advice from those who know Egypt well, but by all means, visit, work, or study in the land once belonging to Pharoahs.

Mohamed Morsy and the Islaheyas

In Egypt, a virtually untold number of disorganized, motley children--estimates as high as 50,000 to 100,000 living in Cairo alone--had neither any input in the recent election nor can they count on relief from the newly elected officials. The most telling tragedy regards the homeless girls. Both boys and girls wander Egypt’s streets, begging, stealing, living very “rough,” but the girls’ plight far supersedes that of the boys. These homeless girls have no relief for the abject poverty in which they live, conditions which have grown steadily worse for over fifty years. Rejected by families, spurned by governmental officials, ignored by the general population, and treated virtually like India’s Untouchables, the street girls, at present, have limited options. They can remain on the streets, resorting to prostitution, begging, drugs, and thieving, or they can allow themselves to be arrested by the police, marked for life as non-people with no papers, no citizenship, no rights, and dumped into the places aptly named Islaheya, literally meaning “to fix.” Living in an Islaheya is barely one step removed from street squalor. Madams placed in control care only for the government job, not for the girls; the sleeping quarters, kitchen, and grounds have the look of bombed-out Iraq, and their educational opportunities are relatively nonexistent. 
            If they have any knowledge about the last election in Egypt, they did not ask similar questions as most of the world regarding results. If they knew anything, could question anyone, this pertained to their hopeless lives. Would the election of Mohamed Morsy bring them the help they need, bring them relief from the hopelessness and helplessness of their lives? In the midst of commotion, trouble, and resolution of Egypt’s first free election how much, if any, consideration was dedicated to these homeless girls?
            The answer is simple. None. How much time and energy did the campaigners and now the new president spend thinking or doing anything for these girls? Again, none. He just recently deposed the military leader Tantawi, took presidential powers away from the military, and is making sure of security for himself and his party, the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s this political party that really determines how the Islaheya girls will fare. And what, then, is the Islamist reaction to girls and women, in particular those in less than honourable situations?  Women must remain subservient to men, and if by chance their lives decline to beggar status, then they are the problem; solutions don’t reach that low.
            Political turmoil within Egypt defines the country’s situation since January 2011. The initial stages of revolution evoked a sense of unity and sometimes benevolence during the most tense days before former president Mubarak stepped down. Military officials sat on their tanks waving anyone in who chose to enter Tahrir Square. Food was shared by all; men and some women sat in tents discussing the unbelievable situation in which Egypt had suddenly plummeted. Hope spiraled upwards rapidly, in spite of the tragedy of those who died during the first days of revolution. World-watchers held collective breaths waiting to see the results of Egypt’s entry into the Arab Spring.
            When Mubarak surprised the world a mere eighteen days after the conflict began and stepped down, the hearts of so many Egyptians soared with hope. But did he truly step down?  Many argue that he merely replaced himself with his followers, men who achieved their power through their relationship with Mubarak. A year after the revolution, the world still awaited the military promise to hand over power to newly elected secular authorities, and allow Egypt to come to grips with democratic ideals.
            Another year passed and finally Egypt found herself being watched by the entire world as its military finally gave in to global pressure and the countless political parties and candidates put themselves forward in an unprecedented free election. 
            Mohamed Morsy and the Muslim Brotherhood won against Mubarak’s old guard and even against the revolutionary candidates. Since his election, many issues have been discussed, but not once has this concerned the girls, the Islaheyas, or the street children in general.  Poverty in Egypt escalates every day, tourism has declined and continues to do so, employment hovers at the lowest ebb for decades, and Egypt’s stability and political policies begin to be questioned. It cannot even be certain that Mohammed Morsy has heard of the Islaheyas or for that matter if he has, does he believe, like so many, that the girls are undesirable, virtually untouchable, and need to be kept out of the public domain. With their lack of education, the blight on their characters for being Islaheya girls, their lack of family, name, and home, authorities desire nothing more than to keep them hidden away from public life, public view, and public acceptance. If Morsy and the Muslim Brotherhood truly embraced the ideals of humanity which some claim, then they must make a push toward changing public and private opinion about these lost street girls, but to date, these girls remain Egypt’s hidden shame.

Egyptian Elections and Current Political Climate in Egypt

A budding democracy in action or not?  For the first time in generations, if not recorded history, Egypt attempted its revolutionary reform through ‘fair’ non-coerced political elections.  But the results, according to ongoing protests, are far from satisfactory.  Rather than alleviating dissatisfaction with the ruling powers, the results chivied a divisive knife into the Egyptian populace.  Several candidates presented themselves to the people.  Liberals, Conservatives, Independents who refused party ties, and in the background sits the SCAF [Egypt’s current military regime].  The people spoke, or did they?  Election results startled a large percentage of the population.
Mohammed Morsy and Ahmed Shafiq, the two candidates left standing, represent everything the revolutionaries struck against.  Morsy, the candidate put forward by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Shafiq, Mubarak’s puppet president put in just prior to the old regime’s stepping down, received more votes than all the other’s running for presidential office.  Why?  Morsy represents the religiously conservative Brotherhood, the party which initially declared its intention not to put itself forward with a presidential candidate.  Morsy’s victory strikes a degree of fear into the core of more liberal Egyptians in addition to the minority Coptic Christian population.  In many ways a dark horse as far as policies are concerned, the fear is what radical changes will he wring throughout the country?  How uncomfortable will Egypt become for those in the minority or for the most vocal revolutionaries?  Will they suffer at the hands of the Brotherhood for their part in bringing down a corrupt thirty year dictatorial regime?
Ahmed Shafiq on the other hand worries most Egyptians, especially those most ardent revolutionaries.  Shafiq represents the worst of Egypt; he stands for the man who put him in office, the man now now sentenced to life imprisonment, Hosni Mubarak.  The country is uncomfortable supporting a man who represents what brought Egypt to its knees, but this may be their fate if in the upcoming run-off election, Shafiq wins the presidency.  Did the majority of Egyptians really vote for him or was it some unfortunate fluke which has brought Shafiq to this position?  Opinions vary.  Some say it was a fair election, other say that those who actually voted didn’t really understand the voting process, and there are those who contend that they refused to vote until the government rewrote the constitution.  Whatever the reasons, at the outset, protest s in Cairo and Alexandria broke out over the two candidates left standing.
Two issues arise, the first is the final stage in the election process, and the other is the effect of the verdict against Mubarak and members of his old regime, including his two sons, Alaa and Gamal will have on the populace.  First, how are Egyptians handling their disappointment at this first round in the elections?  Politically: not well; emotionally: disturbed and confused at the outcome.  Acquittal of both Mubarak’s sons and also the former dictator’s ministers polarizes the country even more than it has been in recent months.  In other words, confusion reigns throughout the country, however, in the midst of this confusion, it is still relatively safe in Egypt.  Walk the streets, visit the shops, go to the markets, tourist destinations, and talk to the people, no problem.  It’s the immense poverty that strikes at the heart, the unhealthy conditions in which the people live, the lack of sanitation, adequate housing, and certainly dearth of jobs, and obvious starvation concerns most Egyptians.  They hope for the best, they pray for relief, now they have the opportunity to elect in the final run-off election who they wish to run their country, however, do the political leaders have the courage to face the old regime?
Second, an important chain reaction now sets in over the rather disappointing verdict against the old regime members.  Acquittal for all, including Mubarak’s sons, and the life-sentences proscribed against Adli – Mubarak’s interior minister – and Mubarak himself.  Couched in these sentences the deeper meaning appears.  These men were not convicted of murder or corruption, but merely for not intervening when the revolutionaries were being murdered.  The court saw fit to dismiss any charges of murder and/or corruption against the defendants.  It remains to be seen what the national and international reactions will be when the reality of these decisions sets in.  The relative safety of Egypt may also change, yet to date, other than the obvious demonstrations in Tahrir Square, it has not changed.
Revolution marked a new beginning for Egypt on the surface, but within, trouble remains.  Perhaps the inadequacy of today’s court verdicts will awaken the population, at least to the point that they will not elect Shafiq to the office of president.  Keep the old regime out of the limelight, hope that real change looms on Egypt’s horizon.  As the presiding judge said in his verdict reading Egypt was once the greatest of all civilizations, one to which all others looked for inspiration, but today, Egypt’s greatness is buried under its rubble and decades of corruption.  It is time for real change.  In the end, however, the beauty, majesty of Egypt’s past still beckons the traveler, don’t allow the surface foment to dampen adventurous spirits for which the present political climate remains just that, an Egyptian foment which will be decided by the people of Egypt and cannot change the lure of Egypt’s mysterious past and beauty and which the people, the real Egyptians, wish to share.