Gates of Habu, Way of Horus, Trail of brain farts

The mortuary temple of Rameses the third on the west bank of Thebes is a sight to behold. I am particularly obsessed with the preservation of colors on its walls and ceilings, which until the most recent restoration at Karnak was unique. Outside the temple though, you can see the remains of much less glorious mud brick walls that were used to protect the temple. Then you get to the entrance, which is through a narrow doorway in a huge pylon that looks like the ramparts of a castle. Kind of overkill for a temple.

To understand why, you have to see some of the less colorful depictions inside the temple. They show (and tell of) the victory of Rameses III over the sea people. This is one of the best accounts of this mysterious wave that triggered the Bronze Age collapse. Among the people that Rameses fought were a people that gave their name to the Roman province of Palestine.

On the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing, the gateway looks curiously like that of the temple at Madinet Habu. In fact, most New Kingdom temples kind of look like fortresses. This paranoia is based entirely on Egypt's experience with its northeast. In the second intermediate period, a people known as the Hyksos invaded Egypt from Canaan and caused the country to crumble. There is a sense of “never again” from the New Kingdom on Canaan. But it would happen again, and again.

Egypt always understood that key to its strange relation with the Levant is Sinai. Sinai is a place where Egyptians have been since the pre-dynastic period. The mines of southern Sinai were integral to Egypt's economy and all through dynastic Egypt, there was a particular fixation with ensuring the area always remained under Egypt's control. Key to preserving the peace in Sinai is the way of Horus, a series of fortresses along the coast in northern Sinai, designed to strengthen Egypt against the inexorable attacks coming from that direction. Anyone who wanted to enter had to go through a gauntlet of gates of Habu.

Egypt’s entanglement with the Levant never stopped. In Fatimid, Ayubid, and Mamluk Egypt; the Levant was the source of never ending crusader attempts to invade the country. Although this sometimes came from the sea, it often came from the Sinai. In Mamluk Egypt, an existential threat came from farther east and descended upon Egypt from the Levant: the Mongols. Egypt was on its way to disappear from the surface of Earth, like Khwarazm before it. But the Mamluks decided that the only way to save Egypt was to fight the Mongols where Egypt’s weakness lies. The first battle between Mamluk Egypt and the Mongols was in Gaza. Egypt won.

In 1956, during the Suez crisis, Israel, unprovoked, invaded Sinai in collaboration with France and the UK. Moshe Dayan stood in the Knesset and declared that Israel had established a new reality. The “armistice lines” of 1948 (read international borders) no longer meant anything. Many westerners wonder why “The Arabs” never tried peace with Israel. All evidence we have is that Nasser was initially very interested in peace with Israel, but that moment in 1956 certainly gave everyone in Egypt pause. Was Israel interested in peace?

When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, reactions in Egypt was mixed. There was the usual cohort of Islamists, western sponsored democracy activists, and leftists who were giddy at "Palestinians freeing themselves with their own hands". But the nature of the Hamas attacks also meant that for the first time there was sympathy for Israel. The Israelis also did a good job with communicating, and sometimes miscommunication what Hamas did in this initial stage. On a human level, a lot of people in Egypt felt sorry for the civilians in Israel who in a way had nothing to do with the suffering of the Palestinians.

But we know the playbook. It would take ten days for Israel to burn a bunch of Palestinian kids to a crisp and any Egyptian sympathy for the Israelis would disappear. Westerners would hold on a bit because Israelis killing children is different because of reasons. But a week later maybe they'd catch up. And this is playing out as usual for most countries. Except Egypt.

Because almost immediately after the attacks, Israel started suggesting, sometimes explicitly, that the Palestinians should exit Gaza to the Sinai. Western officials also immediately embraced this, talking about "humanitarian corridors".

Now the reaction from Egypt towards this would not surprise anyone in Egypt. What I find surprising is that the west was shocked at Egypt's reaction. In Egypt, the suggestion confirmed what many had always suspected: Israel plans to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Gaza into Sinai so it can annex Gaza. It would do the same for the West Bank, this time depopulating it into Jordan. While some had always dismissed this as far fetched, it was now explicit. Israel as an expansionist entity that knows no borders was reignited in the minds of many.

This is rejected in Egypt. It is rejected in upper Egypt and in lower Egypt; by Muslims and Christians; by secularists, Islamists, and non-ists. It is rejected at the political level, at the military level, at the cultural level, and at the popular level. It is rejected for the sake of Palestinians and for the sake of Egyptians. It is rejected on a boat, it is rejected with a goat. And Egyptian officials, including the president have been blunt and direct in how much rejected this is in language Egypt has not used in decades.

None of this is surprising to anyone who knows the bare minimum about Egypt. Which is why what I find surprising, is the surprise of American and European officials at the reaction of Egypt. It seems they genuinely thought we would be OK with depopulating Gaza and giving up the Sinai. Or maybe they had no idea what causing an exodus from Gaza would mean. I do not know which is worse honestly.

I have always known that westerners view everyone in the region as just an amorphous blob devoid of culture, history, or national identity. And I have always not cared. But I had forgotten that these perceptions sometimes have real world impacts. And here was one. The west saw Egypt as non-distinct and having no national identity. The west, saw Egypt as having no national identity. Egypt. The country that invented national identity.

Even to officials at the highest level of government, we are all just interchangeable brown people. And then there are others, who see us refusing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and then say, hey it seems the Egyptians hate the Palestinians. Well, again I don't care if you do not understand, but the problem is this is starting to have real world consequences. For example, how western media keeps insisting that Egypt does not want to open Rafah for aid, when Israel explicitly keeps screaming that they are the ones who refuse to open it.

Thus, it took a few days of disbelief on both sides as Europeans and Americans say things like hey Palestinians, Egyptians, what’s the difference; while Egyptians stare in disbelief at the utter lack of understanding of culture, history, and the worth of people. I do not think that westerners understand how this suggestion is insulting to both Egyptians and Palestinians.

But there is also an incredible lack of insight. Let us assume Egypt lets everyone in from Palestine. How? How can you guarantee that Hamas doesn’t also come in? And if they come in, wouldn’t that allow them a much longer border from which to attack Israel? I don’t know if Israel didn’t think of this. Perhaps they did and this is the feature not the bug. Maybe they want a pretext to invade Sinai again. But did Europe and America not think of it? Because I don’t know which is worse, if they thought it out or if they didn’t.

It seems that for now the west seems to have backed off from supporting ethnically cleansing Gaza into Sinai. Ethnic cleansing bad. But the new plan is in. When asked what next, Israel is now suggesting that they will “cut ties” with Gaza. And we are already starting to hear brilliant ideas about “integrating” Gaza with Egypt coming in from the Likes of John Bolton.

Now there is a built in resistance to resettling Palestinians in Sinai that goes across the board in Egypt, which is why the country came down on this suggestion like a brick wall. There has not been enough time to develop resistance to the idea of an “Egyptian administered Gaza”. I can see some Nasserists and maybe some Islamists being fine with it. I can see cracks.

But this is a very bad idea. First, it destroys the Palestinians, because Israel all of a sudden gets rid of half the Palestinian population between the river and the sea. It can then turn to the real prize, the west bank where annexation and ever shrinking Bantustans can finally kill the Palestinian cause and lead to a mini “Greater Israel”.

But even for Egypt this is a shit idea. What does “integrating” Gaza mean? And what is Egypt’s responsibility for this “integrated Gaza”? How do we keep security in it? Will we? Why are we supposed to govern a totally different people? Because yes, they have their own distinct identity, and it's time for western people to realize this.

But I am not really worried that Egypt will end up with this burden. Because I have finally decoded the Israelis. Israel is a tactical marvel. Give the Israelis a specific aim and they will do it brilliantly and efficiently. Control this area, and kill this guy! They will do it and they will do it better than anyone. They have a professional, well trained, and motivated army; and they are brilliant with high tech.

However, I do not think Israel ever had strategy. Israel never had vision. Even the strategic and self evidently beneficial decision to have peace with Egypt, I don't think the Israelis would have ever done it. This was started by president Sadat, and the Israelis tried their best to sabotage it even if it was obviously good for Israel and good for Jews. It took a lot of sticks and a lot of carrots from the Americans to get Israel to do it.

Israel's strategy and vision has always been a trail of brain farts. It is hard to see this because they are technically and tactically proficient to a degree that staggers an observer. But it is true. Asking them what the plan is for anything is never going to get you anywhere, and it's not because they have a master plan, it's because they don't know. They are just crossing bridges as they come, but they have no idea to where.

So this brilliant plan for Gaza, what will Gaza be? OK so Israel "disengages" from Gaza, and then what. Egypt will never annex Gaza. So what is Gaza? There are only two options, an independent Gaza, in which case they get control of their borders, territorial waters, harbor, and airport. This is a nightmare for Israel because they would start messing with it in the Mediterranean and would inspire a lot of hope in the West Bank. So Gaza is not independent? Then Israel has not disengaged from Gaza, because it will keep it under blockade at sea and through the air.

So what are the Israelis thinking? Well, nothing really. It's just another ephemeral cloud in the trail of brain farts. The question is, will the west continue to give unconditional support to this aimless trail?

Why do people protest?

Protests sweeping the world today seem to be a strong echo of the protests that rocked the middle east in the Arab spring. People are trying to find a unified reason for these protests as they tried for the Arab spring, and they are having barely any more luck. This is because people are looking in the wrong place, and because what we identify as a catalyst is actually a cause.

People are protesting because of the Internet.

It is not that protests are made easier by the Internet. It is not that social media makes it easier to organize. The Internet is the actual root cause of the current round of protests, the Arab spring, the election of Trump, flat earthers, incels, and the rise of the right in Europe. All these things are a manifestation of only one thing: entitlement.

And I don’t mean entitlement in a bad way. I just mean it in a descriptive way. For example, people seem to agree that millennials are entitled. This is the experience of everyone everywhere all over the world. I don’t think there has ever been a time where people in all areas of the world agree that there is a certain trait that characterizes a whole generation. Even after historic events of epic proportions like the second world war, the impact on the war generation was always different. The UK was not affected the same way India was. Hell, the impact on France and the UK wasn’t even very similar.

So what has changed. The internet. It’s pure and simple. It is true that the Internet, and particularly social media has worked as a catalyst for protest movements by providing a means of organizing. And it is true that protests almost always have some foundational causes, and that they are almost always leveraged by the governments of powerful countries to gain influence. But that’s not what these protests are about. These protests be they street protests, social movements, or voting decisions, are an expression that people are finally discovering that they are worth something.

It is a cry against an elite of some sort. An economic elite, a political elite, a scientific elite, or a woman-hogging elite. But it is always a cry against the dominant order by people who, for very long, have had to contend with being second rate. The Internet finally gave voice, form,  and credence to these counter-movements. “Counter” they no longer had to be, they did not have to be defined as marginal. They were as good as whatever they are countering, because they are an expression of real people who for very long did not have a voice.

It is difficult and sometimes dangerous to try and make sense of these protest movements. It is difficult because there is something there, there is an element of legitimacy. But if you approach these movements that way you will never understand them, because they are not about legitimate concerns or logical discussion. They are not about finding a solution or the real world, they are about an expression of exasperation. And when you start to dig a little deeper you find a lot to make fun of. The whole thing crumbles, serious street protests as fast as flat Earth experiments. Which is dangerous, because you then run the risk of being tarred and feathered by the establishment common wisdom.

There are a few axioms that are assumed about all these protest movements, some of which are true and some are myths:

-They are often thought to be leaderless. And they very often are. Some people have trouble getting to grips with this, assuming there must be a nefarious foreign hand involved. And there often is! The two things are not mutually exclusive. It is naïve to think western intelligence is not stoking tensions in Hong Kong to put pressure on China. In fact, if western intelligence didn’t, western intelligence would be criminally negligent. But also, these movements are often spontaneous and leaderless. It’s a little tough to believe, but that’s because you are missing that critical component: the Internet. It has allowed a swarm intelligence to develop around many subcultures in a very undirected manner.

-The movements are always legitimate. They aren’t always. In fact, they almost never are. While some are based in legitimate concerns, they do not have legitimate demands, realistic goals, or even a world view that accepts diversity.

-The movements provide an alternative to what they are rebelling against. They don’t. There aren’t always two sides to every issue. Flat Earth is not an alternative, it is bullshit. There aren’t good guys on the neo-NAZI side. And equally true, the Lebanese protestors aren’t protesting the right things, and protestors in Chile are making things worse.

The last two statements are dangerous. It is forbidden to criticize street protests, especially ones in which people die or are wounded. And double especially if there is legitimacy to the grievances. The Lebanese leadership is corrupt, kleptocratic, and sectarian. The Lebanese protestors are indignant about a situation that they themselves causes, they are making it worse, and they are demanding things that can never happen. Both sentences are true.

And yet, you have to give them legitimacy. Why? Because our brains aren’t programmed to grasp the concept that movements so large and so seemingly purposeful could be chaotic, destructive, ineffective, or aimless. That’s because we are living in a universe that is being reshaped by the democratization of self-worth. You do not have to be right. You do not have to learn. You do not have to prove. You are worth something because you are you.

What we are witnessing is a manifestation of the post-truth world in which there are versions of reality and alternative facts. This transcends left and right, White and Black, religious and atheist.

We are in the alternative fact universe.

The Arab Spring going home to die

Western neo-liberals and neo-conservatives alike have had varying degrees of ease defending and promoting the Arab Spring. The high point was probably Tahrir square in Egypt in 2011. The facade of well-connected, modern, diverse, and secular youth fighting a sclerotic tyrant was very easy to sell. Any Egyptian on the ground trying to communicate the fact that the Islamists formed a huge driving force in the square was brushed aside as reactionary. Normal people who were concerned about the immediate deterioration of normal life were labelled government agents. It was easy to brush everything aside. Any concerns or whistleblowing from normal people was labelled conspiracy theory. Any real disaster like the storming of prisons or the burning of police stations, was immediately explained by insane conspiracy theories that were quickly established as "facts".

Things changed over time. Beyond Egypt and Tunisia, the Arab Spring experiment invariably disintegrated into civil war. But it was always easy to blame the civil war on anything but the Spring. The war was because the west did not immediately go in and remove Bashar. But then again, the west did go in and take out Ghaddafi, so how do you explain Libya?

Shush.

Shush, I said you Mubarakist reactionary.

It was a bumpy ride, but western neo-conservative, and western liberals in particular had a lot of stamina. The mental gymnastics required increased with time, but these people's superpower to keep at it was almost super human. The idea had to live on. The idea of a glorious "spontaneous" leaderless revolution sweeping away old regimes had to go on. It really does not matter what replaces what these revolutions remove. That is secondary. People's quality of life is secondary. People's life or lack thereof is secondary. The idea is primary.

The idea is important, because it combines two things that a western liberal desperately needs. It combines the white man's burden with a modern multiculturalist sheen. It allows the Guardian reporter to tell Arabs what they should do to save themselves, while at the same time acting as if they are just supporting what said Arabs want to do. It allows interventionism with a hands-off approach. It is amazing and effective. And the best thing about it, is that when it blows up and people's lives go to shit, you don't have to pay the price. In fact, you can still keep pontificating about the revolution and how to truly truly get rid of the old regime.

There was one big huge setback though. It was a mile thick concrete wall that the bandwagon crashed on, and nobody saw it coming.

The election of Donald Trump.

I have to admit it was funny seeing western liberal suddenly screaming about things we screamed about in 2011, only to be accused of being Mubarak cronies. Suddenly western liberals were crying about how they only wanted change, not a breakdown of all normalcy and civil behavior. And I laughed. All of a sudden there is an overwhelming concern about how social media is weaponized and used to push an agenda. Suddenly foreign interference is a bad thing. Suddenly, we are supposed to seriously discuss "Russia sowing discord and chaos in America". All things we said in 2011 as we saw life crumble. All things we were ridiculed for. And we are still being derided for wanting to preserve the very essentials of basic life. The gall.

The second wave of the Arab Spring came to the rescue. Sudan and Algeria were a breath of fresh air. Certainly we can avoid the "mistakes" of the first wave. We can insist the protestors on the ground never move until they get to their goal, until Sudan is Switzerland. And for a while, this first wave seemed to be working. In both countries, the change seemed to be fundamental, and in Sudan, the "mistakes" of trusting the military in Egypt were avoided. Also the Islamists don't exist. Dadadada, can't hear you.

But as Algeria and Sudan fizzle down to the reality of post-revolutionary entropy, the new and rising star is Iraq.

And Iraq is interesting for many reasons. Iraq is the birthplace of the Arab Spring. No matter how much you want to deny it, Bush's invasion of Iraq is what started the domino. And the current demonstrations in Iraq are something else. They are the exemplary Arab Spring demo. Leaderless, violent, chaotic, rudderless, and allover the place.

Iraq is where all this was born. It is where all this goes to die.

For Iraq is the answer to all the excuses of why the Arab Spring failed. The old regime in Iraq was decimated. There were no remnants left. The police was destroyed. The military melted in acid. There was no trace left of anything that had to do with the old regime. The new regime is democratic. There are elections, and nobody has special influence on the elections. The constitution is spotless. The process should allow participation by everyone. It was all brand new and spotless clean, created by neo-conservatives in the image of western liberals.

And it has been a constant implosion. Civil war, marginalization of minorities, breakdown of the state, loss of territory, ISIL, breakdown of basic services, and an economy in constant decline even when it is not in decline. Iraq has never managed to get up again, no matter how much it tries. Removing governments does not seem to work. Peaceful handover of power does nothing to change anything. The army keeping out of it only allowed two thirds of the country to breakaway.

And now people are in the streets. Because a military leader was removed by civilian leaders.

People are in the street because the military leader bitched and moaned on TV about being demoted.

And because they hate everything, they hate the ruling class, they hate the elites, they hate how nothing seems to improve.

And it's all meaningless and will lead to one of two things: either a military strongman taking power and ending the chaos, or a spiral or constant violence. Why? Because what do the protestors want? They want good stuff, but it is neither well-defined good stuff, nor is it achievable and realistic.

The problem is that Arabs keep protesting against governments. The problem is not governments, the problem is much more fundamental. The problem is limited and receding resources. The problem is a growing youth population because people keep having children without actually thinking if they can afford it. The problem is a culture that does not value facts, science, or work. This is not a government culture, it was not created by governments, and will not be solved by governments. Arabs can keep protesting all they like, but the very same things western elites respect about these demos is why they will never work. If you protest, protest about something specific, have leadership, and have specific achievable realistic demands.

The true Arab Spring will happen when the population rises against the conservative religious forces keeping their soft power and culture locked up. A true revolution will happen once people cross the culture of entitlement created by Arab socialist regimes and decades of petro-dollars in the kingdoms and the emirates.

Until then, it's all vain.

The west’s MbS BS problem

One thing characterizes the intrigue around the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi: Confusion. There is confusion about what happened to him, who did it, and how to respond to it. There is confusion about who he was, how much one should mourn him, and how to even pronounce his name. There is confusion in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and above all in the US.

There should not be that much confusion. In the middle east confusion comes from the very definition of what the middle east stands for. This is the home of fake news, conspiracy theories, and utter bullshit. The utter trash pushed by Al-Jazeera and Sabah is only rivaled by Al-Arabiya. But this is par for the course for the mideast. This is the raison d’être for Al-Jazeera, and is the well-practiced plan-B for Al-Arabiya.

What is really interesting is how the trash reporting has infected western media. On the one hand one has to ask how this news has been the exclusive main headline on CNN for almost two weeks. This is a feat rivaled only by 9/11 or the Iraq war. So is this event on the same magnitude. But even more interesting is the calibre of news that has occasionally seeped to Reuters and AP, and has consistently been a staple of CNN’s coverage.

Western media will at one point find itself bewildered by the ride they have been taken on. And it’s not the first time. The Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war have also been characterized by mideast bullshit infecting western media. There are sensationalized reports on audio and video recordings, playing music while bone sawing corpses, burials in remote woods, in consular backyards, and far away beaches. There is a black and white narrative in which the victim is whitewashed and the perpetrator is portrayed as a DC villain. It’s all very Arab Spring. And it’s all a load of bullshit.

And it’s not a mystery either. The reasons this virus has infected western media is very clear: They report from mideast sources. Of course if you use any mideast source, the news will not be reliable. It really does not make a difference if it’s Israelis, Qatari, Turkish, Saudi, or Egyptian. It’s all a load of bull. And western media should know it. But for some reason, when it comes to covering the middle east, a good and evil narrative is inescapable.

So how does one approach a problem like this? The only way to approach anything that has to do with the middle east is to use an evidence based method. Do not believe anything without plenty of evidence. Be very cognizant of what you consider evidence. Use a lot of healthy skepticism. But avoid skepticism in the face of absolute proof, because this is the home of conspiracy theories.

There is one fact in the whole Khashoggi case: He entered the consulate in Istanbul, and there is zero evidence that he left it. Nothing else is a fact. Nothing.

But there are corollaries that you can draw from this fact. You can comfortably say that the maximum likelihood scenario is that the Saudis killed him in the consulate. Why? Because there is plenty of motivation now to show evidence that they did not. And they surely DO have video recordings of what did happen. Even if they had kidnapped him, it would be less harmful now to show him in some Saudi jail than to show nothing. Thus, he was most likely killed, and most likely by them.

Another very strong corollary is that the Turks were spying on the Saudi consulate. And that they are probably spying on many other diplomatic missions in Ankara and Istanbul. It is also very likely that the Turks knew he was being killed or even was going to be killed ahead of time but chose to give the Saudis more rope to hang themselves.

Nothing else is a fact or even likely. You should be agnostic about everything else. No bonesaws, no overdoses, burials, black cars, fifteen diplomats, people close to MbS, or any of the other intriguing details. Everything else is bullshit until proven not bullshit. And the standard for proving it not bullshit is that a western intelligence or diplomatic source informs a western media outlet of having first hand witnessed the evidence. Any sourcing in which a Turkish official or Turkish media are involved is as good as void and null.

The question remains, what should the west do about this. How much and how far should Saudi Arabia be “punished”. What should they do about that rogue of a prince, MbS.

The problem is that western media, and perhaps a lot of western politicians expect there to be clean, clear, and uncompromising answers to the middle east. This was the great sin of the Arab Spring. Obama assumed that there is a moral position to take on Tahrir Square. Mainstream media in the west echoed the sentiment. This delusion stems from the way the west sees things in the middle east.

The west wants to see clean and clear images. And to see these images, they use their friends and connections in the middle east. Their “activist” connections and friends are happy to oblige.

Tahrir Square was a very comforting scene. An old, frail, autocratic, oppressive, and violent dictator on the one hand. A diverse, tolerant, youthful, media connected, freedom loving, secular, and hopeful mass of normal people on the other. The decision was easy. But the outcome was not as expected.

Nor was it anywhere that the Arab Spring virus hit. Why? Because the image exported to the west was bullshit. The west was shown what the west wanted to see in Tahrir Square. The realities on the ground were hid. The Islamists kept to the sideline. The plight and fears of minorities, secularists, and the millions of people who had legitimate interests were ignored. The real price in terms of economic fallout and loss of development was brushed aside. And Mubarak was painted as a one dimensional character, the darkness necessary for the light of Tahrir to shine.

On Saudi Arabia and MbS, this same addiction to fairy book clarity still plagues the west. The same dependence on suspect sources still persists. And the same lack of realism still plagues them.

Saudi Arabia is a strange and complicated country. If you visit Jeddah the first thing that would hit you is how similar it is to American cities. Saudi Arabia has always been a very odd mix of modernity and conservatism. It is an odd mix of understandings, agreements, coercion, and compromise. Tribal balance, family connections that extend for thousands of miles and across millions of people, and an odd form of fairness and equitable distribution of wealth.

But this peculiar equilibrium has never been liked by the west, particularly western elites. Some of this dislike is based in western elites failing to understand that other societies can be different from them without being evil. This, for example, was the case when western elites accused the Saudi royal family of hoarding wealth and impoverishing their own people. This is unfair, untrue, and counter productive. And thus no matter how much this line was pushed as an inroad to “liberate” the Saudi people it never worked, because it has no resonance on the ground.

But in some other respects the western elites were right. Saudi Arabia’s alliance between the house of Saud and the Wahabi clergy has indeed done tremendous harm to the world and the Muslim world in particular. Its enormous wealth has allowed Saudi Arabia to influence world Islam more than any other country in the twentieth century. And the end product has been an Islam that is less tolerant, more violent, and more crippling than any historical form of the religion. Yes, Saudi Arabia stands almost single handedly responsible for everything from Al-Qaeda to ISIL. And yes, Saudi Arabia has been a leader in the oppression of women and minorities in the Muslims world.

This crippling stagnation was perhaps most clearly felt by Saudi millennials. With the advent of social media, Saudi youth felt that their country was not what it could be. Saudi Arabia was wealthy, but it was slow, old, conservative, and reactive. This was how they saw their country on the inside as well as from the outside. There was plenty of appetite for a more muscular, progressive, aggressive, and assertive Saudi Arabia.

And MbS was the answer to their prayers. Understanding the above sense is important to understanding MbS and why he might have more support than western media thinks. The main sentiment of Saudis is that their country can and should do more. It certainly has the potential to do so. In other words, they felt their country was losing when it should win. And MbS was promising them they were going to win so much, they would get tired of winning. Which should be a familiar sentiment to many western countries whose own governments are being swept by nativism.

So how should we judge MbS? Is he a false messiah because he apparently killed Khashoggi? Maybe the answer is that this is not a mutually exclusive choice because the world is not that simple. MbS is the reformer he was hailed as, he is also the war criminal everyone has been screaming about, and he also killed a dissident in a consulate.

He did ban the religious police. This is a fact. And anyone who lived in Saudi Arabia knows how fundamental a change this is. He did allow women to drive, and yeah you might think it’s not perfect and it shouldn’t be seen as such a magnanimous gift, but it is; because this is Saudi Arabia not Switzerland. He is trying to modernize the country, diversify the economy, and create a tolerance for expats and diversity that Saudi society never really had. 

He has also started a war where the most powerful country in the Arab world has mercilessly pounded the poorest Arab country into unbearable levels of destitution. The Yemen war is a horror of horrors. It is a debacle for those prosecuting it, and a terror for those upon which it is being prosecuted. And MbS is its main instigator. But no country can claim any moral authority on this war because all countries in the world have either been participants in this war, or silent bystanders.

MbS did kidnap the prime minister of Lebanon. And he did force him to film a ransom video before letting him go. This awful act was a manifestation of the Saudi’s feeling that the region has been milking them for too long while giving nothing in return. The Lebanese Sunni coalition has been happy to accept Saudi money, but slow to do Saudi’s bidding. And this was going to stop. Saudis were going to give no more free lunches.

And this is where MbS and his youth base really made a mistake. Saudi Arabia was not in the business of free lunches. Saudi Arabia was in the business of cultivating alliances, maintaining stability, and nurturing allegiance. The old school Saudi monarchy did not expect vassals, they expected allies, and allies they got. When push came to shove, the Arab world always stood by Saudi, as everyone with whom they cultivated a relation did during the invasion of Kuwait.

MbS’s tenure of screwing with the balance of the middle east is part of the reason they suddenly find themselves with only tepid support from allies. But his disruptive nature should only be a let down to the Arab world, it should theoretically be welcome by western elites. After all, he is disrupting old and corrupt norms, isn’t he?

But that’s where the west starts to face the reality of what it really wants. Is the west really interested in a Saudi Arabia that reforms itself, but inevitably becomes more independent, disruptive, and potentially destructive? Or does the west want stability and sane measured government? It is the same dilemma of the Arab Spring, except that the stakes are at once more manageable and more dire.

So what should a moral person do in this situation? One should be aware of facts. All facts. A man was killed. He was brutally killed. He was killed in a backstabbing way in a location where nobody should expect to be killed. He was killed by his own government.

That man was not a reformer, a democrat, or a mild mannered thinker. He was a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer, anti-Semite, and a discriminatory muslim supremacist.

Those who bemoan the death of Jamal are not reformers or democrats. Qatar has supported as much atrocity as Saudi. Turkey is a despotic autocratic country that imprisons more journalists than any other country. All the activists crying over the death of Jamal are eager to politicize it and use it to start some sort of Islamist revolt in Saudi Arabia and the region.

MbS is a disruptive killer. He is a war criminal par excellence. He is also a reformer, and probably more of an egalitarian democrat than the “journalist” he killed in the consulate. Messy, right? So is life.

These are the facts, do with them as you want. But whatever position you take, the most immoral thing to do is to ignore the facts.

مهارات التفاوض عند المصريين

القصة دي قصة حصلت في مدرسة من افضل المدارس الخاصة اللي بتدرس المنهج الوطني (ناشونال). مدرسة سمعتها فوق الممتازة، الويتنج ليست فيها مليانة والناس بتجري وراها. مش مهم هي انهي مدرسة لأن القصة دي متكررة في كل حتة وفي كل مستوى في مصر. القصة هي قصة التفاوض بين المصريين، وخاصة التفاوض بين مجموعات الافراد من ناحية والمؤسسات من ناحية اخرى. ممكن ناس تلزقلها تمليحات سياسية بس مش هو ده المقصود خالص. المقصود هو التفاوض مع المدرسة والنادي والشغل والكومباوند، الخ.

الحكاية بتبتدي في اخر السنة الدراسية في سنة ٢٠١٧. السنة خلصت والعيال اخدت الشهايد والاوائل عالمنطقة طلعوا من المدرسة والدعاية اتعملت وكله كان تمام. بس فيه ناس لاحظت حاجة. محدش من المدرسة قال حاجة عن مصاريف السنة الجاية كام. بس محدش اعترض قوي. ساعات بيتأخروا. والصيف جه والناس اتشغلت في المصيف والتمارين وكل الحاجات دي وعدى الصيف.

وابتدا العام الدراسي ٢٠١٧/٢٠١٨. و محدش من المدرسة قال اي حاجة خالص عن المصاريف. دي بقى كانت حاجة غريبة. وفيه ناس ابتدت تتكلم.

بعدين المدرسة عملت حاجة غريبة جدا، طلبت من الناس يدفعوا اول قسط مصاريف من غير ما يقولولهم مجموع المصاريف كام!!!

الناس طبعا غضبت جدا وسألوا سؤال واحد بس: مجموع المصاريف كااااام؟ المدرسة مبقتش بترد على حد فيهم. الادارة تقولهم اسألوا الحسابات، والحسابات تقولهم اسألوا الادارة. يرجعوا للادارة يقولولهم اسألوا صاحب المدرسة.

المهم القسط كان تقريبا قد القسط الاول في السنة اللي قبلها. ففيه ناس حست ان دي علامة كويسة وكتير دفعوا اول قسط. بس فيه ناس رفضت تدفع اي حاجة من غير ما تعرف المجموع اللي هيكون مطلوب منهم يدفعوه قد ايه. الناس دي ابتدي تتجمع على الواتس اب ومنها على جروب الفيسبوك بتاع المدرسة. في جروب الفيسبوك حسوا انهم مش مرغوب في شكاواهم من الناس اللي مش متضايقة. فعملوا جروب تاني يمثل اولياء الامور المتضررين. كل الجروبات كانت مغلقة وكل النقاشات كانت خاصة.

وبعدين المدرسة اعلنت مجموع المصاريف…

بنسبة زيادة تلات اضعاف المعتاد في السنين السابقة. نسبة زيادة تمثل حمل ضخم على اي حد.

وهنا لازم نقف ونفكر في حجم غلطة المدرسة. أولا الزيادة اكتر بكتير من المعتاد. ثانيا ميعاد اعلانها لا يسمح لأي حد بانه ينقل من المدرسة لو مش قادر على المصاريف. ثالثا محدش من المدرسة وضح للناس سبب الزيادة بشكل مباشر.

الاهالي . كلهم . على بعضهم . ثاروا. كلهم بمعنى كلهم. كل الناس. حتى اللي كانوا مع المدرسة كله هاج. وكل الناس انضمت لجروب الفيسبوك بتاع المتضررين. الاهالي وجهة نظرهم انهم مخدوش حتى الفرصة انهم يفكروا هم يقدرو على الزيادة ولا ينقلوا وان تم اعلامهم متأخر جدا وان الزيادة مش حاجة صغيرة عليهم خصوصا ان دي كانت اعلى سنة في التضخم. زائد انهم ميضمنوش لو قدروا يلبوا الزيادة مش ضامنين لو اخدوا خازوق مماثل السنين اللي بعدها هيعملوا ايه. 

ومعاهم كل حق.

المدرسة قالت ان التعويم اثر عليهم زي ما اثر على كل حاجة وان الزيادات المتواضعة اللي الناس اتعودت عليها في السنين اللي قبل كده هي السبب ان تراكم التضخم على المدرسة واضطروا لزيادة كبيرة مرة واحدة. وقالوا ان الحلين اللي كانوا قصادهم كان اما الزيادة او تخفيض الخدمة التعليمية بشدة. وان اغلب المدارس زودت تقريبا نفس النسبة. اما بالنسبة ليه ما اعلموش الناس من بدري لانهم مكانوش قادرين يحددوا بالاضافة لان الناس كده كده كانوا هيغضبوا زائد ان مصاريف الطلبة الجداد كانت موحية بنسبة الزيادة هتبقى كام. 

ومعاهم بعض حق وكتير من النقط اللي عليها علامات استفهام.

وتحول الوضع لصراع حقيقي فيه اولياء الامور متوحدين ضد المدرسة. وابتدى يظهر بعض اشكال القيادة لاولياء الامور على جروب الفيسبوك. القيادات دي فرضت نفسها وكل واحد فيهم بيحاول يزيد حماسة اولياء الامور في مواجهة المدرسة. اول طلب كان لقاء مع صاحب المدرسة، وهو راجل ذو خبرة طويلة في المدارس الخاصة. سبب الطلب هو رفض الزيادة بشكل تام.

وهنا مهم اننا نفتكر ان المدرسة ممتازة. دي حقيقة محدش كان مختلف عليها واول الناس اللي موافقة عليها كان الاهالي.

المهم جروبات الواتس اب وجروب الفيسبوك شحنوا الناس اللي رايحة الاجتماع. وفعلا الناس كانت رايحة جايبة اخرها من المدرسة. 

الاجتماع كان حاضره صاحب المدرسة زائد قيادات ادارتها. التحفز كان واضح من الجهتين وكان فيه بث مباشر على فيسبوك ومعاه تشجيع في المدرجات. اولياء الامور رفضوا الزيادة. الادارة قدمت تبريرها للزيادة واصرت انهم مش هيقدروا يحافظوا على المستوى بدون اي زيادة في المصاريف. طلب الاهالي كان ببساطة عدم زيادة المصاريف مليم. ورد صاحب المدرسة انه مش هيقدر يقلل الزيادة لانه بالفعل هامش ربحه ضيق جدا اضيق من كل المدارس التانية واي نقصان في الزيادة معناه ان المدرسة هتخسر، وهو مش هيقدر يفضل فاتحها عشان تخسر.

الاهالي ازداد اشتعالهم وواحد منهم قام وقال انتو اكيد فاكرين اننا مش هنقدر نشتكيكم في الوزارة عشان خايفين من انها تفرض الاشراف المالي والاداري. احنا بقى شايفين ان الوزارة مش شرط تكون احسن منكم بس هم غالبا مش هيكونوا اوحش منكم.

الاهالي استحسنوا الكلام جدا وكان فيه موافقة شديدة.

صاحب المدرسة والادارة احسوا باهانة شديدة. وهنا لازم نفتكر ان المدرسة ممتازة وان لغاية اللقاء محدش من الاهالي كان بيعارض ده.

صاحب المدرسة قال للاهالي لو فعلا حاسين ان الاشراف المالي والاداري هيكون احسن فانا انصحكم تطلبوه من الوزارة، وانا مش هغلب اني اتعامل معاهم واخد منهم حقوقي فانا مش مضرور في حاجة.

الاهالي ردوا عليه بتحدي ماشي احنا موافقين وهنطلب الاشراف المالي والاداري وصقفوا.

صاحب المدرسة ومعاه صف المديرات وقفوا ومشيوا.

بعد اللقاء ابتدى يبان ملامح لتحرك اولياء الامور على الفيسبوك. قائد الصفحة غير اعدادات الخصوصية بتاعتها وخلاها عامة. الفكرة كانت انهم يخلوها قضية رأي عام وده هيحط ضغط على المدرسة. وبما ان صاحب المدرسة اكيد بيكسب عشرات الملايين فهو الطرف اللي عنده حاجة اكتر يخسرها وبالتالي ممكن الضغط عليه للتراجع عشان هيخاف على فلوسه.

في اللحظة دي كان كل الاهالي متوحدين في جبهة واحدة. حتى اهالي طلاب القسم الانترناشونال في المدرسة انضموا للجروب وقالوا ان حتى لو نسبة زيادة مصاريفهم كانت اقل فهم لازم يقفوا مع اهالي القسم الناشونال من حيث المبدأ ومن حيث ان ممكن لو استسلموا يتطبق عليهم هم كمان زيادة زيها في المستقبل. 

كان فيه بعض الاصوات المعزولة اللي برطمت شوية ان ممكن موضوع فضح المدرسة على الملأ يضر مدرسة اولادهم وان فتح الجروب كان غلط. بس الاصوات دي سكتت من غير ما حد حتى يضطر يسكتها. لكن الرد عليهم كان ببساطة ان المدرسة مش هتتأثر لان صاحب المدرسة مش هيسيبها تتأثر. هو عنده اتصالات وفلوس وقوة يقدر بيها يحافظ على المدرسة والمدرسة دي الفرخة اللي بتبيضله دهب ومش هيسيبها تموت. ومش هيسيب الاشراف المالي والاداري ياخدها منه .وحتى لو حصل الاشراف المالي والاداري مش حاجة وحشة هيدي الناس حقها.

ومن هنا بدأت صورة جمعية لصاحب المدرسة تتبني. اللي اتقال بالحرف انه ممكن يكسب بالعقل من المدرسة لكن الزيادات اللي هو بيعملها بسبب الجشع فقط. انه طامع في تحقيق مكاسب تجارة المخدرات مش مكاسب التربية والتعليم. وانه قال انه مش هيسمح ان مكسبه يقل مليم واحد وانه فاتح المدرسة عشان يكسب بس. وانه رافض تماما اي نوع من انواع التفاوض وساب الاهالي ومشي في الاجتماع بدون سبب كإهانة ليهم.

وبناء عليه فلا تفاوض ولا نقاش معاه. الحل الوحيد هو تهديده بالوزارة لغاية ما يعقل ويتراجع عن كل قراراته ويقدم اعتذار مكتوب للاهالي ويتعهد بحل كل مشاكلهم.

وبدأ تجميع التوكيلات وتقديم الشكاوى الرسمية ضد المدرسة في الوزارة.

والاهم بدأ التشيير على السوشيال ميديا. ومع تشيير مشكلة المصاريف ابتدا تشيير حاجات تانية. زي اتهامات لموظفين في المدرسة بجنايات واتهامات للمدرسة بالاهمال الاداري والدراسي. وبدأت المجموعة اللي بتقود تقول ان المشكلة والمطالب مش بس في المصاريف لكن في حاجات تانية كتير.

مع مرور الوقت ابتدا يتضح ان صاحب المدرسة مش بيتراجع. وكان فيه كلام صريح من المدرسة ان الاستمرار في عدم دفع المصاريف هيكون نتيجته تقليل التكلفة عن طريق تقليل الخدمات المقدمة.

فيه اقلية من اولياء الامور قررت تدفع المصاريف لانهم مش عايزين تعليم عيالهم يتأثر. فيه منهم عمل كده ومهاجمش اللي مدفعوش المصاريف. وفيه منهم عمل كده واتهم اللي مدفعوش المصاريف انهم بيخربوا المدرسة.

فيه اقلية تانية، اللي هي نواة التحرك من الاول اصروا على عدم التراجع سنتيمتر عن كل ”المطالب“ وان التهديد بتدهور العملية التعليمية هي فزاعة بيتسخدمها صاحب المدرسة لارهابهم زي فزاعة الاشراف المالي والاداري. الناس دول اتهموا اللي دفعوا المصاريف انهم خونة وانهم ”شربوا شاي بالياسمين“.

الاغلبية كانت محتارة مش عايزة تأثر على تعليم العيال وفي نفس الوقت مؤمنين ان الزيادة الكبيرة بدون مقدمات وبدون ضمانات انها متتكررش لسنين كتير حاجة لازم عليها رد. الاغلبية دي كانت متأرجحة بين الكتلتين.

وبدأت الكتلة الاغلبية اللي في النص تدور على وسيلة للتفاوض مع صاحب المدرسة. واختاروا لجنة منهم بالتصويت تروح تتفاوض مع صاحب المدرسة. وكانت اقتراحات التفاوض مثلا الوصول الى حل وسط في نسبة الزيادة بين النسبة اللي مقرراها الوزارة وبين اللي زودته المدرسة. والوصول لضمانات عن اللي هيحصل في السنين اللي بعدها. وضمانات عن عدم تأثر العيال او تعليمهم بكل اللي بيحصل.

اللجنة بذلت مجهود كبير مع صاحب المدرسة لكنه اصر انه فعلا مش هينفع ميعملش خسارة لو مزودش النسبة اللي طلبها. بس هو وافق على تعديل مواعيد الاقساط وتقديم تخفيض متواضع للي هيدفع قبل تاريخ معين. والتزم كتابيا بعدم تكرار الزيادة في السنوات القادمة وان الزيادات هترجع لمعدل طبيعي ميزيدش عن رقم معين الاهالي متعودين عليه. وطبعا ان العيال مش هتتأثر خالص.

الكتلة اللي في النص كان راضية بتململ بالاتفاق ده. لكن كتلة ”المقاومة“ رفضته تماما واتهمت اللجنة اللي عملت التفاوض انها شربت شاي بالياسمين. وطالبوا بالتصعيد لأن عدم رضوخ صاحب المدرسة ينم عن عجرفته وثقته انه باتصالاته محدش هيعمله حاجة. بدليل انه في الاجتماع قال ان بتوع الاشراف المالي والاداري كلهم تبعه ومشربهم شاي بالياسمين.

لكن الاغلبية قررت انها هتدفع القسط تبع الاتفاق الجديد. وده حط اللي رافضين يدفعوا في موقف اقلية. فالمدرسة حست انهم بقوا اضعف، او يمكن قرروا انهم ميقدروش يعاملوا اللي دافع زي اللي مش دافع.

المهم المدرسة قررت تعزل اللي اهاليهم مدفعوش في فصول منفصلة.

وده تم تفسيره بالتأكيد انه تمهيدا انهم ياخدوا خدمة تعليمية أدنى. وده ضد تعهدات المدرسة. فكتير من الاهالي اللي كانوا في النص طبعا تضامنوا مع الاطفال اللي ملهمش ذنب في خناقات الكبار واللي ميصحش يستخدموا في الصراعات دي.

وزاد الضغط في السوشيال ميديا على الوزارة انها تتدخل. وبما ان الموضوع ابتدا يمس العيال فالضغط كان تأثيره اسرع.

في اللحظة دي الجبهة اللي رافضة تدفع عملت فوز ضخم. الوزارة طلعت كلام رسمي ان محدش يدفع حاجة غير المصاريف الرسمية بالزيادة اللي الوزارة بتقرها.

وده كان كلام المدرسة متقدرش ترد عليه. واعلنت جبهة المقاومة الفوز. وبشرت الاهالي ان ده معناه قرب الوزارة من فرض الاشراف المالي والاداري وبالتالي صاحب المدرسة اكيد هينخ عشان هيخاف على المدرسة وعايز يتحاشى الاشراف.

صاحب المدرسة منخش وقال انه فعلا مش فارق معاه لانه لو عمل اللي الاهالي عايزينه هيخسر. ردت عليه جبهة المقاومة انه ممكن يقلل ارباحه ويقلل الشاي بالياسمين اللي بيدفعه عشان يمشي احواله. وقالوله ورينا حساباتك وورينا الارباح اللي بتعملها بتدفع عليها ضرايب ولا ايه.

واستمر العناد من الطرفين لغاية ما الاشراف المالي والاداري جه.

واستغرب بعض اهالي جبهة المقاومة ازاي صاحب المدرسة يسيب المدرسة تخرب كده وهي بتجيبله دهب.

وبعضهم استبشر وحضر ليستة طلبات عشان اللجنة تحققها لاولياء الامور.

لكن فيه اقلية قديمة في المدرسة فكرت الناس ان المدرسة كان عليها اشراف اداري قبل كده بسنين وان الفترة دي كانت صعبة جدا. وان الحكومة متعرفش اي حاجة غير اللوايح وبتخش تفتش عشان تشوف لايحة المدرسة والوزارة متحققين ولا لا وملهاش دعوة بطلبات اي حد.

طبعا الناس اللي حذرت دي كانوا فزاعات وشاي بالياسمين.

المدرسة دي كان فيها قسمين دوليين وقسم ناشونال. بس كانت تمتاز انها خالطة المباني والتجهيزات بين كل الاقسام. يعني هو طابور واحد للكل، كانتين واحد للكل، ملاعب والى اخره للكل. وده كان شيء ممتاز بالأخص لقسم الناشونال لانه مبيسيبش المدرسة تميز اللي بيدفع اكتر في الخدمات والانشطة زي ما كل المدارس بتعمل.

لما اللجنة جت تيجي كان على المدرسة لستة مخالفات ادارية ومالية.

الطريقة الوحيدة ان اللجنة تمشي ان المخالفات تزال.

من ضمن المخالفات كانت مفاجئة للاهالي. المدرسة مش مدرسة واحدة. المدرسة مدرستين. المدرسة الوطنية مدرسة والمدرسة الدولية مدرسة. وبما انهم في سجلات الوزارة مدرستين منفصلتين فلازم يكونوا مفصولين بسور وليهم مداخل مستقلة واحواش وفصول منفصلة مفيش اي منفذ داخلي بينهم.

وبما ان المدرسة الناشونال بس كانت تحت الاشراف المالي والاداري، فالادارة فصلت المدرسة الدولية خالص ماديا ومعنويا عشان ميتأثرش طلابها باللجنة وعشان يكونوا حلوا واحدة من المخالفات الادارية.

تاني مفاجئة كانت ان المدرسة واخدة تصريح بعدد فصول وفاتحة ضعف العدد ده. طبعا الاهالي شافوا ان ده من جشع صاحب المدرسة. كمالة المفاجئة كانت ان ترخيص المدرسة يسمح بكثافة الفصول ضعف اللي المدرسة عاملاها.

فالمدرسة التزمت وحلت المخالفة بضم الفصول ومضاعفة الكثافة في الفصول.

الاهالي ثاروا وقالوا احنا مش عايزينهم يعملوا كده احنا عايزينهم يحسنوا الدنيا مش يخلوها اسوأ.

اللجنة قالت ملناش الا اللوايح والقوانين.

جبهة المقاومة عملت حملة تانية وقالت ان اللجنة شاربة شاي بالياسمين وبتعاقب الاهالي بالنيابة عن صاحب المدرسة.

الوزارة رضخت وغيرت اللجنة.

اللجنة الجديدة مقالتش حاجة مختلفة عن اللي قبلها قالته.

في خضم ده كان فيه عام دراسي وعيال اهاليها تعبانة فيها بتروح فصول. منهم ناس اهاليهم دفعوا الزيادة كلها ومكانوش عايزين حد يردها. وجود اللجنة عمل تشوش كتير في المدرسة واغلب الادارة اللي كانت مشتركة بين ال“قسم“ الناشونال وال“قسم“ الانترناشونال شالت ايدها خالص من القسم الناشونال بعد ما اللجنة قالت لازم كمان الادارة تبقى منفصلة بين المدرستين.

وابتدأ المستوى يتدهور للغاية ومدرسين يمشوا واللي ممشيوش بيشتغلوا تحت ضغط رهيب، اعداد مضاعفة، لجنة مبتتفهمش اي حاجة وغياب للادارة اللي اتعودوا عليها. وبالتالي المدرسين درسوا اوحش واتعصبوا على العيال وكروتوا وخلصوا بدري.

ناس كلمت الادارة القديمة وصاحب المدرسة يشتكوا ويسألوه ازاي يسيبها تخرب كده. كان الرد يتكلموا مع اللجنة لان هو مش بيدير المدرسة الناشونال. وانه مكانش بيكسب كتير من القسم الناشونال وانه بيفكر يصفيه ويركز في المدرسة الدولية لان جدواها اكتر بكتير.

لكن بالنسبة للمصاريف فجبهة المقاومة اعلنت الانتصار.

اللجنة اعملت الكل انهم ميدفعوش غير مصاريف السنة السابقة بزيادة ١٠٪، اللي هي نسبة الزيادة السنوية المعتادة. وبوصولات رسمية.

انتصار حقيقي.

بعدها بشوية اللجنة قررت مصروفات انشطة وكتب اكبر من الزيادة اللي صاحب المدرسة كان طالبها وقالت ان المصاريف دي بناء على فواتير وان من غيرها لا يمكن المدرسة متعملش خسارة كبيرة.

القصة متخصش المدرسة دي تحديدا. القصة تخص مهارات التفاوض في مصر. بالأخص بين مجموعات من الافراد ومؤسسة. وبالأخص مع زيادة استخدام السوشيال ميديا كوسيلة ضغط. والقصة تعلمنا مجموعة من مهارات التفاوض لا يمكن نلاقيها في الكتب العالمية. حاجة كده اورجانيك ونبت طبيعي. المهارات هي:

١- ٬متركزش في مشكلتك او طلبك الاصلي. اي حدث يحط خصمك في موقف حرج هي فرصة انك تطلب كل اللي انت عايزه. سيب لخيالك العنان واطلب كل حاجة واي حاجة ودخل الحاجات في بعضها

٢- خلي طلباتك مبهمة وعايمة. اطلب شعارات الاول وبعدين لما اللي قدامك يستسلم ابقى فكر الشعارات دي تترجم لايه. الحرب خدعة ولو عرفته طلباتك هيلعب بيك ولو فرضنا انه وافق على اللي انت عايزه يبقى كان ممكن تاخد منه اكتر. عشان كده سيب كل حاجة مفتوحة وخليه يضرب اخماس في اسداس

٣- بعد ما تخلص رقم ٢ صمم على كل طلباتك. اقنع نفسك بيها ومتتزحزش عنها سنتيمتر. لو خصمك طلب منك توضيحات خدها على كرامتك وقول له انه بيستخف بيك وبمطالبك

٤- الموضوع مش موضوع مصالح او مطالب، خضمك شرير … وحرامي … واناني. مطالبك مشروعة والسبب الوحيد ان هو مش راضي يديهالك هو ان هو طفيلي ومستبد ومتعجرف

٥- اي طرف خارجي مش واقف معاك بدون اي تحفظات يبقى شاي بالياسمين

٦- صعد بأقصى سرعة وبأشد الأشكال وخلي مطالبك تتصاعد وتزداد هلامية. ده هيخلي خصمك يخاف ويسارع بالاستسلام وتحقيق مطالبك … اللي انت ساعتها ممكن ترجع تفكر هي كانت ايه اصلا

٧- لو خصمك او اي حد حاول يقول ان التصعيد او الطريق اللي ماشيين فيه هيضر كل الاطراف فدي فزاعة بيحاول يخوفك بيها واوعى تتراجع. كل ما تلاقي حاجة بتنهار اعرف ان ده مجرد ملعوب من خصمك ومن أذرعه المتشعبة. هو بيحاول يعاقبك على مطالبتك بحقوقك المشروعة

٨- لو كل حاجة خربت ولقيت نفسك في الاخر بتدفع تمن اكبر من اللي كنت معترض عليه في الاول فده غلط خصمك لوحده من الاول لانه مرضيش يحقق مطالبك. ولو خصمك مخسرش زي ما انت خسرت، فده عشان الشاي بالياسمين او سوء حظ او غباء من الاخرين