Normalizing the Illegal State of Israel

My sister Novi, Nevine Shalaby, shared with me the following video campaign by Avaaz that aims to gather support for the recognition of Palestine as a state with a spot in the United Nations.

At first, the video appears as an astute method to simplify a bit of a pickle in the heart of the Arab world. After all, a dense Chomsky-style essay is not going to do a great deal in gearing the average Joe’s attention to a matter of such importance.

There were a number of points brought forward in the video, and I’d like to go over some of them:

1. Both Palestinians and Israelis call it the homeland
2. After WWII Western nations divided the land, but the Arabs rejected
3. Wars broke out, Israel won, taking control of Palestinian land
4. Israel has built settlements, which are like colonies, that are illegal
5. Palestinians have to go through checkpoints
6. Palestinians don’t have a place to call home
7. Situation resulted in violence, killing 1,000 Israelis and 6,000 Palestinians
8. Millions of Jews were murdered during the holocaust, and are fighting harder for a safe homeland out of fear
9. Palestinians are desperate for freedom and an independent state
10. Most Israelis and Palestinians agree on the two-state solution, and so does Obama
11. Powerful extremists in the Middle East, and Washington, are standing in the way of change
12. A global campaign is needed for peace between both sides

Do you see the problem? For the sake of this post, let’s ignore the fact that the people behind this video engage in dubious pro-Zionist activities and receive very sketchy funding. Let’s revisit the points and read between the lines

1. Both Palestinians and Israelis call it the homeland
   For starters, both sides are longing for the same land because they believe it’s their land. It’s not like Palestinians lived there long before Britain decided to hand over the territories to a group of Zionists or anything. It’s simply two sides after the same target.
2. After WWII Western nations divided the land, but the Arabs rejected
   Had the Arabs agreed, we wouldn’t have had any problems. But it is the Arabs who would not agree to accept a new country installed amongst them. Why they gotta be like dat?!
3. Wars broke out, Israel won, taking control of Palestinian land
   When a war breaks out, you win or you lose. Israel was fortunate enough to win, so they take control. It’s a fair deal.
4. Israel has built settlements, which are like colonies, that are illegal
   Nevermind Israel itself, no need to look at the pre-1967 borders, let’s focus our attention on the settlements, because that’s the only problem, really,
5. Palestinians have to go through checkpoints
   It’s fine to have checkpoints, even if they ‘sometimes’ last for hours? Thankfully, none of them are within Palestinian territories, and no humiliation takes place. It’s just an inconvenience.
6. Palestinians don’t have a place to call home
   The problem is that there isn’t a place the Palestinians can call their own, so we need to find them a place. Don’t be naive to think that they DO have a place to call, it’s just occupied by people who don’t belong there!
7. Situation resulted in violence, killing 1,000 Israelis and 6,000 Palestinians
   The situation become ‘complicated’. Naturally, both sides start to fight against each other, and people die on both sides. It’s a normal one-on-one with casualties on either end, the small differences in numbers is not the issue. The numbers could’ve been reversed, you know? With over 3,000 dead in a single wave of attacks on Gaza in 2009 – we’re certain that the total casualties of all years is about 6,000!
8. Millions of Jews were murdered during the holocaust, and are fighting harder for a safe homeland out of fear
   That’s it! I knew they’d pull the Holocaust card, works like a charm! All they want is a safe homeland, they just don’t want to suffer another genocide, is that too much to ask for? The Palestinians, on the other hand, didn’t suffer from any genocide, so what are they scared of? Why can’t they give peace a chance? Why do they have to resort to terrorism?
9. Palestinians are desperate for freedom and an independent state
   Don’t worry, they’re not after the right to return (because they have no interest). All they want, is to have a state recognized by the UN because we all know how well Israel has abided by the resolutions, and becoming part of the UN is the perfect solution. Also, the last thing on their mind is having direct access to their own resources, they just want to print post cards that say ‘We’re a state now, bitchezzz!’
10. Most Israelis and Palestinians agree on the two-state solution, and so does Obama
    Unless by ‘Palestinians’ they mean ‘Moderate’ Jews living in settlements, then I’m not sure from which British tabloid did they dig out the stats. Also, isn’t that the same Obama that, in his first appearance after winning the primaries, spoke at AIPAC and declared Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel? I’m sorry, I thought it was the same guy.
11. Powerful extremists in the Middle East, and Washington, are standing in the way of change
    As the visuals clearly suggest, the Arabs are all in ‘terrorist’ uniforms holding weapons, while the Israelis are in suits. One side is acting barbarically, and the other is reverting to diplomacy. Which team will you rout for?
12. A global campaign is needed for peace between both sides
    We don’t want anything from Israel. Both sides are having issues, even though many civilians on both ends wish for peace. What we need to do is to take the streets with the Palestinian and Israeli flags side-by-side and just be cute for a change. Both sides are equally responsible for the sticky situation they find themselves in, and they just need to learn to get along, and collectively hug a teddy bear.

You don’t need to put this video in the context of pro-Zionist Avaaz to understand the real aim behind it. With a campaign as such, any question of Israel’s legitimacy is discarded, any chances of return to pre-1967 borders is abolished, and anyone thinking that this is an illegal Israeli occupation resulting in an inhumane apartheid is absolutely insane. Even some of those who oppose the Israeli government are bound to fall for this and think it’s for everyone’s good. Clearly it’s not.

And just in case you brush off my interpretation as a rejection of any Western media’s attempt to improve the Palestinian situation, here’s a video by a white man, on an American channel, tackling the same issue. Only this time, the aim is to reveal the brutal occupation, not solidify the legitimacy of illegal Israel. It’s brilliant:

Zionists are a minority. Those who get a kick out of watching the Palestinians crumble as they expand their territory are actually quiet small in numbers. Even if main stream media (especially in the US) tells a story that’s almost unrecognizable with bias, alternative and independent sources of news and opinions are strong enough to combat. At the end of the day, it’s the numbers that matter, and with a network across the web and on the ground mobilizing, we’ll bring an end to the apartheid regime.

Power to the people – victory’s within reach, and justice will prevail.

Is the Web power to the people?

I finally had the chance to watch Adam Curtis’s documentary, “All watched over by machines of loving grace”. At least the first episode, anyway.

At first it might need some adaptation to the calm tempo and the seemingly unrelated plots, but it soon fits together and connects quiet impressively. With many points to reflect on, one in particular caught my attention; a women by the name of Carmen Hermosillo, was an avid user of the new cyberspace and as early as 1994 published a rant against it.

You can read the full article here. Her argument is mind-blowing, to say the least. It is so rich with avant-garde ideas that, years later, it leaves you doubting your relationship with the web – something that has long been taken for granted. Summarizing her points would not do her justice, but let’s do it for the sake of the argument.

I’ll dare to say that Carmen’s main point is that the idea of cyberspace giving each person his or her voice is complete falsehood, and at the end of the day, it comes down to converting all sorts of interaction on the web to commodities that are traded like products. She argues that we as users vent out our feelings to feel good about ourselves, and then websites use them to ultimately make money. She went as far as saying that since there is minimal human interaction via cyberspace, we do not act in humane ways and in fact commit unethical actions as result of the medium.

Perhaps more-importantly, Carmen shares the sad-but-true story that the idea of power spreading equally across the masses is an illusion – it is just that power becomes transferred to an elite in cyberspace. We’re just replacing elites with others. Talk about cynical.

For the most part, I agree. Sometimes we as human beings get carried away into thinking that computers and technology will feed the poor, educate our children, and discover the future. We bet our blind faith on ‘innovation’ and technological developments. Our definition of progress is ironically old-fashioned and traditional.

Moreover, our channels of communication are businesses exclusively after making money. In the ‘humdog’ days, it was CompuServ and America On Line, now it’s Google, Facebook, twitter and the likes. Whether we’re nurturing the feel-good factor inside us, or simply expressing ourselves online, we’re ultimately helping a few business make more bucks.

Not only that, but it’s gotten worse because there are a limited number of ISPs throughout the globe controlling a handful of cables that deal with the entire internet traffic all over the world. Therefore, if any website is hosted on a server according to the terms of the hosting provider, any user accessing has to go through one of the ISPs in the country that are allowed to function under government surveillance. The hosts themselves have to stick to their country’s ISPs and governments and travel through the cables. Ultimately, there is no such thing as control-free information on the web.

Added on to that, social networks like twitter gave birth to the term ‘infleuncers’. An influencer is someone who has a lot of followers and therefore his or her word is valuable and results in notable change. People go to an influencer for advice. In fact, people trust the influencer and are less likely to question. In short, an influencer is powerful and has a great say on how matters will be perceived, and thus how we will move forward. In short, an influencer is part of the elite.

But that’s the extent of my agreement with Carmen.

When the makers of twitter put together a startup and gave birth to a revolutionary social network, they had a vision. As fascinating as their ideas might be, they are completely irrelevant. And the reason is that we, the users, are the ones who make the call. We decide how this network is used, and we redefine it, repeatedly. It’s gotten to the extent that twitter themselves would not dare make any decision that we don’t agree on; the backlash would be unbearable.

Thus, as the internet users grow in numbers, we, as a group, become more powerful. There’s no doubt that businesses attempt to squeeze every penny out of us, but that is more of a problem of capitalism on a global scale – something beyond this argument. And of course we have elites who receive special treatment, but it is completely different to elites in a traditional hierarchical society.

The elites in society are born as such, with little social mobility and never earn it. On the web, however, you become part of the elite after consistently providing valuable content for long periods of time. When you work hard, you are rewarded elite status. However, if you commit mistakes, you can lose that status, and therefore you have to keep up. Moreover, as an elite, if you watch a YouTube video, it goes up one count. If you retweet a tweet, the retweets go up one count. If you vote in a poll, your voice counts as one, and only one.

Therefore, the internet’s elite is no more than a wise man (or women) whose voice is given more weight, but he or she can never ultimately dictate the masses.

Our interaction via the web is relatively minimal, yes. But with time it’s becoming easier and cheaper to cut the distance between the two. Thanks to the web, you can now chat live with video, and it’s becoming increasingly available on the phone. That’s not exactly practicing the sense of touch virtually, but it is decades ahead of plain text forum chatting from back in the day.

Progress does not necessarily mean gadgets and wires, it has a much more profound meaning to that. But the human race hasn’t done much progress since poverty and misery are only getting bigger. However, such a drastic change requires some sorts of revolutions, and it is the web that is the ideal tool to exchange information across space and time and mobilize the people. In theory, if we were all on the web, bringing about social change would be as easy as wanting it. I said in theory.

One major player that Carmen failed to mention (and understandably so, it was .94, remember?) is open-source. This is a true demonstration of effective collaboration via the web that creates products and services whose sole function is make our lives better and they are all absolutely free.

Open-source single-handedly fights the disadvantages of the web. For example, the issue of lack of privacy and controlled information via the monopoly of the ISPs and the cables could be solved via Tor – which is a web of virtual channels that ensure communication is encrypted. There are infinite examples of open-source projects that help protect the people from censorship, surveillance and lack of privacy.

In conclusion, Carmen was right. Cyberspace is mostly a silent place, a commodification of its users. That is what cyberspace was. However, the web is different. We, the people, the users, the masses, have taken control and redefined what the web means and how it is used. We have given birth to an organic system that grants the elite status to those who deserve it, but is purely prestigious in nature – we each have no more than one vote. We have embarked on an information super highway where companies have learnt not to go against us, or even attempt to push us in a certain direction.

And what better way to illustrate than with my all-time favorite YouTube video?

This is, my friends, power to the people. And it’s just getting started.

Compilation of media appearances

When all eyes turned to a square in downtown Cairo, mainstream media did its part in documenting the revolution. Since I was amongst those who were consistently at Tahrir, I was targeted by journalists from different parts of the globe. Moreover, my Spanish-speaking skills made me a bit of a golden opportunity for media outlets in Spain and Latin America whose knowledge of English would’nt allow them to cover the events past a superficial level.

I’ve compiled as much as possible from the videos and articles that I’ve appeared in over the course of my two-week stay at the revolutionary Tahrir square.

A Tent City ‘Freedom Motel’ in Tahrir Square

A nice little report featuring Waleed and I at Bansyon el Horreya. This video turned out to be pretty cool, actually.

Egypte: Les Raisons de la Colere

A French report following myself and two others for a couple of days (over 2 YouTube videos).

Ziad Aly’s Egyptian Revolution: ‘Agendat’ and spies

With about a quarter of a million views, this humorous video shot by my friend Ziad Aly featuring Sherif el Alfy and myself made me a famous figure in the square. Here you see Alfy unleashing some of his revolutionary wit. Enjoy!

Short report on Al Arabiya

Reporter Ingy seemed like an interesting women until I saw how her channel made me look like an air-headed blond mistakenly taking part in the revolution. Anyway, its repetition throughout the day and on YouTube/Facebook made a few Tahrir visitors recognize me (the residents, naturally, never really got to see anything on TV or the web).

Democracy Now: Voices of the Egyptian Revolution

Neat coverage of life at Tahrir square. I don’t appear until minute 19.

And some of the articles:

• La ‘Pensión Libertad’ de Tarek Shalaby
• «Si nos queda Tahrir la revolución sigue»
• Relatos de batalla y resistencia en El Cairo, el corazón de la rebelión
• Los rostros del nuevo Egipto
• Sinais de derretimento

It’s interesting to see yourself through the lens of others, especially after significant time. While journalists tend to get carried away and sport rather arrogant attitudes, it must be said that they play a role in projecting the voice of the revolutionaries to the world outside. Having said that, I personally think citizen journalism flourished and has gone as far as overtake mainstream media as the source of information and inspiration.

After all, it’s our revolution, and no one covers it better than we do.

Abdel Khalek El Sayyed – Captured in Libya

My friend Adel Abdel Ghafar, who was with me on the Libya trip that I had blogged about, called me this evening to share the shocking news: Abdel Khalek, a 19 year-old volunteer from Cairo who was with us during the whole trip but stayed behind when we all returned to Egypt, was captured by Gaddafi’s forces.

In the video that I put together after coming back from Tubruq and Ben Ghazi, titled Libya’s Next Door, Abdel Khalek makes a number of appearances. I’ve also uploaded the raw footage I shot with him while we were at a restaurant in Tubruq, our first night in Libya. This gives you a brief idea of his revolutionary spirit, and his desire for Arab unity against corrupt dictators:

After capturing him, the pro-Gaddafi forces dressed him in military uniform and forced him to declare on public television that he is an Egyptian soldier hired by Al Qaeda to disrupt the Libyan regime, and that he had been consuming hallucinatory pills. The following is one of the two appearances he made on TV:

This is a disgrace. We simply cannot allow Gaddafi to torture, kill and manipulate his people this way. This needs to come to an end. Abdel Khalek has to come back home, Egypt needs its heros.

You can also follow the Facebook page that was made in solidarity with Abdel Khalek Al Sayyed Abdel Khalek.

Case study video: ME app social media campaign

A case study of ME, a mobile application that acts as an infotainment portal. This video shows how we were able to generate interest from the target audience to download and and register to use the free app, provided via Mobinil. It was a bit of a challenge because the app is mainly in Arabic and targets the masses, many of which are not easily accessible via social media,  and are not entirely comfortable with mobile applications.

In Egypt, some professionals in the field of new marketing jump to the conclusion that you can do almost anything with social media, but as Tarek Nasr argues in his blog post, we’re quite a distance from the new world. Having said that, I think this campaign showed that you can still make remarkable achievements. And it’s the people who decide.

Exploitation: The ethical reasoning behind my choice with clients

After numerous occasions of declining pitches for projects in the name of morality (the last of which has caused more of a backlash than normal), I was inspired by my friend Rowan el Shimi to put together this blog post through which I can comprehensively explain why I refuse to work with the majority of potential clients; what the reasoning behind it is, and why I end up favoring work with certain clients over others.

Please note that this is a blog post where I express my opinion. I don’t ask you to agree, and I don’t claim to carry the truth that has been extracted from reliable sources. In fact, I don’t care what you think about what I have to say.

Introduction

As a professional (regardless of the field), I have a bit of influence, and every decision I make counts. I’m responsible for my actions, and should stick  to the set of principles that I believe in, and follow them to lead by example. Between capitalist greed, extreme poverty, corruption favoring corporations handling millions with billions of people worldwide struggling to survive, and the lack of resources to sustain our lifestyle, we find ourselves at a horrendous state.

As Annie Leonard illustrates in her outstanding short documentary The Story of Stuff, the materials economy is set up so that we are constantly exploiting our limited resources in an ever-accelerating rate. Resources that will inevitably run out:

Credit to Ilu (also on twitter) for introducing me to this documentary years ago

Relevant points from the documentary:

• Natural resources are limited, and will run out very soon
• Rich countries are using disproportionally more resources than poorer counterparts
• Externalizing costs means that the products we buy have been paid for by natural resources and labor
• Our consumption levels are absurd, and they desperately needs to be reduced
• Marketing contributes to perceived obsolescence by indoctrinating the public into believing that we are not good enough, and that we need to shop to improve

Therefore, I try to avoid contributing to any entity that is responsible for products that push us deeper into the materials’ crisis. Even though I’m part of the hypocrisy myself for consuming and destroying resources from all parts of the globe (thanks to my laptop, cell phone, meat, clothes, etc.), I choose not to promote it for others to follow.

For example, I am capable of carrying out social media campaigns as well as design platforms to persuade the young audience that it is ‘cool’ to purchase a certain brand of candy. In fact, I can work hard to make that brand outdo its competition, and boast an image that many of the target audience would strive to associate themselves with. But I would never want to do that. Any product that is not essential and is harmful to our well-being is a no-no in my book, and I would never agree to work with its manufacturers, producers, distributors or sellers.

Needless to say, it is almost impossible to even consider a multinational company looking to extract resources from Egypt and send it back to Geneva and New York.

An ever bigger issue for me is exploitation of labor. The fact that there are people who work tirelessly in terrible conditions and barely make enough money to survive just so that a chosen few can continue with their lifestyles, is depressing.

Exploitation

Exploitation is broadly defined as utilizing something to benefit from it, and/or the selfish utilization of a resource as a means to an end. Many consider the term only suitable for large corporations such as Apple, where factory workers have to go through such unbearable conditions, that many commit suicide, and nothing’s improving. However, sweatshops are examples of extreme exploitation, because resources (both natural and labor) are constantly exploited, everywhere.

As Karl Marx has pointed out, exploitation is the difference between the profit generated to the owner of the business, and the compensation to the worker for his or her effort, in the form of wage. In fact, in his book, Capital, Marx came up with the precise formula to measure the percentage and the quantity of the exploitation, summarized in the following:

“The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of the labourer by the capitalist”

Which brings me to a pivotal point in my book: If you are making profit, you are exploiting. There is no such thing as generating profits without the exploitation of natural and, especially, labor resources. If you’re a business, your aim is to make money, and this means making the most out of your employees, and paying them the least. You could be paying them higher salaries than your competitors, but it would still be exploiting, otherwise you wouldn’t make profit to sustain yourself and would go out of business.

Providing jobs; improving lives.

The basic worker

In Egypt, an ‘office boy’ (a male dedicated to doing some cleaning, providing drinks, and running basic errands) typically makes between 500 and 700 LE a month, and is usually the first to arrive, and the last to leave. He refers to everyone as Sir (and wouldn’t dare receive equal treatment), and has to put up with potentially being told off (and sometimes yelled it) without answering back (or else he could be thrown out). The average employer would feel a form of self-fulfillment for providing a job to someone who’s under-qualified. In fact, by paying him slightly more and being friendly, he or she could be considered a philanthropist!

The following are misconceptions that come as a bi-product:

1. The office boy is being offered a job, which is something he should appreciate
   Not if his salary is not enough to feed himself, let alone his family
2. At least he’s being offered a job, as opposed to nothing at all
   That may be true, but that doesn’t mean his weakened position is not taken advantage of. Otherwise he’d be deemed unaffordable
3. If he’s not happy, he could leave
   Far from true, especially given how 40% of Egyptians are on or below the poverty line, and many are unemployed and desperate
4. He is receiving more than what many would pay him
   The might be true, but his value is determined  in a market that is entirely based on exploiting resources and making money. His value is not based on his output. When you are about to offer him a salary, why not think how he contributes to the income, and compensate him accordingly? Why do you use his market options (or lack of) as an indication, as opposed to his output?

If you are to expand this example to a larger scale, it soon becomes clear the amount of exploitation involved in large corporations that recruit thousands. For that reason, I refuse to work with clients that boast a roster of thousands of employees making minimal wages, while the owners are packing millions.

Making money

Generally speaking, I’m not at all fond of corporations that work on investments and business consultancies. The idea that a company’s sole purpose is to strategically aid other companies in making money, and benefit itself in the process, is despicable. As if exploitation isn’t enough as it is, consultancies attempt to reduce costs and boost income to make even more cash, and shove the exploitation to extreme levels.

Here’s a short clip from an interview with Noam Chomsky where he talks about self-destructive capitalism, and slave labor.

Sadly, we are indoctrinated to believe the following:

1. There is a bottomless pool of money out there to make
   Obviously not. It’s surprising how many can be so naive so as to believe that there’s unlimited resources to fight for. The current approach to resource usage is anything but sustainable
2. We can all be wealthy
   Impossible. With today’s capitalist society, money is made via exploitation. You need someone with the capital, and workers to be exploited
3. Anyone can be rich
   Not everyone. And in a country like Egypt, hardly anyone can grow beyond his or her predetermined socioeconomic background. Even if a person from a lower income background was given equal opportunity, he or she would only be able to become wealthy at the expense of the limited resources, i.e. at the expense of counterparts striving for the same
4. It is normal for there to be rich and poor
   Now it is, but it doesn’t have to be. While a small elite of Egyptians own cars (regardless of the make), have had the opportunity to travel abroad, eat meat everyday, and have enough clothes to dispose of, the huge majority struggle to survive till the end of the month. That is not fair, and it should not remain that way

The capitalism pyramid: the capitalist tradition

Therefore, there’s no such thing as a ‘pure’ business that benefits the world more than it harms the people and resources. That is the way it will remain until the revolution takes place and everyone gets direct access to resources that are subsequently allocated fairly. However, until we reach that stage, we are still part of the system and need to make money.

Conclusion

I choose to work with companies that carry out minimal exploitation. Whenever I’m in for a pitch for any web design and/or social media project, I ask myself the following questions:

1. Does the client make profit?
   If yes, then what resources are they exploiting, and to what extent? If not, then where do they get the money from (sometimes worse than profit-driven companies)?
2. How many employees are there? How many partners are there?
   A school of 4 partners collaborating and doing everything between them is almost a dream come true. A company with hundreds on the pay roll is not (regardless of the nature of their business)
3. What benefits does the client bring?
   Providing jobs is certainly not one of them. But perhaps they educate, or promote culture, or aid the art movement, or help empower people by connecting them across space and time to bypass mainstream media – there are numerous possibilities
4. Is the exploitation little enough to be mostly made-up for by the benefits?
   Some industries will never make it altogether; such as equity, investment, insurance, business consultancies, stock brokers, etc. Others are in pole position to overcome the hurdle, such as renewable energy, academic and cultural institutions, open-source projects, etc.
5. Would Ali Azmy approve?
   Could save you from all the above!

If the client fails to qualify, then I turn down the project take it on myself to specify why. While I have been advised to avoid such confrontation and just excuse myself without hopping on the soap box, I insist on being blunt. Firstly, I do not enjoy lying and I’m not very good at it. More importantly, I have thought long and hard to build my principles, and I feel it is my responsibility to to stick to them and promote them. I would like to think that by doing so, I’m making this world a better place. Otherwise, I’m just dust in the wind, another brick on the wall, and yet another exploiting consumerist that talks a lot, and doesn’t do squat.

The world won’t change for the better if we turn a blind eye on pressing issues like social injustice and poverty. Change takes place when we actually do something about it. That’s how revolutions happen, and I plan to be a part of it.

Case study video: Azza Fahmy social media campaign

A case study of one of planet360‘s clients, Azza Fahmy. This video summarizes how we managed to create a buzz around the latest culture collection, using social media. This basically shows that with a bit of work, it is rather straight forward to put together a campaign using standard tools. It comes down to knowing your target audience, what they value, and consequently, how to engage with them.

At the end of the day, the decisions are made by the people. It’s not about manipulation, it’s about knowing what they want, and transparently providing it to them.

Arabic Video Tutorial for Adobe Photoshop

I had been contemplating for a while blogging with videos when my dear friend Ziad Aly talked me into considering putting together some YouTube webisodes for people to make use of. There are many advantages to talking about design and technology through a series of episodes on YouTube:

• Easier to portray information: It’s easier to share step-by-step tutorials with videos. Not to mention that it has become more effective (fewer people are willing to read articles)
• More exposure: Videos are much more likely to go viral than articles
• The Arabs on the Web: Which is by far the most important aspect. While there are more and more Arabs online, very few take part in providing content. In fact, most tutorials and resources are in English, making it difficult for Arabs who aren’t comfortable with the language. It would be great to help place the Arabs on the Web 2.0 map, and facilitate the exchange of information between them

A quick search through YouTube got me to Ana 3rby’s channel (an Egyptian as well). He has a very informative series on learning to use Photoshop. This is the first video:

I personally think it’s a great initiative, and hope to be able to partake in the near future.

Interesting illustration of how motivation works

The design aspect of this video is so impressive, it’s almost over-whelming. Make sure you focus on the actual message as well, and not just get carried away with the cool hand-drawn graphics

I’d like to see where we can go from here. One thing’s for sure, and it’s that the open-source movement is a win-win situation for everyone, so it’s time we all got on board.

Google Nexus One vs Apple iPhone 3Gs

An informative video by Gadget Video Reviews that compares Google’s new phone (manufactured by HTC) with the iPhone. Straight, to-the-point, and fills you in with what you’re really after.

Although you’ll never be able to fully judge until you get your hands on one of Google’s new boys, it is useful to have a broad idea. The one aspect that I am particularly concerned about is the touch screen of the Nexus One. If it cannot match the intuitive scrolling of its Californian counterpart, then Google might have a bit of work to do before it can grab a market share of any significance.