From The Great Hall of St. Mark's Cathedral, a New Chant Arose: "El-Sisi Raiisi"

It was the holiest of the Holy Days in the Egyptian Coptic calendar: April 20, when Easter of the West and Easter of the East happened to coincide.  Pope Tawadrous II, the Pope of Alexandria, had on April 19 received Field Marshal Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, who had come to the Cathedral, named after an Alexandrian, St. Mark (one of the Gospel writers), to pay his respects.  As the Pope began on April 20 to celebrate the holy mass, he, out of courtesy, expressed thanks for the visit of El-Sisi, that iconic presidential candidate.

At the mere mention of the word "El-Sisi," it was as if His Holiness the Pope had pushed a "Go" button.  The congregation of thousands of worshipers rose up as "one man" in a new chant: "El-Sisi Raiisi" (El-Sisi is my President).  It was a new chant lasting for several minutes; a rhythmically vocal celebration of an El-Sisi presidency; a unanimous vote of confidence in the way Egypt was being transformed.

The Copts, being a minority of about 10% of a population of 93 millions, of which the Muslims are an overwhelming majority, were hailing the rebirth of a secular Egypt.  The dark era of Brotherhood rule of one year (June 2012 to July 2013) was over.  A secular rebirth has taken place, lending more joy to the coptic 50 days of post-Easter greeting in the Coptic language: "Ekhrestos Anesty" to which the response is "alisos Anesty!!" (Christ Has Risen - He Has Truly Risen).

The Easter episode is more about the revolutionary transformation of Egypt from 2011 to 2014, than about El-Sisi presidency.  That in spite of the fact that that presidency is to be regarded a high point in that transformation.  The battle for the soul of Egypt between the Islamists and the Secularists has been decided in favor of the secularists, with vast implications for the whole region.  This is regardless of the results of the expected determined efforts of an El-Sisi team to tackle the huge heap of issues in all fields which have dragged Egypt down the steep hill of development in the digital age.

First and foremost, the war on terror inside Egyptian borders has now pitted a whole nation behind it, battling the enemies of its security and development.  Declaring the Brotherhood a terror organization under Egyptian laws has finally put an end to the zig-zagging relationships between successive Egyptian Governments and the Brotherhood since 1928, the Brotherhood's birth date.  The abuse of Islam by the Brotherhood for an ultimate political grab is now getting its oxygen tube cut off.  Now all the Brotherhood International franchises from South East Asia to Africa and on to Europe and the Americas shall undoubtedly be impacted by the deterioration of its poisonous root in Egypt.

These historic developments cannot but have a salutatory effect on mainstream Islam which for a long dreadful period, especially after 9/11, has suffered the indignities of Islamophobia nearly world-wide.  Muslims, whether traveling by air or running for public office in non-Muslim areas, have largely been presumed guilty till proven innocent.  Even President Obama is periodically harassed by his political adversaries as "a closet Muslim." His middle name "Hussein" has become a political liability.  Mosques in the U.S., the U.K., France and Germany are looked upon as if they were terrorist recruiting establishments.

The wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan furthered the gulf of hatred between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds.  Torture became the tool of enhanced interrogations.  And the criminality of Boko Haran in Nigeria together with the rise of sectarianism throughout the vast Muslim region of 1.5 billion inhabitants are now the topics of daily news reports and the justification for wars and repression in Muslim areas in both Russia and China.  And now there is in India a BJP Modi administration sending shivers of fear up the spines of a 100 million Muslims, both Sunnis and Shiis.

Faced with these inter-faith calamities, neither the Organization of Islamic Cooperation consisting of 57 U.N. Member States, nor the Iranian-induced inter-faith dialogue at the U.N., could stem the anti-Islamic tide.  The crescent on Muslim flags began to cause non-Muslim societies unspoken unease.

Is the Brotherhood responsible for all these calamities which have befallen Islam whose primary emphasis is on "No Compulsion in Faith Adoption?"  Not entirely.

But its advocacy of returning Islam to what it perceived as its puritanical origin caused its offshoots in various parts of the world to magnify that advocacy.  Its resort to force, especially assassinations and oppression of non-Muslim minorities, catapulted its offspring organizations into the formation of the dreaded and dreadful Al-Qaeda.  Bin Laden's top lieutenant is Ayman Zawahri, an Egyptian physician whose brother, Muhammad Zawahri, remained in Egypt and helped bring the Morsi regime closer to Hamas in Gaza.

The Brotherhood hubbub nearly drowned the historic message of non-political Islam announced by Al-Azhar on August 17, 2011, 6 months after the fall of Mubarak.  Entitled "Al-Azhar Document on Egypt's Future," it encapsulated eleven principles, the first of which included "Islam, in its legislation, civilization, and history does not recognize a religiously-based State."  No wonder that the Coptic Church enthusiastically endorsed that document, while the Brotherhood denounced it because the Islamists saw in it the torpedoing of their advocacy for pan-Islamism within a mythical Caliphate.

And when the Islamic governance of one year was ended by the many millions gathered in Tahrir on June 30, 2013, millions whose chants of anguish had the backing of the military under the leadership of El-Sisi, the Brotherhood went on a rampage in Cairo, through the 6-week sit-ins, and in Sinai, through the activation of its terrorist comrades in Sinai where army and police personnel were the targets of a mini-war.

With all their bravado about mass support and the possibility of army and police defections from "the un-Islamic regime," their propaganda resulted in no more than a few demonstrations by a limited number of university students who clamored for the release of Morsi from jail and his "second coming" to the presidential palace.  Pipe dreams!!  The more the Brotherhood gunned down both security and civilian personnel, the brighter El-Sisi image shined, and the greater his march to the presidency, as the symbol of the re-normalization of Egypt, was welcomed.  In spite of another presidential candidacy, that of Hamdain Sabbahi, El-Sis's march to the helm became hugely unstoppable.

Evidence indicates that the rise of El-Sisi to the position of largely uncontested presidential candidate, following the national elections later this May, is largely due to the masses' burning desire for security and development.

In Egypt, the Arab spring has caused major dislocations of these twin areas of national priorities.  Examining those popular demands from the perspective of Egypt as a republic since July 1952, one finds them to have become a constant throughout the reigns of the previous 7 presidents: Naguib, Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak, Tantantawi, Morsi, and Mansour.  It was only during the Morsi regime that neither security nor development was the major concern.  The emphasis of Morsi and his parent organization, The Brotherhood, has been on Islamization through Brotherhoodization.

Against this unsettling background, the El-Sisi campaign has remained focused on translating the huge popularity of El-Sisi into a clear national program: security and development.  Throughout the many group meetings which El-Sisi held with a large variety of Egyptian organizations, the emphasis on those national needs has been unremitting.

As a presidential candidate, his symbol, a five-points star on ads in the Egyptian street and on the ballots, symbolized the hope of a new dawn.  That dawn brought with it over the national horizon, the concept of Egyptianness.  It resonated dramatically with a public that has grown not only weary, but in fact disgusted, with the failed policies of interventionism in the affairs of other Arab countries.  The average Egyptian citizen, as produced by the Arab Spring in Tahrir, saw in that over the borders outreach the root cause for Egypt's retardation.

The groups which heard El-Sisi's message from El-Sisi himself did not only represent a source of added legitimization to El-Sisi's candidature.  They also reflected broad concern for the previously marginalized groups as well as under-utilized professional constellations.

They included Arab tribes from Sinai and the western desert; the sports community; the peasants from the south; the small business and commerce communities, the media community, youth organizations; women syndicates; representatives of the science and technology communities; the leadership of the various branches of the armed forces and police recruits; the film and arts unions; and the diplomatic and foreign policy communities and the judiciary.  An overwhelming amalgam of various sectors of Egyptian society, flocking to vote by their feet for El-Sisi before giving him a landslide victory which is expected to bury the question of "an El-Sisi coup" as propagated by the Brotherhood and its foreign allies.

They chanted with him "Tahia Misr" (Long Live Egypt).  The vision presented through these meetings was to have Egypt, in the long run, rise up gradually to the levels of the newly-developed societies of India and Brazil.  This was an El-Sisi version of "Yes We Can."

As to the form of democracy emerging under an El-Sis presidency, the candidate did not shrink from explaining that each society has the right to fashion its own brand of democracy in accordance with its societal norms.  In his meeting with the Editors-in-Chief of the Egyptian press, held on May 7, El-Sisi said: "We face a problem of evoking the prototype of democracies as practiced in settled States.  Applying at this stage the standards of western democracies does injustice to the Egyptian reality of today.  Then in a lengthy interview with two Egyptian talk show hosts, he urged the U.S. to "Look at us with Egyptian eyes."

These stances lend more credibility to the Coptic chants during the celebration of the Orthodox Easter: "El-Sisi Raiisi."  For they now feel safe in a secularly-reborn Egypt, which is inclusive and respectful of the rights of minorities.

The chant of "El-Sisi Raiisi" goes on, in spite of the ill-informed characterization of the U.S. media of an El-Sisi presidency as a return to military rule -an abortion of the march towards civilian rule and democracy.  Our last blog posting dealt with the selective reporting of New York Times in that direction, contrary to the paper's motto "All the News That is Fit to Print."  

It was therefore with satisfaction that I received from a friend a comment on my blog posting disparaging that motto.  In his email, the commentator, a graduate of Columbia University, quoted from an article on The New York Times, published in the 1960s by a University newspaper by the name of "The Columbia Jester."  The article reversed the motto of the New York Times to read: "All the News That Fits, We Print."

At a meeting with the representatives of southern Egypt, on May 14, a speaker, Judge Ihab Ramzi, a prominent copt, addressed El-Sisi in these words: "It was love for country and concern about its destiny which united the Egyptians in their second revolution of June 30, 2013.  When these millions took to the streets, they were aware of the great role which you would play in rescuing Egypt from the dark tunnel in which it lived for one year of Brotherhood rule."

Ramzi's words found tangible expression by the throngs of Egyptian Americans voting for their hero at the Egyptian Consulate-General in New York on May 15.  Braving the rain, they turned that event, under my own eyes, into an impromptu festival -a wedding.

Unfurling the Egyptian flag, holding up laminated photos of El-Sisi, they chanted while swaying with their pastors and their children: "El-Sisi Raiisi."  You cannot make that historic scene up, even if you tried!!  I was there witnessing it.

Inventing Non-Existing Facts About Egypt Has Become An Industry of The New York Times

In his op-ed column in New York Times of April 23, 2014, Thomas Friedman writes about Ukraine.  Being a word-smith, he says: "Indeed, Ukraine has some Tahrir Square disease.  The Kiev revolutionaries have been incredibly brave.  But, like in Egypt, they have not yet translated their aspirations for an inclusive, non-corrupt, pro-E.U. future."  A faulty comparison, and a conclusion about Egypt which reads the future about an Egyptian government which shall come into existence only several weeks from now.  How prescient!!

Add to these inventions of facts, which undermine the credibility of the motto of The New York Times, at least when it comes to the new Egypt -"All the News That's Fit to Print," is the paper's editorial page.  In the issue of April 25, 2014, the relevant editorial entry is titled: "A Questionable Decision on Egypt."

That item, being by the paper's editors reflecting its programmed bias towards the new Egypt, begins by: "American policy toward Egypt continued on its tortured, confusing path this week when the Obama administration resumed some aid to what has become an increasingly repressive State."

And in his reporting from Cairo, on the front page of the New York Times of April 25, David Kirkpatrick, was true to form.  His advocacy tarnishing the developments in Egypt is his mainstay.  The headline in that report is subtitled: "New Leaders Targeting Christians, Shiites and Atheists."  The third paragraph sums it all, as he asserts: "Prosecutors continue to jail Coptic Christians, Shiite Muslims and atheists on charges of contempt of religion."

Ironically, his last paragraph debunks his selective evidentiary statements, at least with regard to the Christians.  That paragraph, which must have escaped his blue pencil of redaction.  It reads: "But Yousef Sidhoum, the editor of a Coptic newspaper, said it was natural that church leaders felt both sympathy and gratitude for Mr. Sisi.  So do most Egyptians, Mr. Sidhoum said."

Thanks God, The New York Times, even with being nearly daily (April 23, 25, and 26) deflating revolutionary Egypt, cannot dictate to a sovereign State its course of development.  Yet such unrelenting ideological reporting by a paper of the status of the N.Y.T. has a provable effect on both the American and the Egyptian readers.  I say "provable effect" on the basis of what I receive by the way of comments and questions from my readers and interlocutors.  From the American side, I get questions such as "why did the Revolution miss its mark?"  And from the Egyptian side, the questions usually revolve around "Why are the Americans siding with the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Legitimate questions, based on a barrage of falsehoods, propagandized by boastful and self-promoting ads in The New York Times such as "Behind-the-scenes accounts of how our journalists capture the big stories of the day." (April 25, 2014; page A.21).

But here are the veritable "big stories of the day" that The New York Times does not consider them "Fit to Print":

• The Egyptian masses gave the Brotherhood its chance at the helm for one year (2012 to 2013).  To their amazement, they discovered that the Brotherhood had used the legal means of the ballot box to achieve the illegal means of excluding all stripes of public opinion which do not subscribe to their quest for a pan-Islamic Caliphate.

• The Revolution of June 30, 2013, far from being "a coup," was the only available avenue to get rid of an Islamist reign of terror.  That horrible experience had nothing to do with faith, any faith, nor with the historic tradition of a secular Egypt where Islamic Law and legislated law worked in harmony for the good of both the majority and all minorities.

• The support of the national armed forces, under El-Sisi, protected the mass movement of June 30, 2013.  Under Field Marshal Tantawi, those forces, being non-ideological, had also protected the January 25, 2011 Revolution which the Brotherhood saw fit to belatedly join.

• All governments in the world, and here Egypt is no exception, are backed by their armed forces for security purposes, provided that they do not take over from the elected representatives the reigns of governance.

• As in any revolution anywhere in the world, Egypt's two revolutions are a process.  It does take time to mature, and to solidify.  To prejudge this process as a failure is not and cannot be a rational judgement.  Such irrationality casts aspersions not on Tahrir, but on The New York Times as a propagator of non-content news.  Undoubtedly there have been errors committed in the course of Egypt's revolutions (January 25 and June 30).  Sadly such errors have been recently committed, not by the Armed Forces, but by a member of the judiciary.

• It was an unhinged judge who on April 28, 2014 at a court in El-Minya sentenced to death more than 680 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including Mohamad Badie, the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide.  That heinous ruling was in connection with the killing of a single police officer during riots at that provincial capital in southern Egypt last summer.  

• In a similar view of what may be described as "judicial revanchism" against the opponents of the present transitional government, another court in Cairo banned the activities of the April 6 movement, a liberal group which, in Tahrir on January 25, 2011, contributed to Mubarak's fall.

• In these two instances, The New York Times, in its issue of April 29 was correct in condemning the capital punishment, en masse, as "political execution," and the banning of that liberal movement as "a crackdown on dissent."  In fact the El-Minya crazed judge is now besieged by an investigation by the Judicial Inspection Department of the Justice Ministry.

• Yet, here again, the paper, with a broad brush, lays the blame on the entire post-Morsi government of which the judiciary is but one branch.  

• Without excusing such aberrations on the part of one Government branch which has been recently restored by the 2014 Constitution to its independence, that across the broad condemnation misses an essential fact: the post-Islamist Egyptian Government, which El-Sisi, in spite of his popularity, does not yet run, is ongoing through the teething errors of hit and miss.  Fairness in reporting is the bedrock of educating public opinion as regards the realities of the yet unfinished Arab Spring/the Egyptian sector.

• Egypt's present struggle against terrorism perpetrated by the Brotherhood International, directly or through proxies like Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis and Al-Qaeda, constitutes a  huge boost to the global war on terror.  

• Among other salutary effects, it forced Hamas, now declared a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, into reconciling, at least for now, with the Palestinian National Authority.  

• It also propelled a meeting in late April between U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the Chief of Intelligence of Egypt, General Muhammad Farid Al-Tohamy in Washington, D.C.  The obvious purpose: to coordinate the measures relating to the war on terror between Egypt and the U.S.  This was followed by a meeting between Kerry and Nabil Fahmy, Egypt's able foreign minister.  

• Towards the same goals, President Obama has recently approved the release to Egypt of 10 Apache helicopters to bolster Egypt's warring on terrorism in Sinai, where as recently as yesterday, 2 security personnel were eliminated at the criminal hands of Sinai terrorists.

• As the U.S. s gradually turning inward, for the sake of better serving American development priorities, so is the case with Egypt.  Gone are the go-go years of Egypt's disastrous interventions in the affairs of other Arab States.  

• A simple reading of a statement made by El-Sisi on April 26, 2014, to a delegation representing sports in Egypt, reveals this trend -not one word about Arab issues outside Egypt.  That solitary emphasis on the age-old principle of "charity begins at home" is galvanizing not only Egyptian and other efforts, including Gulf States support.  It is leading the Davos economic organization to consider holding that prestigious conference in Egypt after the elections.

These are but some of the  news which this blogger sees as "fit to print."  The two Egyptian revolutions do not deserve the myopic view of The New York Times of being constantly seen only through the prism of "the glass is half empty."

• Such faulty judgments remind me somehow of the irrationality manifested by some top Republican senators in the U.S. Congress who are rooting for new wars.

But The New York Times is not the only voice of doom crying foul for every misstep which the Egyptian Revolution might take, even before these steps are taken.

In an article in the prestigious Foreign Affairs of May/June 2014, entitled "Near Eastern Promises," its two authors indulge in an imaginary hypothesis.  They fancifully claim the following:

"Although it is impossible to prove a hypothetical, had the United States been willing to come forth quickly with $5-$10 billion in additional aid for Egypt (on top of the roughly $1.5 billion that Egypt already receives annually), it probably would have bought Washington enormous leverage -perhaps enough to prevent the worst excesses of Mohamed Morsi, the Islamist president who came to power after the revolution, and thus forestall Morsi's overthrow by generals who seem determined to return Egypt to its pre-revolutionary torpor."(p. 100)

Are you guys for real?  So you think that throwing a bunch of $$ at The Muslim Brotherhood International would have placated it and saved Egypt form its internal confrontation with terrorism?

The Brotherhood, with continuous infusion of money from Qatar and its foreign franchises, not to mention Mr. Money Bags, a.k.a. (also known as) Khairat El-Shater, its Deputy Supreme Guide, has always been awash with money.  Its fatal deficiency has not been lack of funding -but lack of founding on Egyptian soil which it had regarded as a mere staging ground for pan-Islamism.

You seem to advocate to America and the world that an Islamist Egypt would have been more preferable to a secular Egypt led by El-Sisi.  Please, get your facts straight from the Egyptian multitudes.  That would be more lasting than inventing hypotheses which has no shelf life!!