Egypt's Response To The Israeli Assault On Gaza: An Interview With Hossam El-Hamalawy

[screenshot from video below.] [screenshot from video below.]

Egypt's Response To The Israeli Assault On Gaza: An Interview With Hossam El-Hamalawy

By : Bassam Haddad

In this interview (video below), I discuss with Hossam El-Hamalawy al-Sisi`s government response to the Israeli assault on Gaza as a function of local Egyptian politics and the bold shift in the discourse on Palestine, Hamas specifically. He starts by addressing how al-Sisi continues to play the role that former President Mubarak did on Palestine, except “on steroids.” Whatever little Mubarak did to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, al-Sisi exceeded. Hossam refers to the cynical Gaza border closure by Egypt during the most critical times. Even at the most extenuating and catastrophic times, such as the current assault on Gaza, no considerations or exceptions are made.

Hossam also addresses the widespread and unprecedented demonization of Palestinians, particularly Hamas, in the mostly government-controlled or pro-Sisi media. But he reminds listeners that this despite this, support for the Palestinian cause is still widespread in Egypt, of which the Egyptian government is aware. This coincides with the derailment of the revolution in Egypt and the ascendance of military fascism and the activation of what some call “electronic committees” that disseminate government propaganda and spam through social media. 

In response to the question of calling Hamas a terrorist organization, Hossam asserts that this has always been the case in relation to Palestinian resistance, and goes back to the launching of the militant revolution among Palestinian factions in 1965. It continued and persists through the reign of all presidents in Egypt, but has reached new heights under Sisi. He expands on this, and specifies both media outlets and personalities in the interview. 

Hossam concludes with some prognosis about where this demonization might be going in light of the gradual and sometimes fast decline of the euphoria, or hysteria, that surrounded the coming of Sisi to power. He also addresses local factors in Egypt that have precipitated this decline and its attendant disappointment on the Egyptian street, especially in relation to economic issues.

Nevertheless, Hossam calls for caution in terms of expecting too much too soon in relation to social mobilization against al-Sisi, and cites some factors that will spur movement in this regard. He states that the steadfastness of Palestinians in the face of Zionist policies inspires Egyptians in their resistance to status quo in Egypt.

Jadaliyya Co-Editor Bassam Haddad interviews Hossam Hamalawy on Egypt’s policy towards the Israeli assault on Gaza. from Jadaliyya on Vimeo.

"A Strike Against Syria Forecloses the Possibility of a Political Solution": Bassam Haddad on MSNBC's Chris Hayes Show

ALL IN with Chris Hayes on MSNBC

Syria: The Case for War

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing Tuesday on a U.S. military strike against Syria, in which Secretary of State John Kerry offered dire warnings about the consequences of inaction. Chris Hayes is joined by Senator Jim Rish, R-Idaho, Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., and Bassam Haddad, Director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Mason University, to discuss the hearing and the resolution parameters that Congress will vote on in coming weeks.

[Transcript and Video Below]

Chris Hayes (CH): Joining me, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Mason University. He`s a scholar who specializes in Syria. He opposes US military intervention there. And professor, my first question to you is, the argument being made largely by John Kerry and the administration is on the grounds of a humanitarian case. Essentially enforcing this international norm against the use of weapons that are as ghastly as the ones we see deployed here. Why do you not think it`s a good idea for the United States to engage in military action to enforce that norm?

Bassam Haddad (BH): Well, first of all, to push for this argument on a humanitarian level is actually quite ridiculous, considering what has taken place in the region--under our nose and our spore and continues to take place in the region--with the support of the United States of various dictatorships and support of the settler colonial state of Israel and various other forms. What needs to be discussed right now is something a lot more serious than the debate suggests.

CH: Let me interrupt. We have very similar views on American foreign policy. It also seems to be like a little bit of hiding the ball to talk in those circumstances. Whatever the sins of the American government and its participation in the region--which I`m sure you could spend a lot of time listing, many of which I would agree with you on--that does not necessarily, right, in an operational, moral, or legal sense, take away from the possibility that it would be actually beneficial to the international world order or to Syrians for the US to get involved?

BH: Okay. I mean, this is what I`m trying to get to: the devil`s advocate argument. The debate right now centers around the idea that taking action is less risky than not taking action. This way of framing the debate is actually extremely problematic and off. First of all, this kind of framing of a binary eliminates the possibility that there is another option. It actually absolves the US from taking another course of action or another choice because the debate is being framed as action versus inaction. No, there is another course of action, and that is as we have been listening to many people saying, and I`ve been saying several times on various media, that there is a solution to the conflict. As much as we think it is difficult, the United States and Russia can come together and compel all parties to the conflict--that the United States and Russia will actually potentially come to a table and create the opportunity or the circumstances for the transition.

Because let me just say this, what we are not paying attention to is that a limited strike, first of all, will not be effective. Second of all, it will make the conflict more volatile. And third of all, it forecloses any possibility of a political solution down the road. It`s basically eliminating that possibility for the sake of very limited gains that can spin out of control and bring the entire region into this conflict.

CH: Bassam Haddad, from George Mason University. Thank you so much for your time tonight I really appreciate it.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy