Cairo Diary, July 8: Piecing Through What Happened and Waiting for the Parasol Revolution

It was a terrible day by 6 am Monday morning, and it has been getting worse all day. What we know: 51 people died from gunshot wounds that they sustained outside the Republican guard facility, and 435 others were injured. One soldier also died, and 42 soldiers were injured. We may never know what really happened. One feature of this sort of confrontation involving civilian groups and guns is how difficult it can be to determine who did what, and when, and who killed or injured whom---and consequently how easy it can be for the leaderships of the combatant sides to manipulate the uncertainty to their advantage. Both the Brotherhood camp and the army held press conferences showing videos of the events, and giving their accompanying, competing narratives. And still I, at least, don't feel much closer to an answer. The questions on everybody's mind: How did it start? What really happened?

What We Can Say

The Brotherhood says: A group of protesters were praying Salat el Fajr in the predawn hours outside the Republican guard building, and the army fired teargas and bullets at them, unprovoked. The dead, according to spokesman Gehad el Haddad, included children. Some holes in the Brotherhood's claim: While the Brotherhood maintains the protesters did not provoke the army and were unarmed, there is footage of armed gunmen among them from later in the confrontation, and it is clear from the same clip and others that many among the protesters were also throwing rocks and other projectiles. (However, other predawn footage shows protesters milling about and what sounds like gunshots in the background. See the link to the New York Times video compilation story further down). The Brotherhood has a credibility issue as a result of its apparent embellishments of the truth. It was using images of dead children, saying they were killed by the army. It later came out that these were images of children killed not in Egypt at all but in Syria. For many people, this will undermine its entire account. The Army says: At around 4 am, an armed group attacked the perimeter of the Republican Guard headquarters, which was secured by a mix of army and police. They attacked armed and used live ammunition. Meanwhile, the army says, others scaled other buildings in the area and threw molotov cocktails, stones, and other objects. One officer was killed, the army says, and 42 were injured, many severely. Some holes: The army has yet to produce footage showing these alleged attackers, though video footage does show at least one armed man among the protesters after the violence had already begun. Conversely, here is a video of what appears to be a military sniper shooting into a crowd of protesters while a cameraman films him. One thing that lends some credibility to the army's account is that the Egyptian army is probably the country's most disciplined institution, and it seems unlikely---if only because it would stir up so much anger and retributive sentiment---that it would stoke the flames of an already-tense situation by opening fire for no reason on unarmed protesters. On the other hand, for all intents and purposes, the army is the state right now, and this group was fully armed and inside a fortress. Even if civilians were using force, judging from the casualties, they had far less force at their disposal than the army did. In my worldview, at least, it is incumbent upon the state to minimize the use of force against civilians, particularly since many of the people were likely unarmed---or, at least, not armed with guns. It may have been a disproportionate response to a genuine armed provocation of some kind or it may have been something else entirely. Either way, 51 Egyptians are dead, shot by an institution charged with protecting them. Further confusing matters, is the fact that among a certain large swath of Egyptian society, many people who were involved in the Tamarod movement and now have become implacably defensive of the army's behavior since the upset of power, no one wants to hear anything negative about the military and have taken to calling anyone affiliated with the Brotherhood, "terrorists." According to The Guardian's Ian Black, state media called the incident legitimate action taken by the armed forces in defense of the revolution, and if we define the Brotherhood as terrorists, this becomes a comforting line. But whatever one says about the Brotherhood protesters, this is wrong. The Brotherhood has not engaged in acts of terror in Cairo throughout this whole process. It has functioned as a political movement. Even if there was violence or provocation on the part of some Morsi-supporters, it will not do to assume the legitimacy of the army's actions by branding the Brotherhood as a combatant movement in general. It's not. The Lede blog at the New York Times has an excellent post compiling a lot of the video footage from the incident. What effect has this incident had on the military's standing in the eyes of the public? I think that will depend on how it comports itself over the next few days and weeks. While the partisans in this country have already decided what to believe, based on preexisting political persuasions, for those in the middle, it's maddeningly difficult to sift through the information, which itself remains incomplete. There needs to be an impartial investigation to shed light on today's events and provide some answers to those who lost friends and loved ones. How the military engages this investigation, should it come about, will be key to its long-term credibility.

Miscellany 

Voices for peace in this powder keg of a country? There aren't many: Mohamed ElBaradei, now the presumptive vice president, tweeted on Monday: "Violence begets violence and should be strongly condemned. Independent Investigation a must. Peaceful transition is only way." The one Islamist party that supported Morsi's ouster, the Salafi Nour Party, withdrew from negotiations over a new government after the violence on Monday morning. It is around midnight when, if this were any other country, most of the citizenry would be asleep. But Egypt being her nocturnal self,  I'm sure many people catch it: Interim President Adly Mansour announces a few more details on the way forward: Parliamentary elections will be held in about six months, after amendments are made to the suspended constitution over the next four-and-a-half month period and are approved by referendum. In the meantime, the Interim President, in consultation with a soon-to-be-formed government, will have the authority to issue laws. Presidential elections will be held once the new parliament is seated. And now for something a little more hopeful. The Washington Post posted this a few days ago. A little boy explains Egypt's predicament and his remarkable prescriptions for a way forward: Last note: in spite of everything that's happening, Egypt keeps its humor. I decide to escape the house today to write at a coffee shop outside, where I am now sitting. As my friend tries to adjust the parasol above our table, it falls sideways and collapses. A waiter comes running over as I apologize profusely. "We're in the middle of a revolution, no problem at all," he says. "The Parasol Revolution," his colleague jokes. If only we could attach a happy name to this turmoil: velvet, orange, parasol---almost anything will do. I had really hoped to wake up today to an announcement of some kind of unity march and calls for nonviolence from all sides. The Parasol Revolution is still waiting. For more of Laura Dean’s Cairo Diary:

• Cairo Diary, July 7: An Outside Perspective
• Cairo Diary, July 6: A New Prime Minister, Maybe
• Cairo Diary, July 5: “Friday of Rejection”—and Violence
• Cairo Diary, July 4: The First Day of the Rest of Egypt’s Life
• Cairo Diary, July 3: Praying We Don’t Get Fooled Again
• Cairo Diary, July 2: Brotherhood and Defiance