Professor at American University of Cairo @Firas_Atraqchi joked:

Doing the polka with Amr Adib and Hassan Youssef #reasonsmubarakislate

Lebanese tweep Leila Saleh (@LSal92) quipped:

#ReasonsMubarakIsLate He’s rounding up Abbas, King Abdullah & Saudi king for a sleep over at Obama’s.

Miran Hosny (@MiranianDilemma) speculated:

Trying to get on the Oprah Show for one last emotional appeal and a hug #ReasonsMubarakIsLate

Laila El-Haddad, whose nom de plume is @GazaMom, jests:

Negotiating the terms of his farewell concert with Amr Diab #ReasonsMubarakIsLate

Popular Arab-American blog @KABOBfest couldn’t help but mock reports of Mubarak’s vast wealth:

You think it’s easy packing gold bullion bars into vintage Louis Vuitton luggage? #ReasonsMubarakIsLate

@SeifSalama, perhaps nodding to slow Internet speeds, joked:

Downloading Skype. #ReasonsMubarakIsLate

The hashtag got approval from activist Hossam El-Hamalawy (@3arabawy), who tweeted:

The hashtag #ReasonsMubarakIsLate is hilarious! :D

Applebaum’s piece is problematic for a number of reasons aside from the obvious (which is to say that, while shooting protesters and clamping down on free speech are fundamentally wrong, the elections themselves are still contested).  From the opening paragraph, in which she invokes the all-too-common cliché of non-headscarf wearing Muslims “[not looking] out of place in New York or Paris” to her claims of Morocco entering a new era of democracy, Applebaum demonstrates her total ignorance of the Maghreb and the Arab world on the whole.

Take this sentence, for example:

“…unlike most of its Arab neighbors, the country has over the last decade undergone a slow but profound transformation from traditional monarchy to constitutional monarchy, acquiring along the way real political parties, a relatively free press, new political leaders—the mayor of Marrakesh is a 33-year-old woman—and a set of family laws that strives to be compatible both with sharia and international conventions on human rights.”

Anyone with an iota of knowledge on Moroccan politics can see the flaws in this paragraph; from the recent elections, in which the newly created Modernity and Authenticity Party, or P.A.M. (dubbed the “King’s Party”), closely linked to the royal palace, managed to sweep 22,158 seats to the three journalists arrested and fined for insulting the tyrannical leader of Libya, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Morocco is not a prime example of democracy, nor a model for Iranian reform.

In fact, Morocco’s own human rights record is deeply flawed.  Despite substantial changes from the “Years of Lead,” Morocco continues to oppress Saharawi citizens (be their true nationality Moroccan or Saharawi, it should be relatively undisputed that they are not treated well by the state), suppress Amazigh activists by outlawing their language in schools and requiring their children be given Arab names even abroad, and persecute converts to other religions.  Furthermore, Morocco almost certainly harbors CIA rendition sites, as has been testified by former Guantanamo inmates, and almost always turns the other cheek to Israeli and United States imperialism.

Applebaum also brazenly suggests that perhaps, had the Iranian revolution not occurred, perhaps Iran could have followed a similar path to Morocco, saying, “One thinks wistfully of the shah of Iran and of what might have been.”  It’s as if she forgets, or is completely unaware, of the human rights violations and general atmosphere of oppression under Pahlavi.

Lastly, Applebaum’s assertion that “the Arab world lacks the political will to change” reeks of Obamania.  Doubtless there are a number of Arab countries in which rigged elections, oppression of citizenry, and lack of freedoms are rampant, but the meme that democracy and capitalism are the only way (not to mention the United States’ hypocritical views toward democratic elections in the Middle East) is getting old.  Change, if it is to happen, needs to come from within, and will not occur thanks to Western journalists, nor Twitter users changingtheir icons green, nor United States imperialism.

Last week, the BBC made the decision not to air an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza on the basis that “the BBC’s impartiality was in danger of being damaged.” The BBC’s COO, Caroline Thomson, asked “Could the BBC be sure that money raised for this cause would find its way to the right people?”

Tim Llewellyn, former BBC correspondent in the Middle East, immediately questioned the decision, asking:

How is the BBC’s impartiality to be prejudiced by asking others to raise money for the victims of an act of war by a recognised state, an ally of Britain, using the most lethal armaments it can against a defenceless population? What sly little trigger went off in her head when Thomson questioned whether the aid would reach the right people? What right people? Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people? The hospitals and clinics run by private charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? The mosques? The citizens of Gaza, persecuted beyond measure not only by their Israeli enemies but by the western powers who arm and sustain Israel and defy the democratic vote of the Palestinian people?

Llewellyn’s comments made it immediately clear that Thomson’s views weren’t representative of the majority of the BBC. And then the venerable Tony Benn managed to get on air and ask for aid anyway:

“I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t think we should give aid to Gaza,” says Benn.

The anchor speaking with Benn repeatedly voices concern that funds could go to Hamas, then asks if Benn thinks the appeal will lose money based on the BBC’s decision. Benn’s answer?
“People will die because of the BBC decision – let me be clear about that. And I started my life 60 years ago as a BBC producer, I love the BBC, I support it. But it has capitulated to Israeli pressure. That’s the truth, I have to tell you.”

If only everyone had so much courage. But perhaps the BBC’s poor judgement will indeed improve the campaign’s reach? As Diana from KABOBfest points out:

It is great that they took the decision not to air it; the lines are becoming clear and the backlash they are getting shows the anger at the lobby. BBC employees don’t want to be accused of caving to the lobby (even though they cave every day). Brits are now refusing to pay their mandatory license fee and BBC is feeling the heat for once.

It’s clear to me that the BBC’s decision is morally wrong and unjustifiable, however, Diana has a point. The BBC has long kowtowed to pressure; As Nigel Fountain points out in an otherwise unintelligible Guardian op-ed, the BBC has been here before. Fountain reminds us of a 1974 airing of a South African apartheid propaganda film on the BBC.

Fundamentally, the problem here is the BBC’s impression that their desire is to remain “neutral.” By implying that they must ignore the humanitarian crisis and the victims in Gaza in order to err on the side of neutrality in fact implies that not offending Israel is more important than helping the over 5,000 injured, and countless who have lost homes or livelihood thanks to Israel’s massacre.