In the Yemen War: It Is Not Sunni vs. Shii!! It Is Tribalism vs. The National State Concept

It could be very confusing.  There is only one way to steer clear from the entanglement of the multiple cobwebs of historical layers.

With this said, let us avoid the facile characterization of the Yemen war.  Sunni vs. Shii reflects a mental fatigue which tries to quickly package Islam as two kinds.  Sunni and Shii is like having two sons, Omar and Ali.  Or two daughters, Aisha and Fatima.  The resilience of Islam lies in its simplicity, together with its unreserved acceptance of other faiths.  Strange?  Not at all.  The Jihadi dictionary has infected our understanding of Islam and of Islamic jurisprudence.

Back to the war in Yemen.  Utter confusion about its genesis.  Not only in official policies.  But also in media confirmation of the errors of these policies.  This is especially so in Arab media, which in most cases lack research, public opinion polls, presence at the fields of battle, and writing creativity which asserts the truth of opinion, not the durability of ascertained facts.

What we have in Yemen today is what we had in Yemen yesterday.  The tribal flag flies higher than the national flag.

I was in Yemen from 1999 to 2001.  Commissioned by both the World Bank and the Government of Yemen to do a field study.  It was on legal and judicial reform and how to enhance the capacity of the two twin areas.  The study was done; some of its recommendations were implemented.

It is impossible to judge the pulse of any polity or political environment, especially without physical field experiences.  Get the pulse of the patient, not from a chart.  But from being physically with the patient -with the subject.

So in order to bestow credibility on my arguments below, in regard to the present Yemen war, I feel the need to cite other field experiences with Arab areas of armed conflict.

In Algeria during the war of independence in the early sixties, as UN spokesman.  In Syria, in 1962, to assess for the UN the status of the United Arab Republic.  In July of that year, I predicted collapse.  In September it did collapse.  In 1964 in Gaza, to assess the status of peace-keeping under the command of my able Indian friend, general Rikhe.

In the mid-70's, lecturing at New York University on counter-insurgency.  And much later, commissioned by the U.N. Security Council in 2006 for a mission in Darfour, the Sudan.

Why is this personal recitation of relevance to the present war in Yemen?  It confirms a non-changing fact about inter-Arab conflicts.  Lack of recognition of their cultural under-pinnings.

In most Arab areas, war and politics reflect various shades of tribalism.  The cohesive national State (the Egyptian model) is still on the way.  Let us look at Yemen:

• The movement of the Houthis is a North vs. South.  Shii v. Sunni is pure rubbish.  Islam does not come in two flavors or two packages: One marked Sunni; the other marked Shii.  Imam Ali, on whom I am now authoring a book in Arabic, was neither Sunni nor Shii.  He was simply the First Muslim; the foster child of his cousin, the Prophet Muhammad. 
• The South (Aden) is progressive.  The North (Sanaa) is a museum for the middle ages.
• In the south, you find women judges on the bench.  In the north, you cannot serve litigation papers on someone.  There are no addresses outside of Sanaa.  To help the Yemeni prosecutorial system, I recommended a simple system for the problem of serving court notices:  Provide bicycles or donkeys for the server, and a guide from the tribal area.  It worked.
• In the north, the Emirates built up the Supreme Court in Sanaa, with "Lady Justice" symbol on top.  It was shot down by a Kalashnikov held up to its head by a tribesman.  He did not like a judgment issued against him.
• In the south, I found courts ruling for a Spanish mother to have her son back.  His father, a German, had kidnapped him and fled to Aden after pretending to adopt Islam.  Some one had told him: If you adopt Islam, no court in an Islamic country would ever rule for the return of a son to his Christian mother.  The court ruled against the so so Muslim father, stating: "Dad adopted Islam as a cover for a crime!!"  The Spanish mother returned back to Spain clutching the hand of her son.
• From the north, Yemenis immigrate to Saudi Arabia for work, handing their passports to a Saudi "Kafeel."  Without the consent of that Kafeel, the worker cannot leave, even if the employer is oppressive.  In the south, there are syndicates and labor unions.  Protecting fair employer-worker contractual relationships.  Observing the rules of the UN-related International Labor Organization (ILO).
• In the north, Al-Qaeda thrives.  It, like ISIS, lives by the oxygen of tribalism and unevolved sunnism.  In the south, your identity, as a southern Yemeni national, trumps Islamism in case of conflict.

Yemenis, until recently, have been the most preferred laborers in Saudi Arabia.  They are not only neighbors.  They are very focused workers.  The Bin Laden Construction Company, now based in Saudi Arabia, had its origin in Hadramaut, southern Yemen.  The souring of relationships between Saudi Arabia and Yemen is due to political, not religious reasons.

Where does Egypt stand in the face of these controversies?

Riyadh had opposed Nasser's intervention in the Yemen revolt against the imamate in 1962.  It was the gravest mistake of the Nasser rule -the use of Egypt's huge armed forces to prop up a nascent republic.  It signalled the beginning of the decline of Nasserism, which became more of a memory than a movement.

For millennia, Egypt has been a security State.  Stability is its base.  Just look at the Pyramids: twin symbols for State and for stability.  A basic premise for understanding Egypt.  A premise grossly misunderstood by the Muslim Brotherhood resulting in their collapse.

Within this unalterable framework, the call by President El-Sisi for Egypt becoming "a strong State" resonates with the country's cherished history.

The present buildup of the Egyptian navy reflects a basic concern for the security of the very long Egyptian coastline.  Stretching from El-Salloum near the Libyan border, to Rafah on the Mediterranean, then looping south to the Sudanese border on the Red Sea.

By this August, with the inauguration of the second Suez Canal, 85% of the world trade between the Americas, Europe and Afro-Asia will transit Egypt.  Transit fees are expected to surpass tourism revenue. 

The exit from the southern Red Sea to the Indian ocean is at Aden (Bab El-Mandab).  Threatening it, whether by the Houthis or other parties, is a security threat to the Suez expanded regime.  An unacceptable challenge to Egypt's transitioning to prosperity.  This is a primary reason for Egypt being in the Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia.  The aim is to slow down the Houthis surge beyond Sanaa to Aden and Al-Hodaiyedah, both ports on the southern Red Sea.

But there shall be no Egyptian footprint in Yemen.  Not again!!  And the framework for the new Arab defense force, which is being constructed by the League of Arab States, is both defensive and voluntary.  The new axis between Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf, as led by Saudi Arabia, is a reflection, not of ideology, but of common defense interests.  Its present front is Yemen.  Its other fronts are left to be managed by each Arab country on its own.

The Houthis, Shiis of the north, are not Iran's agents.  Nor are the Sunnis of Aden Saudi catpaws.  The two parts of Yemen were united through war in 1994.  They were never united in one common nationalism.

Saleh, ruled over a republic held together by the equivalent of scotch tape.  A dictator (a Shii) who played the sectarian game for his own end -dictator forever.  With the help of the hurricane of the Arab Spring.  The Gulf Cooperation Council mediated his peaceful departure, and a successor, Hadi (a southern Sunni) was installed in his place.

But leaving Saleh in Yemen was a big mistake.  The snake moves.  Saleh, was still moving to undo what he had ostensibly accepted.  So the Houthi resurgence was propelled by: southern agitation for separation; the Iran/Saudi Arabia rivalry for preeminence in the Gulf; the general chaos of the sputtering Arab Spring in Syria, and Libya; and the rise of the fiction of Sunni vs. Shii, resuscitated by the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In Tehran, there is a false sense of triumphalism.  Very short-sighted. The same spirit pervades the Ordogan regime in Turkey, presumably on behalf of Sunni Islam.  That is until the Kurds, now in the Turkish parliament, put the brakes on Ordoganism.  Its retreat has begun.  Or so it seems!! 

In the Middle East, there are crazy notions amounting to what I may call "religious imperialism;" ethnic imperialism; and ideological imperialism.

Examples of "religious imperialism" are the calls for internationalizing Mecca and Medina.  These are iconic cities within Saudi territory wherein lies the holiest of Islamic shrines.  Same calls by Iran in respect of Karbala, Najaf and Kufa. Iraqi territory wherein lies holy Islamic locations, especially revered by the Shiis.  

"Ethnic imperialism" was manifest in Saddam laying false claims to "Khozistan" (Arabistan), Iranian territory.  Iraqi maps of the 1980s showed the boundaries of Iraq jumping over the Gulf into that Abadan area of Iran.

"Ideological hegemony" applies to Turkey's support of the murderous ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The mother lode of jihadism in Egypt and beyond.

So what are the lessons to be learnt from the present Yemen war?

• The war is not a Sunni vs. Shii conflict.  It is the tribalized north versus the politically-developed south.
• Regardless of the outcome of that war, Yemen is most likely to split again into Yemen and Southern Yemen.
• The Arab coalition of the willing is a reassertion of Arabism vs. Iranian and Turkish transnational assertions.
• Thus talk and policy are now about "The Arab Nation." Unified militarily on a voluntary basis, and culturally, as a riposte to both Turkish and Iranian espousal of causes which go beyond their geographic boundaries.

The Houthis are not putting their Arabism as a door mat for Tehran.  Like in Afghanistan, the Houthis find in endless war a tenured contract.  If they lose today, there will always be a tomorrow.  Tribalism shall always be alive and well in Yemen's great strategically-located geographic space.

The Youssef Al-Qaradawi Phenomena As Measured By the Scales of Egyptophobia

How can one person represent more than one phenomenon, so as to become phenomena?  It is possible if you are Youssef Al-Qaradawi.  No title of Sheikh.  He does not live up to that lofty standard.  Sheikh means Islamic scholar.

He is a graduate of Al-Azhar, the citadel of moderate Islam.  Now expelled from its ranks.  He was born in Egypt, thus an Egyptian citizen by birth.  But has now been denied that citizenship.  He is supposed to be a man of faith and peace.  Yet he is on the lam, hiding from the arm of Egyptian laws on terrorism and tucked away in Qatar.  In fact, he was recently tried in absentia in Egypt and is now under a death sentence.

What happened?  In late 2012, during the one year of Islamic oppressive rule in Egypt, he was offered the rare accolade of preaching from the pulpit of Al-Azhar.  A true Muslim Brotherhood voice of doom.  When the Egyptian masses rose up in a companion revolution on June 30, 2013, Youssef Al-Qaradawi, once more, fled into the open arms of Qatar.  Another pair of open arms were awaiting this turbaned man of 85 years of age -his Moroccan bride, who is six decades his junior.

Youssef Al-Qaradawi heads a shell organization, "The Global Union of Muslim Scholars" (GUMS).  I could not find GUMS origins, nor where it was chartered, nor its organigram, nor its mission statement.  Nor how Youssef Al-Qaradawi has become the head of that shadowy corporation.  What I found was a Qaradawi call for violence in Egypt to avenge the deposition of the Morsi regime in July 2013.

The Qaradawi call for insurrection was adorned by its inclusion in a public manifesto.  Outwardly impressive.  Practically hollow.  Bearing the signatures of what is claimed to be 150 "scholars and preachers."  What does this Qaradawi manifesto call for?

"Revenge should be enacted.  Against all decision-makers; judges; army and police officers and other personnel; all those who issue fatwas (religious interpretation of the Quran and of Muhammad traditions); media people; politicians."  Not many were left off that death list.

In the name of GUMS, the crazy Qaradawi manifesto has a no escape clause.  It even adds on: "And everyone who might have participated, or conspired or abetted in the..."

Here the manifesto dips below the belt.  In it, there is also the standard charge of "defiling the honor of women, spilling of innocent blood, and snuffing the lives of their victims without legal sanction of Sharia."  The non-Sheikh Al-Qaradawi resorts to the scare tactic of: All of you secularists are going to hell!!

Advocating for mayhem in Egypt is the heart of that manifesto issued in late May 2015.  Posted on the Internet as "Nida Al-Kinaneh" by Qaradawi's blood brothers, that "Nida" could be translated in two ways: "The Call from Paradise," or "The Call for Egypt."  Take your pick.  Its presumed 150 scholars from 20 countries (what happened to the rest of the membership of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation of 57 States?) grandly tweets: "This is our faith.  These are our scholars."  I am a bit relieved that he called his cabal "our" not "your" scholars.

The "faith" and "the scholarship" of Al-Qaradawi GUMS call El-Sisi Administration the "result of a military coup in Egypt in 2013."  This administration, the Qaradawi manifesto claims, is "a criminal gang which, by deposing the Morsi rule, subverted the popular will of the Nation."

Now which "Nation" is Al-Qaradawi talking about?  And what rule of Islamic jurisprudence is he calling on?  And on what legal Islamic premise is he basing his idiotic fatwa on?  And what credibility does he have, being a well paid agent by a foreign power -Qatar?

•  Like his parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaradawi regards Egypt, not as a sovereign State.  But as an Emirate within the broad expanse of the Muslim Nation of 1.5 billion people.
• Like ISIS and Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra and Boko Haram, national borders do not exist.  To them, Islam is a nationality whose precepts are defined in terms of excluding all other faiths.  The Copts of Egypt; Christians of Lebanon; Jews of Morocco; Indians of Pakistan, have no equal rights in these Muslim societies.  Why?  They are non-Muslims!!
• So are the Shiis.  Whether in Iran or Iraq or Syria or Yemen or Lebanon, or Egypt.  "Sunnism Uber Alles."  "Sunnism is above all." a historic Nazi odious call.
• How about the will of 35 million Egyptians who rose up on June 30, 2013 demanding an end to the Islamic dictatorship (a veritable coup) of the Brotherhood?  No, says Al-Qaradawi and his cohorts.  Only the call from the Muslim Brotherhood minarets are the authentic voice of the people.

So historically secular Egypt had to strike back.

• The Minister for Religious Affairs, Dr. Mokhtar Gomaa, called for adding GUMS and its putative president, Youssef Al-Qaradawi to the list of terrorist organizations.  A justifiable addition to the listing of the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization."
• The Egyptian Fatwa Administration described the Qaradawi manifesto as "a desperate attempt to destabilize Egypt."  Its "Observatory of Extremism" cited that call for a coup in Egypt as "FASAD."  Translated from the Arabic as "corruption."  But in Islamic jurisprudence, FASAD is the Number One criminal offense.
• Condemnation of FASAD occurs in 50 verses in the Quran.  Spread over no less than 25 Chapters in a total of 114 Chapters.  "The Observatory" cited several of these verses accusing Al-Qaradawi and his cabal of FASAD.
• Including: "... do not work corruption on the earth, after it has been set right.  This is better for you if you are believers." (Chapter VII; Verse 85).  The weight of Quranic condemnation of FASAD is seen from making it tantamount to "insurrection" and "mayhem."

From an Islamic perspective, these are the acids that dissolve the social contract between government and society.  Thus the Quran assigns for it capital punishment as a deterrent.

At this juncture, the war within the Muslim world is on several fronts.  It is between Islam as a faith and Islam as a cover for hate and terrorism.  Calling the latter "extreme Islam" is a misnomer.  It is a labelling error.  Akin to calling the crusaders "extreme Christianity."

There is no such thing.  Crusaderism was an acute military-religious conflict.  Raising the Cross, a symbol of love, in the way ISIS raises the black banner emblazoned with "God Is Great and Muhammad Is His Prophet."  A flag of butcherism, barbarity and a hocus-pocus Caliphate.  With Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi, a thug from Anbar, as its head.

The terrorist phalanxes have an ideological auxiliary.  In the latter category falls Al-Qaradawi and his minions of GUMS (The Global Union of Muslim Scholars).  Their danger to world peace and to Islam is more lasting.  Because it is an insidious slow-acting weapon of brainwashing.  With the Goebbels effect of recruitment.  You can bomb ISIS.  You cannot cleanse sick minds by military means.

Al-Qaradawi is now being confronted in Egypt head-on by "the Religious Revolution."  Called for by El-Sisi with implementation by Al-Azhar.  The Arab summit of Sharm El-Sheikh of late March 2015 provided a historic endorsement.

The battle against Al-Qaradawi "Helter-Skelter" (with nominal apology to madman Charlie Manson) has begun.  Its starting point is logical -revamping textbooks.  All references to exclusion of "the other," and to defining Jihad as a broad lawless battle by self-appointed free lancers are being expunged.

By the end of May, Al-Azhar, together with the Egyptian ministries of Education and Religious Affairs (AWKAF), joined by specialists in various fields, were ready to welcome El-Sisi.  It was on May 27, 2015 that Al-Azhar's Rector, Imam Ahmed Al-Taiyeb, was ready to share with the Egyptian President the blue print for the counter-attack against ISIS, its franchises and its enablers like Qaradawi and his GUMS.

For the first time we now have 13 recommendations for that counter-attack.  They begin by the defining "the Religious Discourse."  It says: "Its cleansing from superstitions and misconceptions which are counter the mission of Islam: Its tolerance, humanity, common sense, care for the common interest of humanity in accordance with changing circumstances.  In service of country without infringement of other faiths or beliefs of established moral codes."

No wonder that Leon Pannetta, former US CIA Director and Defense Secretary, had this to say in Cairo on May 28, 2015: "Having met with President El-Sisi and members of the cabinet, I regard all efforts to support Egypt's counter-terrorism efforts are deserving of unremitting support."  

So, Mr. Al-Qaradawi, get a life.  You and GUMS, in your vain attempts to gum-up the new "Religious Revolution," are heading for the garbage can of history.  So is your Egyptophobia.

Like in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Qaradawi ideology seems to fit better with a theme song in an Egyptian comic TV soap opera.  Zohra, a beautiful young Tunisian woman, is the screen name of its star.  In the title role of "Zohra and Her Five Husbands."  Per my translation, the first verses bemoan Zohra's fate:

"Going through the ocean of my life; dreaming of finding a landing!!  

And see the day of deliverance;  from afar a distant line!!   

From the day of wading in the ocean of life; have never found safety!! 

All my life episodes; start with ecstasy!! 

But never even once; their ending is not a catastrophe."

Studying American-Arab Relationships From Unexpected Angles. This Time It Is the American Supreme Court on Jerusalem

America is complex.  Because it speaks with thousands of voices.  Voices that come from myriad of sources.  Not necessarily from the Oval office or the Pentagon or the State Department.  Voices also from the American street.

Because I live and work in America, I study American-Arab relationships.  Especially those with one-third of the Arab world which call themselves Egypt.  One or two hours a day of such study are enough.  I have other things to do.

Consequently, I was struck by a most important piece of news on June 9.  The thundering voice of the U.S. Supreme Court on the explosive question of Jerusalem.  I am a member of the Bar of that august Court.  But was unaware of the case against Secretary of State John Kerry which reached the Court through an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Zivotofsky on behalf of their son Menachem.

These are American Israeli citizens, who wanted the U.S. passport of their son, who was born 13 years ago in Jerusalem, to reflect Menachem's place of birth.  They wanted that passport notation to say "Place of Birth: Israel."  And the American Supreme Court, by a majority of 6 to 3, said "No."  Answering why, is the heart of this blog posting.  It also reveals the importance of systematic study of American-Arab relationships, especially from unexpected angles.  For the sake of knowledge.  And knowledge is power.

The case Zivotofsky v. Kerry is all about the power of the U.S. President, under the Constitution, to recognize foreign governments.  In defiance of that presidential power, Congress in 2003 had adopted a politically-based law.

That law instructed the State Department to "record the place of birth as Israel" in the passports of American children born in Jerusalem.  Of course providing that their parents requested that designation.  That is in spite the fact that since Ben Gurion declared Israel a State in 1948, no American president has ever issued a declaration acknowledging any country's sovereignty over Jerusalem.

This is evidenced by the fact that the U.S. embassy for Israel is still located in Tel Aviv, not in Jerusalem.  That was the principal argument before the Supreme Court by the U.S. Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, in the case of Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

The Solicitor General characterized the neutrality of the U.S. Government in regard to the status of Jerusalem as "prudent."  Why?  Because the issue has been "the most vexing and volatile and difficult diplomatic issue that this nation has faced for decades."

For listing "Israel" as the place of a birth which happened in Jerusalem would have negative effects for the system of governance in the U.S.  The most important would be subjecting the Presidential powers of foreign States recognition to a Congressional act violative of those powers.

This is the heart of the U.S. Constitutional system -separation of powers.  The status of Jerusalem and the U.S. recognition of Israel as a State are two separate issues in which the powers of the President are supreme.  Recognition of the State of Israel is an active application of presidential power.  Recognition of Jerusalem as "Israel" is a negative application of that power.

For that reason, U.S. neutrality toward the status of Jerusalem has nothing to do with America's strategic relationships with the State of Israel.  A unique distinction which the Arabs, especially in Ramallah, should comprehend.  Mixing between these issues is like mixing palm dates with desert pebbles.

Looking at the arguments of the Supreme Court's majority of 6 to 3 is immensely instructive for issue-spotting and issue-analysis.

• The Court is divided between liberals and conservatives.  The liberal wing consists of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kegan (the last three are women).  In this judgment, that liberal wing was joined by Justice Kennedy (known as the swing vote; he wrote the opinion).  Unexpectedly, those 5 votes were joined by Justice Thomas, a die-hard conservative.  The dissenting justices were Roberts, the Chief Justice, Scalia and Alito.  
• In support of dismissing the Zivotofsky's claim, the six justices affirmed that "the power of recognition" rested exclusively with the President.  It cited Article II of the Constitution, case precedents, and historical practice "from the first administration (of George Washington) going forward."
• That was not all.  The Court also struck down the provocative law of 2003.  By doing so, the Supreme Court stressed another related principle that had to do with the unity of "the American Nation."  It said that:

(i) the president has "the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations and governments;"

(ii) the President alone could "receive ambassadors," an indication of recognition of the sovereignty of the sending State; and

(iii) only the President could have "the characteristic of unity at all times" as it was "necessary for the Nation to speak with one voice with respect to recognition."

That is the beauty of the separation of powers.  It should also be noted that the judicial power in the Zivotofsky decision did accomplish a historic task: shredding the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FRAA).  Here the Court, while not in any way deciding the future status of Jerusalem or the territorial outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict, blocked the back door for a creeping recognition that Israel and Jerusalem were one single issue.

There is a plaintive tone in Chief Justice Roberts' opposition to the Zivotofsky decision.  He said: "Today's opposition is a first.  Never before has this Court accepted a president's direct defiance of an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs." 

Of course that is indicative of the tilt to the right in the highest court in America.  For here again, Roberts is acting as a spokesman for what President Woodrow Wilson was warning against: Congressional government.

The majority found fault with that position.  It upheld the argument for exclusive presidential powers in the conduct of foreign affairs.  That was the constitutional side of the coin.

Relying on long practice since 1948, the Executive, in its brief, told the Court: US policy since Harry Truman's presidency "has been to recognize no State as having sovereignty over Jerusalem,  leaving the issue to be decided by negotiation between the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute."

At this point, I go back to what this blog advocates: Studying American-Arab relationships, not only from the conventional angles.  But also from the unexpected ones.  Here are examples of what the Arabs have so far ignored as sources of knowledge about America.  A country which is in constant change:

• In early June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the right of a Muslim woman to wear her hijab in public.  This is contrary to the legal position adopted by major European countries.  Zahra Sheema, a Pakistani lawyer of 25 years of age was denied a job by the company Abercrombie and Fitch.  The Court ruled that that company had violated a federal ban on religious discrimination.  The decision, said the New York Times "elevated the profile of Muslim women and the challenges some face when they choose to cover their heads as a sign of piety."
• The primary issue in the presidential elections of 2016 are the inequality of economic fortunes within American society.  It goes by the name of "the income gap."  The democrats are accusing the republicans of focusing on the top 1% of the population (the super rich).  The republicans are countering by saying that the democrats are class-minded and are dividing the nation.  They call Obama "the divisive President."
• Hillary Clinton is shifting to the left as she battles for the Oval Office.  This is while all of the slate of 18 republican hopefuls are appealing to their base in white conservative and evangelical circles.
• America is fast becoming a nation where 45% of its population are minorities from non-white countries.  Wouldn't be smart for the Arabs to learn how to influence America through cultivating positive relationships with the mother countries from which those minorities have hailed?
• The free trade agreement, on which Obama had worked so hard, was defeated today in Congress (June 12).  Not by his opponents, the republicans, but by his own party -the democrats.  A big defeat for the president for whom June 12 was a bad day.  It was due to fears from the labor unions, the back bone of the democratic party.  This is a major defeat for globalization and the shift toward Asia inflicted by U.S. Congress.  Ironically, it was the democrats who had originally lobbied for that bill called the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill!!  Thus it makes sense for those studying U.S.-Arab relations to study those relations not only from the top level of American decision-makers.  But also from the grass roots level -the labor unions.  The America of today is a super power which is largely focused on JOBS!!  Not different from Egypt and the rest of the Arab world.
• Of course the new Egypt should take note, for whatever it is worth, of the U.S. administration's report on Egypt to Congress dated June 8.  While ignoring the long history of American support for the Mubarak regime, the report represents the new Egypt from a dogmatic angle.  It says, without due reference to Egypt's war on terror, "the overall trajectory for rights and democracy has been negative."
• But the same report presents also a pragmatic facet of the new Egypt.  It credits Egypt with beginning to overhaul its economy "by cutting subsidies, increasing taxes and improving the business climate including for U.S. businesses."
• So the Egyptian media, rather than howling about "intervention in our internal affairs," should also analyze that routine statutory report from its most unexpected angle!!  What is that?  It is that "Egypt's success or failure impacts the prospects of peace, stability, democracy and economic growth across the Middle East."  The very language of that report.

Time for the Arabs to study their relationships with America from its unexpected angles.  As I said above, "America is complex."  A reason why I like what Ambassador Abdel-Raouf El-Reedy has recently advocated in an article in Al-Ahram newspaper.

That experienced diplomat and scholar, the honorary chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, has called for the formation of study groups to track the arguments and the developments of the on-coming competition for the Oval Office between democrats and republicans.  An angle which should take the Arab thinking about America "out of the box."

Income inequality and student loans (a trillion dollars) in America, not the sanctions on Russia, shall hold sway in the competition between the party of war (the republicans) and the party for "the little people" (the democrats). The republicans are expected to lose.  They have no policy on economic opportunity.  The old party of Lincoln is now the party of the rich.  And republican Senator John McCain, that old war horse, is now chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  With an annual military budget of more than $600 billions.  In a country tired of war.

McCain, a former prisoner of war, is opposing Obama's advocacy of closing Guantanamo.  If only closed minds came with closed mouths!!

No reason under the sun for me to vote in 2016 for a republican president.  The competition is now intensifying.  In my mailbox, I find an electioneering pamphlet from the democratic party.  It is titled "Will the Koch Brothers' billions decide the next election?  It's up to you!"

This is an allusion to another unexpected angle for studying America.  A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that money is free speech.  The case was Citizens United.  A terrible setback for democracy.  For it allowed the rich to pour unlimited funds in support of their favored electoral candidates.  The American rich is pouring zillions of dollars to support the party of the rich -the Republican Party.

As an American citizen, I choose to remain unattached to either party.  But my vote in 2016 shall go to Hillary.  And as an Egyptian, I voted in 2014 for El-Sisi.  Nice to have the best of the two worlds.  Two worlds which should get to know each other in more effective ways.  Particularly from unexpected angles.

On The Freedom of Speech, There Are Two Models: Pope Francis and Pamela Geller

What a broad spectrum!!  Between Pope Francis (Sky Above), and Pamela Geller (Mud Below).  The two levels have to do with faith.  The Islamic faith in the sanctity of Muhammad.  And the Zionist faith in the sanctity of obfuscation.

Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre in January, Pope Francis was asked by reporters about his views.  Seventeen people were killed at the satirical home of that magazine by two deranged Muslim brothers.  Avenging the satirical cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.  So the Pope was asked about his views: "Isn't the freedom of expression deserving of protection?"

Here is Pope Francis' balanced response: "Freedom of expression is a basic human right.  But it had to be exercised without insulting the faith of others."  His Holiness did not stop at that.  He is an Argentine, the first Latin American to be elected Pope.  So in a gaucho (Argentine cowboy) style, he felt the need to be clear.

So he said: "If a friend of mine speaks ill of my mother, he should be prepared to get a punch from me."  Then, in his white papal robes, he gestured with a closed fist as if he was delivering that punch.

To the startled reporters, Francis went on to amplify: "This is natural.  It is unacceptable to provoke others by insulting their beliefs.  There are lots of people who speak ill of other religions.  They are provocateurs."

We now turn to a provocateur par excellence.  Pamela Geller, a committed Zionist, with millions of dollars to spend on making Muslims and Arabs "savages."  That was her chosen epithet.  In all cars in the New York City subway system, a hate campaign was launched in 2014.

Posters placed by Geller for millions of subway riders to read.  The posters, in effect, proclaimed: "If there is a conflict between the civilized and the savage, support the civilized.  Support Israel."

The Muslim community tried hard to get the administration of Michael Bloomberg, the then Mayor of New York City, to get these hate posters removed.  But in vain.

The New York City executive claimed that that was "protected speech."  It is not.  And it is not I who is judging it as "unprotected speech."  It is the U.S. Constitution and U.S. case law that say so.  The theory of "speech regulation based on content" is abundantly clear.

That non-controverted constitutional theory imposes speech regulation under the principle of public law and order.  Thus regulation comes in through the door of "Inciting Imminent Lawless Action."  Its legal  formulation is as follows:

"Speech can be burdened if it creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action.  It must be shown that imminent illegal conduct is likely, and that the speaker intended to cause it."

Pamela Geller is calling Arabs and Muslims and others opposed to Israeli practices "savage."  In both fact and effect, she has intentionally engaged in "inciting imminent lawless action," and got away with it.  Her unprotected speech is not only "unconstitutional." It is an anti-American act which exposes the country to retaliation.

But "non-adjudicated felons" like Pam Geller have a habit of revisiting the scene of their crimes.  In early May of this year, Geller did just that.  Propelled by her millions of dollars, she struck again.  Goading Muslim extremists in the U.S. and abroad, she ventured into Texas.  This is a State where one of its two Senators, Ted Cruz, a Republican now running for President in 2016, is calling for having U.S. troops re-invade Iraq.

Using her freedom to engage in unprotected speech, Geller took her organization "The American Freedom Defense Initiative" (AFDI) to Garland, Texas.  Described by The New York Times as "an anti-Islam organization based in New York," the Geller organization was organizing an anti-Islamic event.  It included a contest for the best caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, with a $10,000 top prize.

Now with Pam Geller back to her criminal forays, so were two irate Muslims who, on May 3, shot at a security officer guarding the Curtis Culwell Center.  That is where the Muhammad vilification event was held by AFDI.  Both assailants were shot and killed by Garland police officers in response.  Material evidence of what Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative can accomplish in the service of unprotected hate speech.

Our age is one of rage.  Facts are few; knowledge is even less; and comprehension is dulled by retrograde educational systems, especially in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

In the midst of these overwhelming contradictions, especially as regards to freedom of expression, let us take a tally of these contradictions.  Learning begins with a listing of easily recognizable episodes.  And episodes are more assimilable when put in contrasting positions.

• Geller calls the Arabs and the Muslims "savages."  And Hamas denies Israel the mere right of existence.
• Netanyahu has just appointed Dore Gold to his ultra-right cabinet.  Born in Connecticut, USA, Gold's Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs opposes Israeli withdrawal form the occupied West Bank.  Saeb Erekat, the so-called "Chief Palestinian negotiator" calls that appointment "an internal Israeli matter."  How muted can you get?
• Compare Erekat's utterance with those of Israeli pundits denouncing those appointments as "farcical or worse."  In the meantime, one of Gold's six published books is entitled: Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism.  Isn't occupation a casus belli?
• The New York Muslims could not assert a legal claim against Geller's Islamophobic campaign.  Yet The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) instituted in August 2013 a suit against the New York Police Department (NYPD) on behalf of Muslims.  The suit challenged the constitutionality of the NYPD "Muslim Surveillance Program."
• Compare this action on behalf of Muslims, with Geller's mouthing off about Islam.  She shrieks on TV shows that "Islam is the problem," and "stand up for free speech."
• As a committed ideologue, Geller does not differentiate between ISIS and the broad demographics of Muslims.  Closer home where she stands, she does not differentiate between Judaism, a recognizable faith, and Zionism, a political ideology of assertive territorial claims.  In late May, the new Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely counseled the diplomatic corps.  He advised that they "should use the Bible as a tool for telling the world that the entire land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belongs to the Jews." (The New York Times, May 26, 2015)
• Mixing faith with politics puts such declarations at par with those of Muslim extremists and committed terrorists.  The new Egypt is engaged in a new revolution, a "Religious Revolution."  Under the leadership of Al-Azhar, the term "jihad" is being redefined in textbooks.  In accordance with the notion of accepting the other.  Israel's new leadership is opting for a greater Israel dressed in a religious garb.

In today's world of rage and non-sensical assumptions, only the course of putting yourself in the shoes of the other shall ultimately prevail.  Hate mongers, and those who do not see the other in their midst as equals and deserving, are doomed to failure.

That is why Pope Francis represents "The Sky Above," while Pamela Geller stands for "The Mud Below."  No wonder that the Holy See has just recognized "The State of Palestine."  For Francis is a peace recruiter.  Geller is a jihadi enabler.

Other jihadi enablers, though perhaps unwittingly, are:

• Netanyahu's advocacy of the elimination of the 2-State solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
• Republicans campaigning for the US presidency, calling for "slipping a State of Palestine into Egyptian territory;"
• The Likud characterization of criticism of Israeli practices in the occupied territories as efforts for the delegitimation of Israel;
• Hamas denial of the right of Israel to exist within agreed borders;
• The holocaust deniers.  They are worse than history fabricatiors.  Because they are blind to a human calamity which, among other things, changed the entire history of the Middle East and beyond.

As in the mold of Pam Geller, such calls are grist for the ISIS mill of barbarism and obfuscation.  In spite of the chaos now gripping the Middle East, the use of religion for political ends, or as a cover for hate, shall have very limited shelf life.