The supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt are accused of being more loyal to the group than to their country. Anti-MB readers keep sending letters in support of what I just wrote while the pro-MB readers' letters are always irrelevant to the subject. Numbers don't lie. The numbers indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood failed in every aspect and caused a manifold surge in the economic crisis. But how are the supporters of the Brotherhood responding to these accurate facts? They are saying that Mohamed Morsi is the first civilian president who acceded to power in Egypt via democratic elections and was toppled by a military coup. First of all, the outcome of the elections is questionable. There is information indicating that Gen. Ahmed Shafik actually won, but that the Military Council actually preferred the MB candidate in order to avoid a massive protest, which the independent candidate would have been unable to handle. Secondly, June 30 saw a larger popular revolution than that of January 2011. However, the supporters of the Brotherhood have neither sight nor insight since they all failed to allude to the popular uprising against Morsi that preceded the interference of the military in order to avoid a civil war. Thirdly, during the era of Hosni Mubarak, the economy was developed but plagued with corruption. When the Brotherhood acceded to power, they attacked the economy and maintained the corruption, which was no longer confined to some specific symbols and figures and rather became a vertical phenomenon. Fourthly, during the 2010 elections and before the so-called Arab Spring revolution, I addressed President Mubarak twice through this column telling him that the elections "are not right" because the Brotherhood failed to obtain any seats. On a third instance, I told him that the elections were rigged. When the Brotherhood's rule failed, I said that they enjoy a large popularity in Egypt and that democracy must include everyone. I also called for a role for the MB in the future. Practicing selective reading, being prejudiced, and priding oneself in wrongdoing are all negative attitudes. A part of the Syrian opposition is this bad or even worse. When I write about "the regime's oppression and the opposition's division," some understand my words as alluding to the victory of the regime, knowing that I haven't had any contacts with the regime since autumn 2010. A reader actually found a new way to criticize me. I recently wrote a piece in favor of printed newspapers over e-papers in which I indicated that the happiest moments of my day consist of me reading Al-Hayat in the morning while sipping coffee in bed. The entire piece tackled the subject of printed newspapers. However, the reader digressed and asked writers and intellectuals to show some "condescendence" and to write about the misery of Arab people instead of writing about their own misery whenever they fail to read the paper or sip their coffee. In my piece, I was talking about myself. I never said that I am miserable, because I am in fact still reading the newspaper in bed every morning. I also don't represent writers and intellectuals. Again, the entire subject was about printed newspapers so how could I possibly tackle the subject of Syria or any other subject in the same piece? If drinking coffee can stop the misery of the Syrian people, then I pledge to never drink coffee again and to completely ban it from my house. Other letters from other readers actually tackled important points. For instance, there were two readers who thought that I was wasting my time by attacking pro-Likud Americans and their campaigns against Islam. In fact, the pieces get translated to English; and even if they were not, they are still read in Arabic. I am attacked on a daily basis and I am accused of anti-Semitism. However, I received my journalism training in London and I know the limits of libel and slander rules. Had I really written anti-Semitic material, I would have been sued like many others. (...) [email protected]
