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.