In Egypt Under Nasser, Nobody Could Open Their Mouth. But Under El-Sisi, Everyone Is A Big Loud Mouth!!

This is the case of "The Islands v. Ignorance." Ignorance compounded by the herd mentality that seeks in nearly every decision by Cairo authorities a cause for a false "cry wolf!!" For Tiran and Sanafir are as Saudis as Sicily is Italian.

Just look at international maps. Because to study history, you have also to study geography. Study the maritime line in the Gulf of Aqabah: It moves north from the Red Sea to Al-Aqabah.

Ras Muhammad to the west; Ras Nusrani to the west (Egyptian territorial waters); Jazirat Tiran and Jazirat Sanafir to the east (Saudi territorial waters); Ash Shaykh Humayd to the east (Saudi mainland; end of a long road from Maan (Jordan) to the north). Then the maritime line ends at Al-Aqabah, north.

The hordes on the Cairo streets (a few hundreds, big deal) were herded there by another area of ignorance -international law. Maritime lines fall in the midpoint between two littoral sovereignties. Saudi Arabia is east of the Gulf of Aqaba; Egypt is west of that Gulf. With territorial waters filling the geographic space in between.

That principle of delimitation of territorial waters was ignored by Saddam. The dividing line in Shatt El-Arab between Iraq and Iran was formalized in Algiers in 1975. Between Saddam and the Shah. Then the Shah made a mistake. Asked Saddam to banish an insignificant cleric, by the name of Khomeini from Iraq. Saddam obliged. Ended with Khomeini establishing "The Islamic Republic of Iran" upon his return from exile in Paris. 

Saddam nullified the Algiers treaty; attacked Iran in 1980 with a nod from America; waged a losing battle for 8 years. And in 2003, after the American unjustified invasion, Saddam was caught in an earthen cave and hanged. And prior to that, the Shah died in Cairo, and was buried with honors.

There is a lesson we teach at US law schools: "Pacta Sunt Servanda." (Pacts Are To Be Kept). In the Quran: "O Ye Faithful, Respect Your Obligations" (Chapter V/Verse 1).

Of course there is a pact between Cairo and Riyadh. The agreement of 1950: The two islands, under Saudi sovereignty, were to be administered and defended by Egypt. The danger was Israeli encroachment south in the waterways. "Administering" does not transfer sovereignty. It means an AMANAH (bailment), entrusted by a bailor (Riyadh) to a bailee (Cairo) until the rightful owner returns to claim that bailment.

Sovereignty is not transferable, as it does not reside in any government. It resides in the body politic (the corpus), the demographic corporation, called "The People." King Salman did not come to Cairo to buy territory. He came to witness the signing of the return of the AMAHAH to his country. And El-Sisi did not surrender Egyptian territory to Salman. Cairo could not keep what it does not own. Otherwise, it would be an occupier, an aggressor against its sister State, Saudi Arabia.

Back to my zones of maximum comfort: international law, history and diplomacy. From these disciplines, I raise the following issues. To the idiots parading their lunacy on Egyptian streets or media, I say:

• Sinai itself was not Egyptian territory until ceded by the Ottoman Empire to Egypt in 1906. That cession transformed Egypt from an African country to an Afro-Asian country. That was only 110 years ago. Just examine the cession agreement. Its delimitation did not jump from Sinai south to the edge of the Arabian peninsula.
• And it does matter that the Saudi State came into being in 1932. Sovereignty does not reside in a regime. The Hashemites, under Ottoman rule, were the regime. 
• Tiran and Sanafir, if not for Egyptian military custodial presence have been uninhabited. The absence of any other form of human life did not transform them to "terra nullius" (land without ownership). There is an owner -a big visible and important owner called The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In fact terra nullius, as a term, exists only in imperial parlance to justify illegal land grabbing. Akin to the Zionist fiction about settling Palestine -"People without land for land without people."
• Rightful Saudi ownership of the two islands has been repeatedly asserted following the Arab/Israel war of 1948.
• These assertions were manifest as Israel occupied the port of "Um Rashrash" (now Eilat); followed by Israeli complaints later at the UN regarding "Egyptian occupation" of the islands.

A mountain of written evidence of Saudi uninterrupted ownership of Tiran and Sanafir is on the record. Including:

• In the law of the Arab economic boycott of Israel, enacted on October 19, 1955; 
• In official Egyptian memoranda to the UK and the US regarding those Arab punitive/defensive measures;
• In the expressed desire later on by Saudi Arabia for the return of its islands to its sovereign fold, as the triggering reason for Egyptian occupation was no more; and
• In the statements by the late Ambassador Muhammad Awad Al-Koni, Egypt's Permanent Representative to the UN at the Security Council. It was on May 27, 1967, a few days before the 1967 war, when Al-Koni stressed that "Egypt has never, at any time, claimed that these two islands were part of its sovereign territory." I was there in the Council chamber when the remarkable diplomat, Al-Koni, in his exquisite French language, and gleaming shiny head, read his historic statement.

So the Saudi/Egyptian agreement of April 2016, regarding a land bridge between the two sister States, was a positive step between two sister-States. Two sovereigns, engaged in inter-Arab economic integration. The very step which the fragmented Arab world needs today in this darkening age of terrorism and fragmentation. Caused primarily by ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their affiliates and terror proxies in Gaza and elsewhere.

The protests raised by Egyptian media qualifying that historic measure of mapping Arab borders on land and in the sea by Arab hands, are utterly repulsive. Shrill voices, from which I select the following utter nonsense dated April 14, 2016:

• In Al-Shorook newspaper, Fahmi Howreidi claims: "The Egyptian side is to blame for national anger. That side is the party which decided to relinquish the two islands and attach them to Saudi sovereignty."
• In "Al-Misriyoun," its Chief Editor Mahmoud Sullam heatedly argues:"How dare President El-Sisi call on us not to dwell upon the islands matter? Are we his pupils or are we in a military encampment?"
• In a crescendo of total absurdity, another so-called writer by the name of Ashraf Al-Barbari claims the prize of "Ignorant Cum Laude." For he attacks the decision on the following idiotic bases: a) sovereignty over the islands should have been arbitrated; b) Friday, April 8, the date of the Saudi/Egyptian agreement should be called Black Friday. Egypt's cession of the islands to Saudi Arabia was a huge shock as it caused young Egyptians to lose their national compass; c) For decades our history books have stressed that no Egyptian territory should be given up. Mr. Al-Barbari: please show us which history books offer this advice which is a total abstraction? Like defining the word "water" by the word "water!!"
• In Al-Masri Al-Youm," Hamdy Rizk calls on the Egyptian Parliament to nullify that agreement in fulfillment of its national obligations. Mr. Rizk: It behooves you to learn that Parliament has no say in purely administrative matters framed within prior accords.
• In "Al-Tahrir," Nasser Arraq claims that the speed of reaching that agreement, without first engaging the public in it before signing on it, manifests utter disregard for the popular will. Sir: This is not a plebiscite!;
• In "Vito,"Abdel-Qadir Shuhaib attacks El-Sisi for "covering up for 8 months" those negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Dismissively he tells El-Sisi to treat Egyptian public opinion with respect as it is unacceptable to conspire against it in a game of deception.

Other media outside of Egypt joined the fray. The New York Times of April 16 reported on the Cairo demonstrations gleefully. It said: It was "an unusual burst of public outrage" because of "an unseemly concession to Saudi Arabia in return for billions of dollars in aid, and an unforgivable wound to national pride."

Egyptophobia and misreading of history in plain sight were also reflected in the blog by a pro-Nasser Lebanese American. His name is Assad Abu-Khalil, professor at California State University at Stanislaus. In his "Angry Arab News Service," he promoted a lie connected to King Salman's visit to Egypt: "The statue of Ibrahim Pasha in Cairo was placed under a shroud." Claimed reason: He led the Egyptian charge against the Wahabbis in Najd, in the Arabian peninsula in 1819.

Yet my contacts in Cairo informed me that "Salman's visit had nothing to do with the renovation work on the statue." When Abu-Khalil was contacted for retraction, he declined. According to the Los Angeles Times, that Professor's blog is "Known for its sarcasm but knowledgeable commentary. Is being consistently pro-Nasser and anti-El-Sisi."

This is ideological misrepresentation unbecoming an Arab-American professor at a major American university. For ideology is a partisan advocacy. It is not teaching. Particularly when it comes to the malady of hate, which is floating hostility. A form of mental constipation.

I do my best to judge leaders by their degree of dedication to the national interest. With that measure, and judging by the storm over Tiran and Sanafir, I raise the following queries about Nasserism in action in foreign affairs:

Has Nasser ever been elected through the process of "one person, one vote," or by any other democratic formula? No!! And where were the Egyptian voices which were raised in protest against his policies which led to: 

• The break-up of the Nile Valley, North (Egypt) from the Nile Valley, South (the Sudan); or
• The authoritarian unification between Egypt and Syria (1958-1961). And its collapse, largely because Nasser's surrogates in Syria (Amer and Al-Sarraj) converted Syria into a police State.
• And when did Nasser involve the nation in consultation before embarking upon other existential decisions? Like expelling the UN Blue Helmets from the Egyptian-Israeli lines of demarcation? Thereby providing Israel with the pretext to strike on June 5, 1967.
• Then, following that greatest Arab military defeat in modern history, mournfully lamenting: "We expected the enemy to come from the east, but they came from the west!!" Historically laughable, especially coming from a military leader!!
• Nearly the entire Egyptian air force, sitting on the ground, was wiped out in 3 hours! Sinai was occupied - Again!! So were Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Until today, with the exception of Sinai, liberated from Israeli occupation by Sadat. The future of these other Arab areas is still in doubt. Including Jerusalem.
• And under what Egyptian circumstances was that most humbling of Arab defeats took place? 
• Nearly a 100,000 Egyptian army recruits were marched to Yemen by Nasser as of 1962. To be inserted into a Yemeni civil war. What for? Not for any reason of Egyptian defense or development. It was for ideological reasons of Nasser's making. Pitting in its wake Egypt against Saudi Arabia whose southern cities were bombed by the Egyptian air force.

With Nasser's gaze upon his personal goal of becoming the paramount Arab hegemon, Israeli's gaze was upon becoming the hegemon of the Arabs.

It took a leader like Sadat, whose focus was on Egypt, to rescue for Egypt, through war and diplomacy, what belonged to Egypt-Sinai. Like in the age of El-Sisi, an Egyptian leadership should first and foremost work towards The Strong Egypt.

So I ask again, where were the voices of open and noisy protest against Nasser? Who was aided and abetted by his "Philosopher of the Revolution," Muhammad Hassanain Heykal. It was Nasser who was the historic loser of Arab territory!!

In the Tiran-Sanafir issue, Egyptian media uncovered for me an Egyptian perceptional fault line: The dictator who loses territory is reverently called "The Eternally-Remembered" (Khalid Al-Zikr). But the openly-elected leader, El-Sisi, is vilified in the post-dictatorship era as "a sell out." For respecting Cairo contractual obligations. How ironic!!

History cannot be invented. It can only be recorded and reported. So back to the shrill voices within Egypt against El-Sisi. The leader who saved Egypt from a bloody civil war. The leader who cut Islamist fascism down to size. I have never met him. He doesn't know me. But I know him through his actions and plans for "The Strong State." That is enough for me.

On the issue of water and Al-Nahdha Dam in Ethiopia. The emboldened but vain voices say that El-Sisi's stand is another sell-out. Ignorance!! Ethiopia is a sovereign State developing its resources. Same as in the case of the Aswan High Dam. The 1929 water treaty was a colonial creature. Treaties, like contracts, are subject to change. "The Contracts Theory of Changing Circumstances!!"

The only voice raised in favor of a Nilotic alliance (Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Congo) has been that of the Coptic Church. Ethiopian clergy were "created" in Alexandria. Those Popes looked upon Egypt, and rightly so, as a "Nilotic State."

But in the Nasser era, it was "Hail to the Southern Province" (the Northern being Syria). And in the Morsi era, Hamdan Sabbahi called for bombing Ethiopia on the issue of Al-Nahdha Dam. A bravado voice of the insane. El-Sisi resorted to diplomacy through the modern doctrine of functionalism. Sharing the wealth. Particularly now that the Sudan, as a possible Great South, is no more. The future lies not in warring on Ethiopia.But on friendship with Addis Ababa. And in hopefully developing the White Nile in cooperation with Khartoum and South Sudan. 

Even an open dialogue by El-Sisi with representatives of civil society, unimaginable under Nasser, was the subject of media derision. By the pens which have found their ink only after July 3, 2013.

On April 13, El-Sisi told that conclave:

• "The military establishment has taught us to fear for our country and its people, respecting every grain of sand in it. We do not sell our territory to anyone, nor do we usurp the rights of anyone."
• "I am an honest Egyptian who is not for sale; who did not conspire against anyone; who did not deceive anyone. The Supreme Command of the Armed Services did not conspire against the Muslim Brotherhood. We dealt with former President Muhammad Morsi honorably, with honesty and respect." Of course they did. For 3 fateful days, from June 30 to July 3, 2013, El-Sisi tried to coax Morsi towards a new beginning. Through a fresh plebiscite. Morsi and the Brotherhood's Guidance Bureau, gave those efforts thumbs down.

Media response to those assurances by El-Sisi on April 13: a truly pathetic campaign by several Egyptian so-called "opinion-molders." More protests by "The Ignorance Brothers" 

The great historian Jamal Hamdan, with knowledge and clarity, on April 13 contributed to the undeniable verdict: "The Islands Belong To Saudi Arabia." The 3rd of his iconic 4 volumes in Arabic on "Egypt's Personality" bears an interesting title. "The Genius of Geography" (Aabqariyyat Al-Makan).

In the foolish attacks by Egyptian media persons, one finds total ignorance of that "genius," compounded by falsification.

In a lunatic desire to get the mobs aroused. The very hordes which paralyzed Egypt for months. Besieging, among other establishments "The Journalists Syndicate." 

All of the journalists named above have a debased auxiliary. Examples: Adel Al-Sanhouri in "Al-Yom Al-Sabee" (seeing in the agreement of April 11 haste and a cover-up); Karam Jabr, also in the same paper (the Government failed in educating the public); and Muhammad Al-Shebrawi in "Al-Shaab" (What happened to Egypt's independence?). Let alone: "What was the hurry for concluding the April 11 agreement?" Al-Shebrawi, you are a rare genius: It was in the making for 18 years!!

Even those who are not advocating an outright falsehood of Egyptian sovereignty over Tiran and Sanafir are espousing other ridiculous approaches to that non-issue.

• Makram Muhammad Ahmed, in Al-Watan, calls for an Egyptian Parliamentary review of the April agreement. His purpose: delineating the maritime line between Saudi Arabia and Egypt. A silly argument (in law, meaning nudum factum -without factual merit). As it makes Egyptian military presence on those two rocks a nexus to Egyptian sovereignty.

Had holding a territory been tantamount to a conversion to sovereign ownership, then the entire scheme of decolonization under the UN Charter should be revisited. If you care to find out how idiotic the Makram Muhammad Ahmed proposal is, read my book: The United Nations and Decolonization: The Role of Afro-Asia (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1971).

You find the same absence of legal knowledge or historical facts plainly manifest in Al-Ahram. In an article by Gamal Zahran, he calls the protests against the Egyptian-Saudi Agreement a "Fitna" (insurrection). Claiming in tortured logic that those protests are not directed towards El-Sisi. But towards the surrender of the islands. If that is the Zahran defense of El-Sisi, may I never have Gamal Zahran as my defense attorney.

Real Big Loud Mouths, a deplorable phenomenon of the post-El-Sisi elevation to the presidency. Loud barks never heard during the age of Nasser of imposed silence.

One more thought: The recalled President Morsi opened into Sinai the gates (they call them tunnels) of Hamsawi occupation of Sinai. Under the deceptive label of "Arab brotherhood." That encroachment upon Egyptian sovereignty lies largely today at the root of terrorism in Sinai.

Morsi also gave the nod to the Islamist rule in the Sudan: Shalatin and Halayeb.

No, Dr. Morsi: Shalatin and Halayeb are north of the 22nd parallel. A straight line from Libya to the west, to the Red Sea to the east. Their case is the flip side of Tiran and Sanafir. The latter were entrusted to Egypt by their sovereign owner for administration. Shalatin and Halayeb were entrusted by Great Britain, an occupier of the Nile Valley to the Sudan for administration.

No administrative measure could nullify Egyptian sovereignty over Shalatin and Halayeb. For these are the same legal principles underpinning the UN Charter provisions regarding international trusteeship.

Sovereignty is "inherent" (permanent): Administration is "temporary." As in the case of Egyptian administration over Gaza (1949-1967). Does not abrogate Palestinian sovereignty over it. Regardless of the length of an Israeli siege or a Hamas partisan, noisy, and troublesome presence.

Egypt is a sovereign existence for thousands of years. In contrast, its name, "Egypt" (MISR) does not even need a qualifier. For no less than 5 times, the Quran mentions its name as "MISR." The Bible vouches for Christ uttering prayerfully: "Blessed Be My People Egypt." The land and its people are one.

In the Egypt of El-Sisi, the big loud mouths should first learn their country's history. To me it boils down to three sentences: The Great Pharao Narmer (Mina), 5000 years ago, unified. Muhammad Ali, in the 19th century, modernized. And El-Sisi, in the 21st century, saved from collapse.

Now, in conclusion, I pose a challenge to those afflicted by a Big Loud Mouth syndrome. If you truly want to help the New Egypt, shut your mouth and go back to school. To learn something about Egypt's history.

And take with you Ahmed Al-Naggar, the Editor-In-Chief of Al-Ahram. For protesting the rightful reversion of the islands to their Saudi sovereignty. Ignorantly describing that restoration a treaty of surrender. The only surrender in play here Mr. Al-Naggar, should be your retirement.

The Chinese say: "One Learns From the Ear." And the Quran, in its first word of revelation, says: "Iqraa." In Islamic jurisprudence, that one word is loaded. It does not only mean "Read." Its expansive meaning is "Learn."

And about learning through reading. Officers of Egyptian armed forces read. How do I know that? My proof here was provided to me in 1974 by the late Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail. After the October war, he contacted me with an invitation: "I need you to present a general lecture at the Cairo Military Academy." I immediately booked a flight: New York/Cairo.

There were 500 senior officers from all branches of the Armed Forces. Including Al-Gamassi and Abu-Ghazaleh. I sat on the rostrum flanked by Ahmed Ismail to the right, and the Academy's commander to the left. My presentation was on "strategy" which I had taught in New York to large groups of US Army officers -during Vietnam. Lessons, learnt by me in Algeria during the war for independence. As spokesman for the UN.

When finished with my presentation, Ahmed Ismail called for questions to be written, and recruits to collect those pieces of paper. Then instructed the Academy's Commander to organize 74 written questions into 6 themes. Saying: "Our guest shall answer those themes, because I am escorting him today to our Northern Command in Alexandria."

Having responded, I requested the Field Marshal if I could keep the texts of the 74 questions. His response: "Son. Keep them. You are one of us." On my trip back to New York, I read the 74 questions. How penetrating? An army that reads!! It fights for Egypt. And also reads for Egypt!!

That defender of Egypt today is fighting for what belongs to Egypt. And what belongs to Egypt, as far as Sinai is concerned, is clearly evidenced by the attached map. Delineating the international boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba. Showing clearly the basis for the Saudi-Egyptian administrative agreement which was signed in 1950. Gave Cairo the privilege of guarding Tiran and Sanafir for the Saudis against the never-ending Zionist thirst for territorial grab.

That map is Swiss. Produced by a Swiss company in Bern, from whence my late father-in-law had hailed. Produced by the well-known firm of Kummerly & Frey, in 1984, in support of tourism to Egypt. In three languages: Egypt/Egypte/Agypten (English, French and German).

Could the Big Loud Mouths, unleashed only after El-Sisi became president, shut up and read the map. Maps don't lie. But lying weasels, who have abused their profession as journalists, have perfected the practise of lying. Including Al-Naggar of Al-Ahram, whose name in English means "Carpenter." The cure for his incoherence is at hand. A few good nails could fix his trap door -his big loud mouth. Followed by the map that follows!!

This is a central issue for the New Egypt. Its importance has prompted me to prepare a longer version of it in Arabic. If you wish to have that version, email to me your request. I could then arrange for its forwarding it to you. Share the knowledge. 

When The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions: Egypt's Dismissal of An Errant Justice Minister

Beware of the Ides of March!! Last month, the New Egypt engaged in a rare administrative act: The summary dismissal of its Justice Minister. Dated March 13, 2016. Well done!! Counsellor Ahmed Al-Zind was a well-meaning person. But he has a disease. Incurable. Is called "shooting from the hip." Or diarrhea of the mouth. And Al-Zind shot from the hip, or the mouth, 3 times.

An Arab adage says: "The third hit hurts the most." So former Minister Al-Zind met his quota of imbecilities. When the New Egypt, now under reconstruction, hurts, there is little room for "MAALESH" (Never Mind).

A license for "let go," well-suited for a permissive environment. Intolerable, when the New Egypt is scrutinized in every step, in any direction it takes.

This is especially so in the realm of the administration of justice. Thousands upon thousands of cases are an overload in every court. In a national mood that uses the Court as a wailing wall. The newly-found freedoms in Egypt of post-January 25, 2011 have created a highly litigious environment. Creating a near paralysis in moving the legal calendar from "docket" to "judgment." From "judgment" to effective and humane "execution" (INFATH).

In such a fluid environment, Al-Zind found his salvation. Even before he had the exalted post of Justice Minister for his country. The very country that exports its justice models to the rest of the Arab World.

Here follow the events that fit the description of: "the road to hell being paved with good intentions."

Big Mouth Salvo No. One: While he was President of the Judiciary Council, Al-Zind, watched in justified horror a spectacle. Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood bullies besieging the Supreme Constitutional Court. Intimidating it for having adopted a legal opinion: One-third of the Islamic lower chamber of Parliament violated election laws. So Parliament was disbanded. The Brotherhood resorted to its well-practised fascism: intimidation. Shut that court down!!

A la Nasser in 1954. That is when the cry went up: "Down with the Constitution." The great jurist Al-Sanhoury, head of the Council of State, was beaten up in his office.

As judges of the Supreme Constitutional Court sneaked to their offices through back doors, Al-Zind fumed. And rightly so. But his good intentions suffered from a dangerous absence. Absence of international judicial knowledge.

Directing a threat at the Brotherhood ring of fire, Al-Zind's fuming produced only derision. For he publicly stated: "I shall sue the Government (the Islamist Government) before the International Criminal Court." Alarmed, I sent a word to some members of the Council of State. "Al-Zind should know that there is no private litigation before the ICC. He has no standing. He does not seem to comprehend the tenets of universal jurisdiction under the 1998 Rome Charter of the ICC."

In return, I got an unacceptable response. It amounted to: "He didn't meant it!!" Well, if he didn't mean it, why embarrass himself and the judiciary, and Egypt, by making that burp in public?

And if he meant it, he should have known that the ICC litigation is not private. It is government-anchored; premised upon a decision by the UN Security Council; instituted by a directly damaged party; and to all kinds of other limitations. Primary among these is "inability" of a national judiciary to act. The so-called "subsidiarity" principle.

Big Mount Salvo No. Two: Al-Zind is now in a different capacity. Now is the time for him as Justice Minister to vent in the name of a Cabinet headed by a technocrat, Prime Minister Sherif Ismail. An engineer. The government of Egypt has put on its finishing touches.

With the new Parliament, you now have three co-equal branches of government. As per the Road Map, produced through consensus of the select national forces, including Muslims and Copts, in July 2013. Ending the reign of Brotherhood terror.

That Brotherhood had been judiciously declared a "terror organization." For its conducting a systemic organizational violence, aimed at cowing the newly regained secularism. Fronting university students as its shock troops. Under the false banner of "public demonstrations." Freedom of expression and assembly, which were violently prohibited under Islamist (un-Islamic) rule.

The battle ground moved to previously lawless Sinai. An Asian Egypt ceded de facto by Morsi to Hamas. So north Sinai was infested by Hamas tunnels. But southern Sinai has been blessed by tourism. The armed forces in the North, under the unified command of Field Marshal Askar, took the brunt of armed terror. Casualties resulted.

With that, Al-Zind's Big Mouth grew bigger. Shot again out of anger at the casualties inflicted on the defenders of Egyptian security. Good intentions. But stupid performance. Al-Zind's reaction was utterly out of line.

He declared, and I translate from his Arabic: "I will only be at ease when I retaliate by killing 10,000 Brotherhood supporters in retaliation for each soldier killed."

The opposition to that injudicious threat was swift. It came from senior members of the Egyptian judiciary. One of them was Counselor Mahmoud Raslan, head of the Legislative Unit of Egypt's Council of State. His remarks went as a spear into the heart of Minister Al-Zind's profanity. "Those words should not be coming from a Justice Minister. He is supposedly aware of the role of the judiciary in these matters."

Not surprisingly, Al-Zind verbal bomb was a gift to the Brotherhood's propaganda machine. Through Al-Zind, the odious culprit, the Brotherhood, was now playing one of its historic roles: "Poor Islam is again victim of apostates and usurpers." Foreign funding poured in; so-called "human rights organizations" jumped into the artificial fray.

And Egyptophobia found another hanger to hang its diatribes:

• Security measures were unjustifiably deemed as anti-human rights measures;
• A murdered young Italian doctoral student was automatically seen as a victim of official Security forces. Even before the Italian-monitored Egyptian investigations of that tragic event;
• The propaganda machine of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, generously funded by Arab and non-Arab sources, was gleeful at every utterance by Egyptian officialdom which could be interpreted as signs of regression of the Rule of Law;
• Even the so-called indigenous Egyptian media poured oil on the fire. A fire ignited by Minister Al-Zind. Abusing their newly-found freedom to find reason to exhibit false bravery through its own falsehoods.

So by your calculus Mr. Al-Zind, you threaten to kill one million terrorists (10,000 x 100 victims). That is three times the calculated strength of ISIS before its recent losses!! Bravo for the Zind killing machine!!

Enlightened anti-jihadism calls for cooperation of the adversary, ideologically and demographically. The real task is to peel off from the Muslim Brotherhood the elements which are ready to swear off violence. Integrating such elements and rehabilitating them is not through crazy threats.

The Prophet Muhammad had counselled: "Love thy friend moderately, guarding against his turning one day into a foe. And love thy enemy moderately, hoping for his turning one day into a friend." The New Egypt cannot hope for ultimately breaking up the Muslim Brotherhood if it denies itself the chance of possibly luring them back into the fold. Particularly at this phase of Brotherhood's internal altercation.

On this, I quote former President Nixon. He, the conflict-oriented Republican leader opened, through Kissinger, communication with China. His famous adage: "Sometimes if you hate so much, you may destroy yourself."

Islamic ethos was fourteen centuries ahead of Nixon. The Quran put it elegantly and succinctly: "But if they incline to peace, then incline to it, and trust in God. Indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing" (Chapter 8/Verse 61).

Big Mouth Salvo No. Three: The Prophet Muhammad throughout his Mission, suffered enough. And more suffering after his passing. Especially through the murderous campaigns of the Ummayads. Killing of Imam Ali, and his two sons, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein. In our age, every idiocy by a so-called Muslim has become enough of a pretext to attack Muhammad. And guess what: No true Muslim could, on religious grounds, attack either Moses or Jesus.

Muhammad has never engaged in any armed conflict, except in self-defence. "Unholy War" has never been an Islamic concept. It is a crusader concept. Concept for power, not for the great Christian faith of love and peace.

History is a great lighthouse - A MANAR!! It teaches unalterable truths:

• Faith is non-negotiable. Buried deep in the heart. A snatching hand of compulsory conversion cannot reach it.
• In Islam there is no proselytizing. No evangelizing. Muhammad had nothing to do with the barbarity of the Ottomans in the Balkans. Or with Wahabbism, convoluted from a reform movement into a police theocracy. Or with the fictitious split between Sunni and Shii. Or with Muslim immigrants to Christian Europe abusing their refuge into Islamic Bantustans.
• Nor has Moses to do anything with Netanyahu's rampant settler occupation of lands allotted under international law and through UN resolutions to a Palestinian State. Nor has Jesus Christ anything to do with Western occupation of Muslim lands. He preached "love." And imperialism is about suppression.
• So why go to find guilt with the clean hands of heavenly messengers of revealed or non-revealed faiths as systems of human values? Why mix faith with governance? A combustible formula!!
• Empires also fall when minority rights are ignored. When the "Millet System" was observed, the Ottomans were on the rise. All religions were allowed to be practised. Constantinople was only interested in taxation and army recruitment. But when the so-called Islamic scholars (ulama) assumed ascendancy, minorities became second class citizens, including the Arabs.
• Thus was born the "Great Arab Rebellion." Not by Lawrence of Arabia, but Al-Sharif Hussein. He put secular nationalism above an Islam whose golden seat was occupied by a brutal empire on its way to extinction.

Apparently, Al-Zind was a student of neither law, nor history, nor the role of faith. "Breach of the Peace" is an offense which includes acts of destruction or menacing public order and tranquility. Not only violent acts. But also acts and words likely to produce violence in others. 

Ex-Minister Al-Zind, had certainly "breached the peace" of his country. His Big Mouth is what led him to the exit door for his "disorderly conduct."

So why, Mr. Al-Zind, threaten to imprison every malfeasant, "even if he was the Prophet himself?!" You are bearing His name "Ahmed;" and the name of his cousin "Ali." And the name of Ibrahim who symbolizes the unity between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Isn't your full name "Ahmad Ali Ibrahim Al-Zind?" 

If your real thinking matches your very words, I have an out for you, now that you have been kicked out of the Cabinet: Change the spelling of your last name to "Al-Zinad," (the Trigger?) Judges who know you, Al-Zind, told me that you don't read!! Good Riddance!!

Reflecting Rage As An American State, The New York Times Calls for Sanctioning Egypt!!

Even a reputable newspaper, like The New York Times slips occasionally in the realm of the absurd. The unreasonable, the ridiculous, the war-like. Since its founding in 1851, its motto has been: "All News That's Fit to Print."

Judging those words by an editorial dated March 26, 2016, that journalistic promise induced in me, not concern. But derision, and contempt. Why?.. It was vacuous, unintelligent, and an advocacy for aggressive meddling in Egypt's internal affairs.

Under the title of "Time to Rethink Relations with Egypt," the editorial called, not only for the unwise, but for worse. The unimplementable. Here are its main false assertions. Followed by rebuttals:

A Faulty Assertion: In the summer of 2013, "the Egyptian military took power in a coup."

A Rebuttal: From June 2012 to June 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood's reign of Islamization and terror was leading Egypt precipitously into a bloody civil war.

El-Sisi's negotiations with Morsi, who presided over that descent, failed to produce a plebiscite. Responding to the call by 35 million Egyptian demonstrators, "a road map" agreed by the national civilian forces, including the Coptic Church, produced an interim secular administration headed by a venerable jurist, Adly Mansour.

By June 2014, El-Sisi was chosen for the presidency over Hamdain Sabbahi, a moderate Islamist, in open and internationally-observed elections. The fact that El-Sisi was, at that time, the Defense Minister, does not stamp his selection, by popular will, by the totalitarian stamp of a military putschist. El-Sisi ascended to the presidency of Egpyt through an orderly transfer of power.

Prior to the instalation of El-Sisi presidency, the Morsi Islamist regime, now recalled by the electorate, clung to the myth of "legitimacy by the popular choice of June 2012."

That legitimacy, originally supported by the neutral might of the Armed Forces, was destroyed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Until now, it still clings to the propagandistic myth of "legitimacy," (Al-Shariyiah). The Brotherhood's unforgiveable sin was to assume power through democracy. Then to subvert that vehicle into an instrument of subverting Egypt into an Islamic province.

When you board a bus, your ticket of admission as a passenger is not a license for hijacking that vehicle. The terms of your purchase are clear: Ride peacefully, or get off. For you are no longer a rider. You are a criminally offending usurper.

So was the status of Morsi and his Brotherhood during their one year as "rough riders." The bus driver, the Egyptian electorate, threw them out of the national bus. It was a Brotherhood self-inflicted wound. Not engineered by El-Sisi. But by the hands of the Brotherhood, presided over by a dictatorial "Guidance Bureau."

One of the Brotherhood's "Supreme Guides" had once declared "To Hell With Egypt." (Toz Fi Misr)!! The nation simply responded: "To Hell with the Brotherhood." "Tahiya Misr" (Long Live Egypt).

From an article in Arabic by Egyptian Ambassador Mohamed Noman Galal, former Ambassador to China, I quote the following: "It is Egypt's brave army which assured Egypt's safety and peace; saving the country from collapse. This is by reason of its being a national army which has deep faith in its homeland. Unlike in other several Arab countries, the Egyptian army is not the army of any president, nor is it a sectarian army, battling for either a tribe or a sect." (Al-Wasat newspaper, March 28, 2016)

A Second Faulty Assertion: "Egypt's human rights abuses became even harder to overlook."

A Rebuttal: And who are you to judge? Egypt is not a US protectorate. With the exception of the crime of genocide, the question of human rights is essentially a domestic jurisdiction matter. It has been globally manifest that outside uninvited intervention in the internal affairs of other States has always backfired. Even if, it was done, as in most cases of American unwanted intervention, by proxy. Proxies either of the internal type, or the external genre calling themselves "human rights civil society organizations."

The New York Times cites what it calls: "Egypt's crackdown on peaceful Islamists, independent journalists and human rights activists." It quotes from "leading American Middle East experts." It warns against "an authoritarian rule, leaving few if any Egyptians free to investigate mounting abuses by the State." It decries "arbitrary imprisonment of tens of thousands of Egyptians ... and extrajudicial killings."

All of the above are reflective of an imperial approach towards the affairs of outside proud nations like Egypt. Egypt is not America's burden. America should simply "Butt Out." And even falling in line with the colonial interventionist approach of The New York Times, the following questions must be raised:

• Were there "peaceful Islamists" at the bloody standoffs, lasting for six weeks (July 3 to August 14, 2013) between the occupiers of two public squares in the heart of the country's capital? Adamantly refusing the entreaties of the forces of law and order to peacefully disband? Through well-publicized exists for safe passage?
• Shouldn't The New York Times judge the reactions to such provocation by the standard of the US authorities crackdown on "The Occupy Wall Street" movement, or "The Black Lives Matter" movement?
• Those battles of August 2013 in the Cairo public squares of "Rabaa," and "Orman" did not have to occur. They were avoidable, except that the overthrown Brotherhood was acting upon its oath which includes "Death for the Sake of Allah is Our Most Cherished Wish." In America, we call this "Suicide By Cop," meaning through goading the police to open fire.

A Third Faulty Assertion: "When President Morsi was overthrown, senior American officials dithered... (hoping) that this would be merely a bump on Cairo's road toward becoming a democracy."

A Rebuttal: Egypt's democracy is on track. The Road Map of July 2013 has now been fully implemented. With the inauguration of the new Parliament in March 2016. It needs no outside evaluator or overseer!! This monitoring is the most obnoxious form of intervention in the internal affairs of States.

Now I take off my hate as an Egyptian residing in America, to don that of an American naturalized citizen. I find today's American democracy the least suitable model by whose parameters other forms of democracy could be evaluated:

• The American voter does not directly select his or her Congressional representative. Between his/her vote and the final selection is a sieve which blocks the one person one vote formula. It is a formula to which Egyptian elections adhere. In effect, since its founding, American democracy is a rule, not by the people, but by a higher oligarchical tier;
• This sieve, now represented by the electoral college, still reflects the fear by the Founding Fathers from a rule by the mob, in favor of the rule by the Select. There are voters, then delegates, then super-delegates, then unbound delegates. A dizzying game of numbers, with the primary voter left at the bottom of the formula.
• Thus in 2000, Al Gore, though winning the popular vote in his presidential bid against Bush II, lost to the latter. Becoming a US president whose leadership was overpowered by a war-monger, Dick Cheney, whose vice presidency led to the catastrophic war of Iraq.
• Would the U.S. tolerate Egyptian authorities telling Washington what to do regarding this stratified system?
• At a historic press conference held by Bush II and Putin of Russia, the U.S. President spoke of democracy, causing Putin to emit a rare laughter of disbelief. Bush said something to the effect that the U.S. is a champion of democracy everywhere. At which point Putin remarked derisively: "Like in Iraq?"
• Money has a determinant voice in the make-up of Congress. In the case Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations were entitled to contribute unlimited funds to their chosen  congressional candidates. Consequently, a bigger campaign budget makes it possible for a candidate, through ads and the support of special interests, to overwhelm an opponent with a smaller war chest.
• Until today, the US judiciary has, unfortunately failed to effect reform of campaign financing.

Under these circumstances, how can America, as per The New York Times editorial qualify for being a paragon of democratic virtues? When its own system is begging for a cure? In fact prompting great American jurists like Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired from the US Supreme Court, of whose Bar I am honored to be a member, to call for amending the U.S. Constitution itself.

A Fourth Faulty Assumption: "Over the next few months, the President should start planning for the possibility of a break in the alliance with Egypt." A war-like call premised on urging the Obama administration to end military aid to Egypt amounting to $1.3 billion.

A Rebuttal: To me, this is the height of absurdity by the so-called opinion-makers of The New York Times. Here are my reasons:

• Those funds, which are largely spent on purchasing US weapons, are integral to the Peace Treaty of 1979 between Egypt and Israel.
• Though Egypt is not essentially dependent on them for its defense, including defending against terrorism from Gaza and chaotic Libya, that paper is advocating tampering with a treaty. A treaty is a contract. Sanctioning Egypt by withholding those funds constitutes a breach to perform by the US towards Egypt. A breach of a covenant that cannot occur without adverse consequences.
• The New York Times advocacy for "Rethinking Relations With Egypt" goes diametrically counter the paper's own admission to the contrary. The paper concedes that: "Administration officials... have cautioned against a break with Egypt saying its military and intelligence cooperation is indispensable."
• Then it pivots away from those expert views to that of a fellow at the Brookings Institution, Tamar Cofman Wittes. In an interview, Wittes opines that "Egypt is neither an anchor of stability nor a reliable partner."

Here this question arises: If such punitive views become official U.S. policy, is America a reliable partner of Egypt? My response is that partnership, if subverted into a master-vassal relationship, shall not stand. There are no American bases in Egypt; only joint exercises and training in the use of US military hardware.

Both the U.S. and Egypt are, in any case, pivoting away from one another. Both of them are eyeing the east: Egypt, for technology and armament; America for trade. Obama and presumably his Democratic successor, see America's interest in having a light footprint in the chaotic Middle East. Even calling an old US ally like Saudi Arabia "a freeloader." Meaning a defense dependency on the US with adverse implications for the U.S.

In this context, Egypt cannot be counted within this pejorative description of "a freeloader." Its economy, though struggling, is not dependent on oil; its defense is native; unlike the U.S., its government is not threatened with partisan shutdowns; and unlike the U.S., its ethos is not racialism which, in the case of America, has been accentuated by the historic arrival of the first Afro-American to the Oval Office.

Prudency dictates that America should mind its own internal affairs, which are sorely in need of a fix.

And from its beginning, America has received a historic advice from George Washington, the father of its independence: "No entangling alliances."

Hence the shame of The New York Times to be giving a boost to the thesis of those who are warring on the honored international rule of "friendly relations among nations."

The very definition of friendship is equality in relationships, giving mutual support to its parties. As a dual citizen of both America and Egypt, I could see in that relational balance the very advantage of inclusive bi-culturalism.

Only the enemies of both America and Egypt can take comfort in that editorial by The New York Times. Egypt is minding its own business. Shouldn't America also mind its own business?

The New York Times editorial savagely attacks Obama's policy towards Egypt for being "moored in  a series of faulty assumptions." It is the editorial policy, expounded in that article, that is so hopelessly moored. Mired in unrealities exposing an unmerited spirit of hegemony.

Thumbs up for the Egyptian Council For Foreign Affairs (ECFA). For its comprehensive response to an Egyptophobic letter addressed to Obama. The letter's author is an organization about which I am hearing for the first time. Calling itself "The Working Group on Egypt." That organization is in lockstep with that New York Times editorial in calling for a US retaliation against Egypt.

For what? On the basis of what ECFA described as "unfounded human rights violations and interference in the independent Egyptian judiciary system." The ECFA rebuttal also offered me a teaching moment. It highlighted the illegal silence of some civil society organizations regarding "foreign funding they received, and which domestic social activities they finance... in accordance with Egyptian applicable laws."

Here ECFA noted that the number of such offending organizations was "a small minority" within "more than 47 thousand" such organizations in Egypt.

Were I, as an attorney licensed in the U.S. to sue either The New York Times or the so-called Working Group on Egypt, I'd lose. Law and fairness do not always intersect. If I plead incitement to violence against Egypt, as my hypothetical client, they would defend on the basis of freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Even if that freedom of expression is inciteful to violence and, thus, contrary to public policy.

Throughout history, nations do not die. But in some of them their civilizations are prone to perish. America the young, and Egypt the old are of the type where civilization is enduring. However, in the case of America, there appear early signs of reversible senility. Examples:

• Storms of rage 
• Revived nativism through non-acceptance of the other
• Return to early Biblical evangelicalism
• Glorification of Trumpism where ignorance and bullying are hailed as virtues
• Saluting the idea of fences between nations as means of international communication
• Replacing diplomacy by a nod to the nuclear option
• Insulting feminism through machoism and misogyny
• Freezing work wages at the level of 50 years ago
• Hailing the equivalent of "America Uber Alles" 
• Creating from old allies new adversaries 
• And calling the use of foul language in public "the New Normal"
• Shutting down the Government? No problem
• Defying the Constitution by the Senate Republicans in not even giving a hearing to a Supreme Court nominee? No problem
• Calling for a ban on Muslims or having their neighborhoods in America subjected to police patrols for intimidation in the name of national security? No problem.
• Doubly demeaning the US President, as well as 1.7 billion Muslims, by calling Obama "a closet Muslim?" No problem.

If not in letter but in spirit, most of the above anomalies are reflected in that insulting editorial in The New York Times. 

Conclusion: The USA is in sore need of a new national program of cleansing rejuvenation. Let us call it "Anger Management." A nation at rage is a nation whose civilizational principles are in disrepair!! Mindless rage is a paralysis of reason and of what is now defined as "mindfulness." An awareness of what you do and of its consequences.

Another conclusion: Sadly, a keen observer of the U.S.-Arab relationships will have to regard this phase of American history as regressive. Regressive into an age of darkness. 

How can America be "mindful" when its millions cheer an aspirant to the presidency, like Trump, calling for Japan and South Korea to go nuclear? And for getting rid of ISIS through the option of using tactical nuclear weapons!! Trump's version of the "New World Disorder."

If the possible Republican nominee for president is envisaging Rakka (Syria) and Mosul (Iraq) as possibly the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki of 1945, it is a measure of American reversion to the dark ages -Dark Ages II. 

With such yardstick, the New Egypt should look upon that editorializing of The New York Times, or the mercenary advocacy of "The Working Group on Egypt" as as an inflammation in the American body politic.

Its consequences shall have no more of an effect on Egypt which is presently under construction than that of an annoying fly being swatted to extinction by the frond of a palm tree in Kanayat, Sharqiah, my old Egyptian village.