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.