I Had a Dream - A Long Conversation With Morsi!!

On the third anniversary of the Egyptian Revolution of January 25, 2011, 49 Egyptians died, 247 were injured, 1079 were detained, and a military helicopter was shot down over Sinai by a missile killing 5 armed forces personnel.  The celebrations turned bloody as supporters of the Government and those of the defunct Morsi regime clashed.  The series of terror killings began with 4 explosions aimed at the police in Cairo.  The "Friends of Jerusalem" (Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis) claimed responsibility.  Morsi's trial has now resumed with 4 charges listed on his arraignment.

Let us frame the conflict between the Adly Mansour Government and the Islamists of the Brotherhood and its affiliates like Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis in an imaginary Question and Answer period.  The session shall be with Morsi himself.  Let us imagine that he had agreed to see me before he was flown to a sound proof defendant's cage to appear in his resumed trial in Cairo.

Einstein had said: "Imagination is Better Than Intelligence."  I started my professional career in Cairo at the age of 19 as a novelist based on imagination.  The title of my novel is "An Impostor in the Village."  It was first published in 1948, and has now been republished by Aalam Al-Kotab (The World of Books) in Cairo.  Its theme is the manipulation of faith for sordid power ends.  Even after 66 years of its publication, it applies to the present deadly conflict between the Islamists and the Secularists.

Morsi is here imagined to have granted me this rare interview with the approval of the authorities for several reasons.  He and I hail from the same Egyptian Province of Sharkia (the Oriental); both of us have lectured at the University of Zargazig, the capital of the province; both of us are interested in letting his views known to the world.  With this in mind, I, in my dream, entered his cell before he was flown to Cairo for his resumed trial.

El-Ayouty (E): Al-Salam Alaikon Mr. Morsi.  Thanks for granting me the privilege of this conversation.
Morsi (M): Alaikon Al-Salam!!  But you must address me not as Mr. Morsi but as President Morsi.

E: Well, Sir, but you were removed from the presidency on July 3, 2013!!
M: By whom?  It was a military coup staged by El-Sisi against me as the first democratically-elected president in the history of Egypt!!

E: But before those actions by the military, two events had taken place: 35 million Egyptians voluntarily assembled in Tahrir and other Egyptian public squares demanding your ouster.  In addition, there were appeals addressed to you by the military to save Egypt from conflagration by agreeing to a compromise with the secular opposition.  You refused.
M: El-Sisi was appointed by me as Minister of Defense.  He took an oath of loyalty to the regime and was thus in no position to go over the head of that regime, namely me.

We had a Constitution in place since December 2012, and parliamentary elections were scheduled to take place in the course of 2013.  Until then, I held both legislative and executive powers.  The so-called millions who assembled against me on June 30 were paid thugs (baltagiah) and had no power to end my presidency.

E: You raise interesting points.  El-Sisi was sworn before you as Defense Minister of Egypt, not Defense Minister of the Morsi regime.  And the December 2012 Constitution was regarded as an Islamist document from the drafting of which the secular opposition withdrew.  And I was in Cairo before the vote on it in 2012.  People on the street told me that they were given no time to debate it.  Even before it was put to a vote, your Constitutional Declaration of November 22, 2012 was alarming to the secular opposition and the judiciary.  You put yourself above the law.
M: You seem to forget that I had cancelled that Declaration within a few days.

E: True, but public trust in the regime had already shattered and that lack of trust transitioned to the post-2012 Constitution period.  You refer to the multitudes of Egyptians who rose up against you on June 30 screaming "IRHAL" (Leave) as paid thugs (baltagiah).
M: If you disagree with the term "paid thugs." how else could you describe them, and what power do they have to unseat me using the armed forces to engineer that coup?

E: It is impossible to regard more than one-third of the population of Egypt as "paid thugs."  Their cause could be legitimated on the basis that in the 2012 Constitution there was no recall clause and no impeachment provision.  The only mechanism was the street which spoke loudly and clearly against the regime.
M: Why would I be impeached, even if there was such a constitutional clause?

E: I shall not refer to that charges on which you had been arraigned, as I am not privy to the evidence.  So as regards your actions in the public domain, you have resigned your membership of the Muslim Brotherhood following your election to the presidency.  But you continued to regard the Guidance Bureau of that organization as your point of political reference.  Thus began the process of brotherhoodization of the country.

You prevented the armed forces in Sinai from standing up effectively against Hamas and its affiliates as they proceeded to detach Sinai from Egyptian sovereignty.  You have humiliated Al-Azhar, frightened the Coptic community, denigrated the judiciary, especially the Supreme Constitutional Court, and have allied yourself with Qatar whose funds are said to flow even until now to the Brotherhood.  This is not to mention your encouragement of sectarian violence against the Shiis.  And Sharia was being interpreted as if legislated law was at odds with it.

M: The Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood nominated me for the presidency which I won in June 2012.  My relations with them paralleled the relationship of any political personality with his base.  True, I chose 13 Governors out of a total of 27 from the Brotherhood.  But these were capable persons who had my full trust.

Hamas is under siege by Israel, a siege that had to be broken through tunnels into our territory.  The Palestinian question is Egypt's primary cause.  The armed forces had to understand that they function under civilian control as represented by me.  Let us remember that between Arab countries there should not be national boundaries.

As to Al-Azhar and the Coptic Church, these are institutions that, with the approval of the 2012 Constitution, there can be no State within the State -no autonomy for such establishments.  The judiciary has exceeded its authority, as, for example, in disbanding the Egyptian lower chamber of Parliament.  Who gave them that authority?  We did not support sectarian violence.  We simply responded to actions by minority sects by enforcing majority rule.

E: Sir, do you regard Egypt as the center of loyalty by you and the Brotherhood?
M: Well, Egypt is an integral part of the Arab and Muslim worlds and our focus is on an ever expanding Islamic State.

E: What you are in effect saying is that pan-Islamism should be the national identity of Egypt?
M: In a way, yes!!  Islam is the solution.

E: But Al-Azhar in its document of August 2011, which was supported by the Coptic Church and women organizations, declared that the "Islam does not recognize a State which is solely based on religion."  And Al-Azhar is the only point of reference for the issuance of Fatwas.
M: This is why Al-Azhar's Rector has to be removed because we see no separation between State and Religion.

E: I am concluding from your response that the confrontation between the Islamists and the Secularists shall last for a long time!
M: You may say so, until legitimacy as represented by me is restored, El-Sisi and his supporters are disciplined, and the course of the Egyptian Revolution is corrected.  Even if this process takes decades.

E: Did you say "decades?"
M: It shall be a long conflict!!

E: If your aim is an Islamic State, your aim is doomed by the historical realities of Egypt.  Just look at where the Muslim Brotherhood is now.
M: We are every where!!  Thousands are marching all over Egypt in support of my return.

E: You may be every where yet no where.  Your thousands have failed to translate into the millions.  The movement is decapitated.  The massacre of the police at Mansoura resulted in declaring the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.  Seizing your assets is easier than tracking Mubarak's assets.  Attacking the armed forces is further alienating you from the masses.  Since 1814, the armed forces have been a part of the DNA Egyptian nationalism.  Except for media snipers from the outside, the charge of militarization of Egyptian rule sounds very hollow to Egyptian ears.  "Teslam El-Ayadi" (God Bless the Army's Hands) is not only a song; it reflects a historical creed.  The quest for stability has outsized the quest for a defective democracy.

Throughout world history, terrorism has never unseated an established order.  Not only was the Muslim Brotherhood a "Johnny Come Lately" to the January 25 Revolution.  The Brotherhood had, at the start, declared that opposing Mubarak was un-Islamic.  Your outside allies, from Qatar to Turkey, are on the run.  Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia has recently rebuked the Qatar Foreign Minister, saying: "Sir!! I cannot find your country on the map!!"  And Ordoghan of Turkey, in spite of his Rabaa salute, is fighting for his political life.

Internationally, the plight of the Brotherhood is impossible to translate into an unambiguous cause of human rights violations.  For historic Egypt has always regarded seeking such foreign support as a form of high treason.  The "Friends of Jerusalem" has no friends in Jerusalem, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.  And the Brotherhood Inc. has refused to join the new wave of July 3.
M: I do not succumb to pessimism.  I trust in God and in our cause.

E: I think that this conversation has become circular.  We are ending where we have started.  Islam, under its own jurisprudence (Sharia) creates a community, not a State.  The quest for an Islamic State reminds me of Don Quixote's hopeless quest.  He and Sancho Panza saw windmills as attacking knights.  May I, with your permission, call Mohammed Badie, the jailed Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood your Sancho Panza?  Or does this honor go to Khairat El-Shalter?!

To be secular does not contradict being also Islamic.  For Islam is based on "Ma Yanfoo El-Nas" (Whatever is good for society).  Not on what ever is good for the Brotherhood!!

As to Egypt, the late Pope Shenouda, that historic church leader and scholar, described to me in New York his belief in Egypt.  He repeated what he had always advocated: "Egypt is not only a country in which we live.  Egypt is also a country which lives in us!!"  

Time to wake up, Mr. ex-President!!  Field Marshal El-Sisi is at the door!!

Searching For a New Adversary, The U.S. Seems to Declare Cold War on the New Egypt

Why doesn't Secretary Kerry take care of the U.S. business and let the New Egypt mind its own business?  Where are the fault lines in official U.S. foreign policy toward post-constitutional referendum Egypt?  And whose interest would waging this Cold war on the most populous Arab country serve?

This is not rhetoric!!  This is a reality which can be defined by a succinct presentation of the primary elements of this futile interventionism in the internal affairs of Egypt.

Element One: Attacking the legitimacy of the Egyptian vote earlier this month approving the post-Morsi Constitution of 2014.  The U.S. claims that that referendum was "unfair" as it was "one-sided."
Rebuttal: The Muslim Brotherhood had taken itself out of the political process by declaring a boycott of that referendum and by waging a campaign intended to disrupt it.

Element Two: Approval of the Constitution of the post-Islamist regime was declared by the Supreme Elections Committee to be 98.1% of the vote.  Yet Secretary Kerry expresses "the concerns of international monitors."
Rebuttal:  The plebiscite was conducted under the scrutiny of the Egyptian judiciary.  Egypt's judges are likely to be more trustworthy than "international monitors" because they are an integral part of the structure of every polling station, speak Arabic, and are sworn to neutrality.  Those monitors may be credible if they publicize specific concerns, document them, and assert fraud in the vote through credible findings.

Element Three: Secretary Kerry bemoans what he described as Egypt's "polarized political environment."
Rebuttal: True, but: How can that environment be but "polarized" when you have the Muslim Brotherhood in open rebellion against the second Egyptian Revolution of June 30, 2013?  Elections in countries in transition to democracy produce polarization which by its mere existence does not deprive the electoral process of its legitimacy.  The production of winners and losers does not lead to a conclusion of electoral malfeasance.


Element Four: Official U.S. utterances claim "the absence of an inclusive drafting process or public debate before the vote."
Rebuttal: During the formation of the Egyptian transitional government, the interim president, Adly Mansour, the Prime Minister, Dr. Hazem Al-Beblawi, Field Marshal El-Sisi, and Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmi pleaded with the Brotherhood to join the political process produced by the Egyptian masses of June 30.  They utterly refused.  It was a repeat performance of the Brotherhood's recusal from participation in the drafting of the Constitution.  No government on earth can force an opposition group to enter the political arena.  The adamancy of the Brotherhood to stay out of the political game was due to their mistaken belief that the majority of Egyptians would heed their obstructionist call for sabotaging the Constitutional referendum.  They failed miserably.

Element Five: The U.S. claims that "the near unanimity of the vote was plausible because the government thoroughly suppressed any opposition to the new charter."
Rebuttal:  The urban guerrilla warfare pursued by the Brotherhood through its prolonged sit-ins lasting for six weeks (July 3 to August 14, 2013), its waging of terrorism including attempting to assassinate Egypt's Minister of Interior, and its solidarity with Hamas in warring on Sinai, left no option for the established order to declare it as a terrorist organization.  The suppression of terrorism on Egyptian soil is a sovereign right of survival of the State.  The State's life support system depends on sectarian harmony, the State's secularity, and the re-establishment of law and order.

Element Six: The U.S., since July 3, 2013, has placed Egypt under economic sanctions because of the removal of Morsi as "the first democratically elected president" of Egypt.
Rebuttal: It is short-sighted for the U.S. to politicize some of the terms of the Egyptian-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979 whose protocols provide for $1.3 billion as assistance to Egypt.  Picking selectively at that Treaty is destructive as it sends a message that Egyptian sovereignty was a matter for bargaining at a time when Cairo has begun to assert its independence from U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East.

Being of dual nationalities (Egyptian and U.S.), and beholden only and freely to the common interest of both countries, the main question which arises in my mind is: What does the U.S. gain by this intrusion?  Nothing, except that:

• It shall not change the facts on the Egyptian ground;
• It shall evoke in secular Egypt revulsion at Washington and a stronger desire to look east for alliances and friends -a good move for Egyptian reborn nationalism, but with possible negative consequences for cooperation in matters of peace in the Middle East;
• It shall embolden the Muslim Brotherhood to keep on defying secular Egypt, thus using such self-inflicted victimization as a means for internationalizing its hopeless cause;
• It shall cause the Coptic community to wonder why whether the U.S. is standing by minority rights or by the fiction of looking upon the Brotherhood as bona fide opposition;
• It shall fragment, and perhaps destroy  any future chances for Cairo's cooperation in the broader war on terror in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq;
• It shall weaken the cooperative relationships between the U.S. and the Egyptian military; and
• It would move Egypt toward more neutrality in the spreading Sunni-Shii conflict east of Suez.

Returning to my pet subject of definitions, my wonderment bifurcates into two issues:

• The role of the so-called human rights organizations in Egypt, and
• The legitimacy of General El-Sisi's possible quest for running for president.

On the issue of human rights organizations, I am critical of their wooden, non-changing, and inflexible reliance on the definition of democracy as measured by non-Egyptian standards.  As regards the U.S., the democratic model is so infested with the power of special interests.  There exists a tragic tilt toward what President Wilson warned against - Congressional Government.

In its present transitional phase, and in view of the lack of any universally-agreed definition of the term "democracy," I find it comforting that 40% of the Egyptian electorate has voted for a post-Islamic Constitution.  That is double the figure of 20% who, including me, voted for Morsi in the mistaken belief that he and the Brotherhood are antidote to the return to military rule.

Danielle Pletka's article of January 14 entitled "The End of Egypt's Democratic Experiment" is based on sheer conjecture.  Pletka's writing does not provide evidence of a breach by a supposedly military rule in Egypt.  That is even before El-Sisi throws his military cap in the ring of presidential elections.

If Field Marshal El-Sisi does run for president, what might be the basis for the legitimacy of that move?

1. Under the Constitution of 2014, every qualified Egyptian citizen has the privilege of running for the highest post in the land;
2. The final choice of the winner belongs to the Egyptian electorate of 53 millions.  It does not belong to army tanks besieging the presidential palace and the means of mass communication;
3. A choice of El-Sisi as president does not qualify his rule as "military," only because he had a military career;
4. When Morsi came to be president of Egypt (June 2012-July 2013), his opponent was General Shafik who was also a member of the defunct Mubarak government.  At that time, even the Brotherhood did not raise any objection to the supposed danger of the return to military rule had Shafik not missed that post by only 1%;
5. Both the Islamist Constitution of 2012 and the Secular Constitution of 2014 provide for the right of members of the armed forces to vote and participate in national elections;
6. At the present period of the Brotherhood's rebellion posing the threat of civil war, Egypt needs a strong hand at the helm. Witness the multiple explosions in Cairo on the eve of the 3rd anniversary of the January 25 Revolution; and
7. El-Sisi gained his popularity not because he was only a military person, but because the armed forces of Egypt have protected the sovereign right of the people to bring down autocratic governments (Mubarak's in February 2011, and Morsi's in July 2013).

In conclusion, Secretary Kerry should first and foremost care for the myriad of problems forcing the U.S. in the world.  Let the Egyptians mind their own transition to whatever follows after the coming presidential elections.  Today, Al-Qaeda is in Sinai, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Gaza, to cite a few locations.  Under these exceptional circumstances, there is a clearly perceived need for ceasing political fire in the new cold war against the New Egypt.  Though Egypt is regarded by Obama as "a non-ally," it is nonetheless a sovereign entity which is trying to reclaim its full independence from outside powers.

In regard to the New Egypt, the U.S. should not be behind the curve of history.  Secretary Kerry, together with U.S. and other human rights organizations, should not listen but to the voice of the Egyptian majority.  Good communication begins with good listening.  Or to quote from the Chinese, whose economy has now forged ahead of the U.S. economy to become No. 1 in the world, their adage is "One learns not from the mouth, but from the ears!!"

What a puzzling anomaly for a country like the U.S. whose Constitution separates between Church and State to appear or to act as supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood which proclaims no such separation?  In the process, the Brotherhood is at present looking for a civil war conflagration in Egypt using the deceptive veil of a persecuted opposition.

If You Expect the Egyptian Press to Be An Educational Vehicle, You Shall Be Disappointed

The opinion-makers in most of the Egyptian press have opinions.  But they lack the ability in how to make them.  Their topics are important to the Egyptians and other readers.  However their writings do not have the backing of evidence, objective analysis, or measured quotations from statistics and expert opinion.  Their launches are promising, but the launched essay, if you call it that, quickly disintegrate into guess-work, non-supported expectations, and reliance on either personal attacks or praise.  That press seems to function on the premise that words have the capacity to prove the truth of their own assertions.

Examples abound.

• In "Al-Massrioun" newspaper, with its Islamist orientation, we read a non-substantiated attack by its Chief Editor, Gamal Sultan, on the transitional Government whose Prime Minister is the economist Hazem Al-Biblawi.  The topic is of national importance as it deals with the development of the Suez Canal Zone.  The Prime Minister had gone to that strategic zone to launch a national scheme.

But Gamal Sultan objects.  His reasoning is that: "How can a transitional Government have the audacity of launching such a vital project which shall impact the country's economy at least till the year 2040?" He takes the term of "transitional Government" as an inert mechanism sitting in a parking lot without the right to take actions promoting the country's economy or security.  That Editor-in-Chief does not realize that the term "transitional" is applicable to a government which has come to power pending the adoption of constituent instruments (e.g. the Constitution) which bestow durability.

• In Al-Ahram newspaper, the official mouthpiece of the Government, Makram Muhammad Ahmed, a veteran writer in that newspaper, writes about the Nile water issue between Egypt, the Sudan and Ethiopia.

Negotiations with Ethiopia regarding the construction of the Ethiopian dam called "Al-Nahda" have run into difficulties.  Egypt, afraid of the dam's effect on its intake from the Nile waters, is standing by its water quota determined in a 1929 treaty.  This is although that treaty was concluded prior to Ethiopian exercise of its independence and its developmental needs for a bigger share of those life-giving waters.

Makram Muhammad Ahmed looks upon the present failure of those negotiations as a casus belli (reason for war between Egypt and Ethiopia).  Acting as a mind reader, he justifies such radical measures for which Egypt is unprepared, on: "Ethiopia's prevarication has now reached its ultimate limit.  This should force Egypt to be ready for other alternatives to protect its national interests."

• In the same daily of Al-Ahram, another opinion-maker by the name of Morsi Attallah creates an out of sight reason for the popularity of General El-Sisi whose popularity does not need Attallah non-reasoning.  The writer attributes El-Sisi's high standing in the minds of millions of Egyptians to the problems faced by Turkey's Prime Minister, Ordoghan.  But every myth needs a few grains of sand of facts to build something on their shaky base.

It is true that Ordoghan has interfered in Egypt's internal affairs by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood when it was kicked out of its power perch on July 3.  But coincidentally he was also facing a sharp downturn in his popularity on the Turkish street.  But there is absolutely no cause and effect between what is happening on the Turkish street and the events on the Egyptian street.  The bridge which Attallah builds between Ankara and Cairo is constructed from the writer's own mental girders.

 Two quotations from his pipe-dream would suffice: (1) "The book of instructions used by the Turkish party of "Justice and Development" is the same book which instructs the Muslim Brotherhood's party of "Freedom and Justice." (2) "In Egypt, the public adores Field Marshal El-Sisi while in Turkey, the anti-Ordoghan demonstrations raise the pictures of El-Sisi aloft."  I hope that Attallah realizes that Cairo, after July 3, in reprisal against Ordoghan's interventionism recalled its Ambassador from Ankara.  And El-Sisi has enough ascertainable popularity that I doubt it than he needs Attallah's imaginary boost.

• On the issue of the Government's response to the Muslim Brotherhood's declaration of resistance to the law regulating public demonstrations:

An Islamist leader and writer in the newspaper "Al-Watan," by the name of Dr. Nageh Ibrahim declares the following: "The Government has manifested total incomprehension of politics, wisdom, and aforethought...The conflict with the Brotherhood began as a small matter, but became bigger.  That conflict could have been avoided had the disbanding of the sit-in at Rabaa been done with more sagacity and professionalism."

How detached from reality could Dr. Nageh Ibrahim get?  And how much obfuscation of the realities of August 14, 2013 on which the army and the police broke up that sit-in?  For six weeks, from July 3 to August 14, the authorities have pleaded with those Islamist insurrectionists to leave peacefully.

 Evidence shows that that sit-in, like others of its type, has turned in trench warfare in the heart of the Egyptian capital.  Arms were smuggled; snipers were posted; declarations of support for terrorism in Sinai were made; and acts of torture were committed.  The road to democracy should be safeguarded by stability, participation in the political process, and respect for the Rule of Law.  This is the broad framework by which the term "legitimate opposition" can be defined.  Lawlessness does not confer on its practitioner the badge of honorable opposition.

• On the U.S. role in the unseating of former President Morsi: A writer in the newspaper "Al-Shaab," by the name of Magdi Qarqar of the "Labor" party, asserts that: "The military coup of July 3 was supported by the CIA.  We all know that and we know who is in daily contact with the U.S. administration and its intelligence institutions." Incredible!!

The writer seems to be more busy reflecting his pure fantasies through writing than having the capacity to simply read, in order to get a hold on well-known facts.  Mr. Qarqar (the name is also the sound of inhaling on a water pipe or shisha) must know that: (a) the U.S. imposed some sanctions on Egypt following the ouster of Morsi; (b) the millions who rose up on June 30 demanding an end to the Brotherhood's hijacking of the Revolution of January 25 attributed those U.S. sanctions to an American tilt towards the Brotherhood; and (c) Secretary of State Kerry visited Egypt after July 3 on his way to Saudi Arabia to advocate a "go easy" policy on the Muslim Brotherhood.

• On admission that no-evidence exists to back up the assertions of another editorialist.

In the newspaper "Al-Shorooq" we finally discover that the maximum of the level of honesty in reporting exists only in the admission of "although I have no evidence."  That writer is Mahmoud Al-Kardousi who claims that "the activists who ignited the January 25 Revolution are "an essential factor in all the scenes of chaos and destruction which followed."  He backs this up by declaring: "Of course I have no evidence!!"  Well!! If you have no evidence.  Why don't you just shut up?

It is truly amazing that in the midst of the Brotherhood's acts of defiance of the presidency of Adly Mansour, there exists no elucidation in the Egyptian Press of what constitutes recognition of governments.  Those who are for it, praise it in general terms, and those who are opposed to it denounce it also in general terms.  Not one iota of public enlightenment for any cause, through the use of credible information, logic, analysis, examples or history.  Nearly everything is blah blah blah.

As a concrete example, there is no word on the general parameters for recognition of governments.  There is no education on the concepts of control, acceptance by the general public, or on the ability of the government to comply with international agreements and standards.  This is the tripod of the 3 Cs (control, consent and conduct).  Sad!!

What is the moral of all the above?  It is that a good part of the Egyptian press has nothing to contribute to public enlightenment.  Absolutely nothing!!

Regarding the New Egypt, The New York Times, Like Other US Media, Gets It Wrong Most of the Time!!

Happy 2014 to our Readers.  Apologize for starting the New Year negatively about US media reporting on Egypt's transition to democracy.


The respectable CBS program "60 Minutes" of Sunday evenings led off last week with Reporter Leslie Stahl's interview with Obama's National Security Adviser.  Stahl described events in Egypt after June 30 as "a fiasco."  Fiasco, or-ignominious results, for whom?  Certainly not for the 35 million Egyptians who rose up that day and brought the brutalizing Islamist regime of Morsi down.
The New York Public Radio (NYPR), which draws its credibility largely from it being funded by its public, features its Cairo correspondent on December 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM.  The correspondent decries what she perceives to be the collapse of the Revolution of January 25, 2011.  Why?  She sees in the Egyptian public urging of General El-Sisi to run for President a hypothetical link to declaring the Muslim Brotherhood "a terrorist organization."

But the Cairo correspondents of the New York Times take the cake in their spinning off the impact of events in transitional Egypt into systematic negativity.  They are David Kirkpatrick, Kareem Fahim and Mayy El-Sheikh. Content analysis over only a 4-day period from December 26 to December 30, 2013 vouches for the accuracy of my criticism.

• All references to the present transitional presidency of Counsellor Adly Mansour are prefaced by the term "military-backed." 

• Objection: The army did not force 35 million Egyptians to go out screaming at Morsi on June 30 to leave the Presidential Palace.  It stood guard on the multitude, as they stood guard on the Islamic march of the Brotherhood through Morsi's move to that palace in June 2012.

• Since July 3, which signaled the end of Islamic colonialism of secular Egypt, the pet terms of these correspondents, one at a time, have been "a society already riven by violence and suspicion in the months since the military."

• Objection: You must be kidding me!!  You mean to characterize the reign of Morsi and the Brotherhood as one which was free of violence and suspicion?  Have you heard of the so-called "peaceful sit-ins" at Rabaa, Nahdha and Orman which were battle zones and trench warfare?  You must have heard of the Sinai war against the Egyptian army and police, fueled by out-of-control Hamas and their jihadist cohorts!!

Did you consider Morsi's incessant verbal attacks on the judiciary, Al-Azhar, the Coptic Church and Shiism?  Surely you must have known of the appointment by Morsi of 13 Provincial Governors (Egypt has 27 provinces) who were Ikhwanis (adherents of the Brotherhood)!!  How about the avalanche of amnesties granted by Morsi to persons already adjudged as terrorists?

• Your unfounded claims that the Brotherhood is "deeply rooted in Egyptian social and civic life."

• Objection: Prove it!!  Is the mere existence of the Brotherhood for nearly 8 decades a qualification of "deep rootedness?"  The Brotherhood itself has no statistics on its numerical strength.  There is hardly any social science surveys in Egypt.  That is not to mention the Brotherhood's commitment to secrecy in all matters, including its sources of funding.  And is it permissible for a group like the Brotherhood to be given a green light to use Islam as a cover for a power grab as a reward for its assistance to the poor?  The Egyptian Ministry of Waqfs (Charitable Trusts) has been, for the entire history of modern Egypt, the purveyor of goods and services for the needy in Egypt and beyond.

• Your attack on the Egyptian Government, following its listing of the Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization," for "seeking to deny the group foreign help or shelter," and for "urging other Arab governments to honor an anti terrorism agreement and shun the organization."

• Objection: How imbecile can you get?  The international conventions against terrorism adopted by the League of Arab States and the organization of Islamic Cooperation call for such collective action.  Actions in that regard by the Egyptian Government fall within the international law doctrine called "Acts of State."  The doctrine confines itself to acting internally within its sovereign domain, while advising other governments of such actions for their own consideration.  Unlike the Bush administration, Cairo has never tried to impose on the outside world the imperial doctrine of "You are either with us or with the terrorists."

• Your assertion that "State forces have killed hundreds of the group supporters during protests against Mr. Morsi's removal."

• Objection: How one-sided can you get?  This is a typical half-truth!!  All human casualties, be they pro-Morsi or anti-Morsi supporters, are to be regretted.  But you, through your biased reporting, deal with the consequences and ignore the root causes.  For six very long weeks (from July 3 to August 14, 2013), the Government appealed to the marauding hordes at Rabaa and elsewhere to disband peacefully.  But their commitment to victimhood as a means of internationalizing a purely internal Egyptian matter prevailed.

Those encampments had quickly turned into armed garrisons, with pre-arranged armament storage.  Declaring them peaceful sit-ins defies imagination.  They besieged the HQ of the Presidential Guards (a military outpost) and conducted massive security and civil disruptions in their bivouacs.  It finally came down to this: either the integrity of the State or the chaos perpetrated by the Brotherhood.  Many army and police officers, not to mention peaceful civilians, were gunned down.  In your casualties count, have you included those also?   Or is your definition of casualties confined only to the Muslim Brotherhood whose affiliate Hamas has been listed by the US as a terrorist organization?

• By December 25, Mr. Kareem Fahim, one of the three New York Times musketeers based in Cairo, has made yet another false discovery within the ranks of the Egyptian administration.  His report was headlined "Crackdown on Islamists stirs unrest across Egypt."  Then came his statistical attempt to explain "unrest across Egypt." These are his words "At least three people were killed in Cairo, Damietta and Minya on Friday as officers fired tear gas and birdshot at protesters who threw rocks, burned tires and set fire to police vehicles."

• Objection: Need I say more, except that violating the newly-promulgated law regulating demonstrations needs to be upheld by the Government.  That is a government which is faced with threats by the Brotherhood in its futile attempt to disrupt the mid-January plebiscite on the new Constitution.

• Spinmeisters, Fahim and El-Sheikh were at it again.  For their slanted report dated December 30, The New York Times, headlined: "Egypt Detains Journalists It Says Aired False News." That is in spite of the fact that those two New York Times reporters engaged in the same unethical support.  The peg on which Fahim and El-Sheikh hung their poisonous New Year gift was the announcement by interim President Adly Mansour that Egypt could hold a presidential election before electing a new Parliament.

Now comes the reporters' main spin: They raised "the possibility that the military-backed government was preparing to deviate from the transition plan it unveiled after the ouster of the former president -Mohamed Morsi, a Brotherhood leader -in early July.  The government has said it would follow that plan, citing it as evidence of its commitment to democracy."

Then more spin: "Analysts have said that switching the order of the elections could allow Egypt's leaders to maintain tighter control over their outcome, by allowing the newly elected president to influence the makeup of Parliament." 

• Objection: (1) Who are your "analysts," and what kind of strong weed are they smoking? (2) You cite Michael Wahid Hanna "a fellow at the Century Foundation in New York.  Having followed his "analyses" over a long time, your conclusions, Mr. Hanna have proved to be "fiction confirmers."  You, supporters, have gone to him repeatedly to vouch for the authenticity of your fictions; (3) The announcement by Counsellor Mansour has no conspiracy behind it.  It has behind it the provisions of the newly-drafted Constitution which left the sequencing of the elections to the President; (4) That Constitution shall replace the Islamic Constitution of 2012 which was heavily manipulated by your darlings -the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt keeps its nose largely in its own business.  I don't see its officials offering unwanted advice to American policy-makers regarding America's pitfalls in the practice of democracy.  No Egyptian attacks on State measures to make it harder for Blacks and Latinos to vote.  No Egyptian formal declarations addressed to America about Republican defiance of science or the stigmatization of aliens.  No Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs has ever issued condemnations of the rise of racism or of State legislation against the use of Islamic law in the courts of 18 States.  No Egyptian human rights group has ever attacked the Republicans in Pennsylvania, thanks to gerrymandering, winning only 47 percent of the votes but walking away with 72 percent of the seats.

Nor have the Egyptian sneered at the Republican Party shutting down the federal government for 16 days last year.  So why doesn't America mind its own business and stay away from being the Big Brother who is voluble with uninvited course corrections?

Yet America, as policy-makers, media outlets, or even civic groups based in Egypt and allied with either the democrats or the republicans find it fair game to attack the course of Egyptian transitioning to democracy.  Describing the situation in Egypt as "a mess" has become daily media-speak.  

I found not one official world coming out of Cairo in condemnation of the US policy of detention, fully expounded in 2013 in the 560 page report issued by the Constitution Project's Task Force covering Guantanamo, rendition, black sites and the efficacy of torture and brutal interrogations.  No Egyptian official voice was raised calling on Washington, D.C. to go easy on its citizens and allies by reigning in its National Security Agency's global infringement of privacy through mass surveillance.

As a lawyer and academic belonging, through nationality, to both the U.S. and Egypt, and loyal to whatever is good in either culture, I find in the negative characterization of the teething pains of the present Egyptian transition to democracy, the fowl air of cultural and political arrogance.  And by the way, I get no financial benefit from any government.  I am self-employed and not a mouth-piece for any government.

Your biased reporting does not help the US maintain workable relationships with the new Egypt.  More importantly, your drum beat of misstatements shall not stop the new Egypt from seeking broader alliances away from the U.S.  As of January 25, the period of Egypt being a client State has ended.

The rational of the basic doctrine of freedom of expression embodied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect a person in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.  Its object is a citizenry of intelligent decision-makers seeking and empowered to govern a free society. (see Barron and Dienes, Constitutional Law in a Nutshell).

If you were capable of putting matters in Egypt in their global perspective, how would you rate the security in Egypt in comparison with the internal security in Putin's Russia (the Volgograd explosions) or the rebellions in China?

In order to be a credible spokesman or a reliable reporter, you must stick to professional ethics, and take to heart this advice from Sherlock Homes.  Nearly 130 years ago, he said: "Do not theorize before you have the facts!!"  He truly was the purveyor of deductive reasoning which is based upon using the evidence to reach reasonable conclusions.  

The New York Times reporters based in Cairo, David Kirkpatrick, Kareem Fahim and Mayy El-Sheikh keep on crowing doom and gloom.  Just try for even once to describe the Egyptian Government as "people-backed."  In this connection, an Arab proverb is on point: "The caravan moves forward, as the dogs keep on barking."