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.

Kicking Arab Allies, Out of Their American Nest; To Fly On Their Own Wings, In Their Own Raging Tempest!!

The diagnosis is positive.  And the symptoms keep on multiplying!!

• King Salman did not attend the Camp David Summit.  America shrugs it off.
• ISIS retakes Ramadi.  America: "So What."
• The Houthis attack Saudi territory from Saada.  America: a big yawn.
• Netanyahu fulminates against a possible US/Iran deal.  America: "We are not there yet."
• The Gulf might go nuclear.  America: "It cannot threaten us."
• France is busy planning for a UN resolution in Palestine.  America: "Nothing to worry about."
• Multi-Billion dollar contracts for armament from Europe to the Arabs.  America: "It is their money."
• China and Russia are gaining influence in the Arab Middle East.  America: "Good Luck."

The Obama administration has prepared America for a Hillary administration in 2016.  It shall take a miracle to have a Republican President in 2016.  And Barack is bequeathing to Hillary a solid new foreign policy framework for the US through at least 2020.  No more American breast-feeding of the Arabs.  In fact none to any others.

Back to the Future, America!!  Back to President Washington's advice: "No entangling alliances."  Well - How about the Monroe Doctrine of gunboat diplomacy in South America?  No more.  Obama buried it in Panama in April, 2015 at the Summit of the Americas.  His Panama statement reflected the new principle of "America First."  

As America reconciled with Cuba after 55 years of enmity and sanctions, Obama postulated a new global Obama doctrine.  He said: 

"So often, when we insert ourselves in ways that go beyond persuasion, it's counterproductive; it backfires.  That is why countries keep on trying to use us as an excuse for their own governance failures.  Let's take away the excuse."

Whether as an American you are a democrat, a republican, or an independent, this, in our age of chaos, makes sense.  It has made sense for Canada and Scandinavia and the rest of Europe for a long time.  How do we know?  They are not a constant target for terror and adverse propaganda.  Subject to hit and miss, yes.  But we see no banners proclaiming, "Death to Europe," or "Canada is Satan," or "Go Home Swedes."  

How does this apply to the Arabs?  Plenty.  Dependency on America is no longer acceptable.  It is costly; America no longer needs Arab oil as it now produces 85% of its energy needs.  The U.S. of today is the new OPEC.  And none is going to challenge American naval supremacy guaranteeing the freedom of navigation.  The Arabs are free to sulk.  They have to do in defense and diplomacy with the precious little America can afford to give them.

This is clearly reflected in Obama's policy positions at the Camp David Gulf Summit.  No strategic defense alliances or guarantees.  The U.S. shall help on a case by case basis.  The Arabs are neither Japan nor Israel.  Washington shall offer arms and logistics.  That is it.  No American shall die fighting another war in the Middle East.  And America shall select its own type of involvement in the war on terror.

These are not my views, nor are they my early warning signals.  These are positions which are now in place.  They are elucidated by those who have the ears of the Obama administration, and damn whatever the Republicans might scream about in opposition.

Clear demonstrations were offered early this week by Robert Gates, former CIA Director, and former Defense Secretary under both Bush II and Obama.  Interviewed on May 19 on MSNBC, a progressive channel, here are selections of the questions by a panel and Gates responses:

"Who created ISIS?"  Answer: "The Syrian civil war and Maliki's sectarianism."  "So why did the US, during your tenure, support Maliki for the post of Iraq's Prime Minister?"  Answer: "Because we felt that his weakness will force him to work inclusively with all other sectors: Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiis.  But when we left, he showed his true colors as an extreme Shii."  "What are your expectations about the present turmoil in the Arab World?"  Answer: "It shall go on for a very long time."  "What is the expected outcome?"  Answer: "Possibly the fate of Yugoslavia, especially as regards Syria and Iraq.  These two are artificial States."  "Whom should we support in the Arab World?"  Answer: "Our traditional friends."

Does this mean America is back to isolation?  No.  It means that America, while unburdening itself from the chaos in the Middle East, is finding in Asia, through trade, better alternatives.  It still regards itself as indispensable.  Even in the absence of a coherent global policy.  So it is pivoting toward its interior, concerned about being number 24 in the world in infra-structure modernization.  Pivoting toward Asia and the Pacific is a part of the solution.

In pivoting toward Asia and the Pacific, America shall not be too critical about issues of human rights in China or Russia.  Its primary concerns are that its economic ranking might become number two after China's.  And if America may appear weak to its detractors (no US action on Assad crossing Obama's red lines), the fact remains that America is still the only super power on the world stage.  Even with Putin not budging from his position on the Ukraine, or his schemes regarding Latvia.

Its exercise of military power abroad shall be both limited and selective.  Its number one priority is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Republican opposition to the TPP has been shredded.  That opposition had nothing to do with the issue of American jobs.  It had to do with Republican hatred of China which, by all measures, is more than their hatred of Obama.

America's ideology toward Europe has become at variance with that of Europe.  The difference lies mainly in America leaving the leadership role to Germany.  Thus America is lessening its emphasis on philosophical questions of how best to enhance human rights and how to boost the ideals of western democracy.

To America, the South China Sea has more priority economically than the North Sea.  It is not even pre-occupied with the possible break-up of the United Kingdom.  On a bilateral basis, the number one priority for America is its relationships with China and India.  The present framework of that relationship is "the weaponization of trade and finance."  A freshly-minted American term.

How about the issues of the Gulf?  America is now defanging its sanctions weapon everywhere.  This has been done in the case of Cuba.  Iran's next.  But wouldn't this anger Saudi Arabia?  Well, Washington's approach, as guided by the principle of "America First," is to balance its relationships between Tehran and Riyadh.

The expectation is a split between Washington and Riyadh.  Washington seems now to be resigned to a greater Iranian role in Iraq, which is expected to see no Iraqi territorial unity.  Washington sees in the recent fall of Ramadi again to ISIS, the advantage of Shii forces footprint.  Better for America than US footprint.

And what captivates America now about the New Egypt?  Cairo's activism in the economic reconstruction of the New Egypt; its persistent confrontation of terrorism in Sinai and the interior, and Western Sahara; and above all, El-Sisi's call for "a religious revolution."  America regards that call as a possible turning point in the containment of jihadism.

Hence the repeated criticism in America of the non-responsiveness by other Arab and Muslim States in support of a reinvigorated role by Al-Azhar to make that historic call a reality.

Reflecting the behind the moment thinking, an Arab writer opines in an article from Paris a faulty advice on "The Gulf-US Alliance."  Mr. Mutaa Safadi counsels: "After the Camp David Summit, it is high time for Gulf leaders to liberate themselves from the bondage of friendship with America."  This happens to be the prevailing theme in Arab media.  It is a faulty theme because the only reality is the reverse.  It is the U.S. which is now liberating itself from the bondage of a suffocating friendship with the Arabs.

Iraq was a slow though huge turning point in that strategic change in America's outlook.  An American analyst, David Brooks, puts it succinctly in his op. ed. column in the New York Times of May 19.  Under the title of "Learning from Mistakes," Brooks says: "Iraq teaches us to be suspicious of leaders who try to force revolutionary, transformative change.  It teaches us to have respect for trimmers, leaders who pay minute attention to context, who try to lead gradual but constant change."

This is a seismic shift in US strategy towards the unbrave new world.  Watching it nearly daily, as I do, I find its birth certificate.  The year 2007.  That is when I was in Iraq.  Asking 4 marines at Camp Victory, separately:  "What is your most cherished wish?"  Their answers were uniform.  "Sir!!"  "To go home!!"  It was not a yearning for simply going home.  Those were members of the best fighting machine in the world saying: "I am no longer for wars in the Middle East."

Obama won his campaign of 2007 largely on this promise: "I shall end these wars!!"  It was a reformulation of: "Our long national nightmare is over!!"  A new patriotic American adage.  Obama is satisfying those marines' best held wish.  Semper Fi.  "Always Loyal."  A marine oath.  Loyalty now is to "America First."

The Camp David Summit was the notarization of "America shall no longer fight the wars of others."  Even if Saudi Arabia might continue to sulk.  The American bald eagle wants its nest all for itself.

To some extent, the same applies to Israel.  Netanyahu is frothing at the mouth in anger.  His memory is dulled by his own anti-peace policies.  Otherwise, he would have benefited by what Hillary, as Secretary of State, told him about Iran.  In effect, she is reported to convey to the Israelis: "If you strike Iran, we cannot help you."

Bad news for the Republicans.  That war party is out of touch.  And Hillary is expected to be the first female American president.  Semper Fi for "America First."

It is high time for the Arabs to see the writing on the wall.

Apparently Cairo has been ahead in deciphering that message.  As of 2014, it adopted El-Sisi's call for "A Strong Egypt" (Al-Dawlah Al-Qawiyyah).  Regardless of the carping of the under-educated Egyptian media wondering in vain: "What have we accomplished in two years!!"  Leaning forward to steer the Egyptian ship across the 60-year old cataracts takes time.

Now is the time for the Arabs to abide by the wisdom of their great poem: "For Scratching Your Skin; The Best Tool is Your Finger Nail; For none Can Mind Your Business; Like Yourself Minding Your Store!!"  (In Arabic: Ma Hakka Jildaka Methlo Zofrek; Fa Tawalla Anta Jameea Amrek).

  

Why Did Egypt's Train Depart, With the Brotherhood Still Standing on the Platform?

Because the Brotherhood were standing on a false platform.

Because the great majority of the passengers saw in the Brotherhood a clear and present danger.  Boarding that train would have meant inclusiveness.  Well!!  The Brotherhood wished to travel alone.  Their "Guidance Bureau" decreed that.

Because the train did not segregate men from women; veiled women from the unveiled; lots of Copts and some Shiis exercised their right to board; and the train had changed its course, from going east towards Hamas, to going west in a grand opening towards a broader and more interactive world.

Yet, even when abandoned by themselves on that empty platform, the Brotherhood still nurtures the dream that the passengers will rebel.  Their dream is based on their assumed right to have the train turn back to have them board.  Thus their spokesman, like Ahmed Darrag, addresses over the BBC airwaves on May 11, 2015, these fancy hopes of return.  He claims that:

• We are more popular inside Egypt than El-Sisi;
• The "deep State" of Mubarak and the Armed Forces engineered our ouster;
• Our ouster did not come about through the will of the people;
• Fuel was made scarce through conspiracy;
• We are but a broad "social movement," not a political organization;
• Morsi's mandate was cut short, and should be allowed to resume;
• We have been around for 80 years and we are everywhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds;
• We stand for democracy.  But shall not take part in any parliamentary elections;
• Democracy is not "elections" only; and
• We committed no mistakes while governing Egypt.

A total farce.  An enveloping self-delusion.  Typical Brotherhood contradictions.  No need to rebut every argument advanced by Darrag, even if you dignify all his points above as "arguments."  However an overall rebuttal is called for.

Even after two years of being thrown out of governance, the Brotherhood remains unrepentant.  They don't believe in admitting errors -grave national errors:

• Looking upon Egypt only as a launching pad for islamization;
• Egypt is only a province within a vast Muslim Nation (Ummah);
• Having their "Guidance Bureau" as a super-sovereign decision-maker, with Morsi as a junior partner;
• Engineering the election of a President before the promulgation of a Constitution;
• Rail-roading that Islamic Constitution of 2013 through Egyptian polity.  That is after chasing out Copts, women, and secularists from the Constituent Assembly;
• Having Morsi declare that he was above the law one month prior to the plebiscite on the Islamic Constitution;
• Attempting to create a militia and a Brotherhood Presidential Guard to parallel these iconic State institutions, a la Iran;
• Harassing the judiciary and downgrading Al-Azhar and the Coptic Church; and
• Opening the Sinai gateways for Hamas and its war on Israel.

In spite of all these Brotherhood calamities, they looked upon the Second Egyptian Revolution of June 30, 2013 as a rebellion against their "law and order."  And termed their non-responsiveness to peaceful political re-integration, through appeals by El-Sisi from June 30 to July 3, 2013, as a sacred right to exclusive governance.  Then launched bloody sit-ins at Rabaa and Al-Nahda squares in Cairo as "a peaceful exercise of the right to dissent."

After 6 full weeks of refusal to peacefully disperse from their declared "Rabaa and Al-Nahda Emirates," their obstructionism and criminal actions of murder and hostage-taking necessitated State action.  Hundreds were killed, including some State security elements.  So now self-victimization became a battle cry -a cry that openly invited foreign intervention and foreign funding.

No, Mr. Darrag!!  Your arguments are vacuous; your Valhallas (mythical palaces in which so-called slain heroes are thought to feast) are pure fantasies; and your inattention to God's words is patently manifest.  Especially when it comes to your non-recognition of your mistakes about which the Brotherhood remains unrepentant.  The Quran says: "But as for the one who repents and believes, and does righteous deeds, he may be one of the prosperous." (Chapter 28, Verse 67).

You and the rest of your Brothers are waiting in vain for the Egyptian train, standing alone on a non-promising platform.  Your station has been re-named "Terrorville!!"

I now have an admission.  For a long time, I thought that the Brotherhood was always at its best when they lied.  To them lying has been an industry.  And it comes in various forms.  From suppression of the truth, to the invention of facts.  From evading to answer directly, to reinterpretation of what you or they have said.

Where was I wrong about giving the Brotherhood the Devil's World Prize for Lying?  When they last week surpassed their lying metrics with reports claiming to be secret recordings.  Done of conversations among senior Egyptian army commanders.  These were reported in The New York Times of May 13, by David Kirkpatrick, known for his bias toward the Brothers.  You read those so-called "unflattering leaks" about the upper echelons of the mighty Egyptian armed forces.  Then you say: "Wow!! How stupid!!  I thought the Brothers were much better liars than that!!"  Why?

The reports on the supposed leaks are the product of an interested party.  The lawyers representing the political party of ousted President Morsi.  They are supposed to be "evidence in a criminal case in Britain."  Against whom, and what is the basis of action?  Against the alleged illegality of ousting Morsi, and "the take-over's leaders (being charged) with torture and other human rights violations."

Now let us first stick to the underlying issues.  That is before coming to the great vista of the Brotherhood specialization in not honoring facts.  Those lawyers instituting that frivolous case must be dumb.  Sovereign political issues are not justifiable.  The principle of universal jurisdiction does not apply.  Evidence based on unauthorized recording is inadmissible for its being hearsay.  Also the plaintiffs (the Brotherhood's lawyers) must prove either legal representation of their clients, or prove that they were directly injured (tortured).  Even if they prove appropriate lawyer/client relationship, the client (the Brotherhood) has been declared a terrorist organization by sovereign authorities.  Open rebellion against Egypt's security forces on August 14, 2013 vitiates any claims against those forces and/or their commanders.  There is no subsidiarity in the relationships between the Egyptian judiciary, a party aggrieved by the Brotherhood, and any non-Egyptian court system.

Should I say more about what a "loser case" this is?  Oh, yes!!  Who are the presumed defendants in that Brotherhood case which is forum-shopping in London?  The reports say "the take-over leaders!!"  

But El-Sisi was never "a take-over" leader.  His actions from June 30 to July 3, 2013 were prompted by 35 million Egyptians rising in a massive human wave in a second revolution against the Brotherhood's take-over of Egypt's identity.  He, in that regard, was a go-between between an Egypt angered by the brotherhoodization of their country and Morsi.  Morsi had  refused for 3 days a consensual solution -an exit from a civil war.  That refusal transformed El-Sisi's role, as Defense Minister, into an actor for protecting the country from a lurch into Civil War.  El-Sisi did not seek that role.  The Brotherhood's obducracy imposed on the Armed Forces the duty to act.

Turning now to whatever substance there might be in those presumed leaks.  I see in them Brotherhood's desperate attempts to tarnish the legitimate El-Sisi administration.  But even if those recordings were authentic, their value seems to serve the present Egyptian administration.  For banter is a common sport in international relationships.  None of that banter amounted to serving personal needs, nor is it any indication of selling Egypt short.

On the other hand, miles of such tapes can never amount to Brotherhood's callous underestimation of Egypt.  The Brotherhood's former Supreme Guide openly said "To Hell with Egypt" (Toz Fi Masr)!!  And the Brotherhood's agent, Morsi, allowed a participant in one of his conferences in November 2012 to call for war on Ethiopia in order to keep alive an outdated treaty on Nile water allocation.  These were not secret recordings of doubtful authenticity.  The whole world heard them.

By comparison, El-Sisi's greeting is "Tahia Masr" (Long Live Egypt).  Then he, as the present leader of "a strong Egypt," went to Ethiopia earlier this year.  Starting a participatory Pax Nilotica between Addis, Khartoum and Cairo.

Well said, Mr. Michael Morell, the author of the recently published book "The Great War of Our Time."  In an interview with Charlie Rose of PBS (Public Broadcasting System) on May 12, 2015, he was asked a question about Egypt.  His answer was clear, short and illuminating.  "Morsi was taking Egypt to ruins.  El-Sisi's Egypt looks good for the future."

To me, Morell is more believable than Morsi and his hordes.  Morell was Deputy Director of the CIA under both Bush II and Obama.  His task for decades was to be the first person every morning to have the ear of two presidents.  Briefing them on facts and analysis relating to the state of the world.

Mike Morell, 53 years old, is still in play as possibly returning to the White House in 2016.  That is regardless of who wins.  The value of truth in reporting.  Hardly to be found within the ranks of the Brotherhood.

Combatting the Brotherhood's Ideology Through the Use of Authentic Terminology

Lies need more than one dictionary.  One for the faithful; one for the unfaithful; and one for those in between.  The importance of dictionaries lies in their being reflexively believable.  One never argues with them.  With the Muslim Brotherhood, of which there are several varieties, the falsehood of words is a powerful and less costly recruitment tool.

Let us have a look at key terms.  Let us see how the various MB brands understand them; package them for sale; advocate them; highlight them in various languages for various ever-changing needs and audiences.

(1) "Allahu Akbar:"  The MBs creed begins by "Allah is our Objective."
Correction:  But they treat Allah (God) as if He were patented in their name.  If so, which is ridiculous, the patent in intellectual property expires in about 17 years.  They, the MBs, forget that we, the 7 billion of humanity, are His.

He is not ours except in the context of our being His.  In Islamic jurisprudence, "Allahu Akbar," means that we are all equal before God.  Regardless of our faith or even of non-faith.  Its use by the MBs, like its ISIS offshoot, as they sever the head of a hostage, or burn alive the Jordanian pilot Moaz Al-Kassassbah, is an outrage.

(2) Authority: In the Quran it is provided that public order is the essence of harmonious development.  It is the opposite of fitna (insurrection; chaos; mayhem).  Hence the Quran calls on the faithful to: "Obey God and obey the Messenger, and those entrusted with authority over you."  (Chapter IV, verse 5-9).

But the MBs would not have any of this.  Especially as regards El-Sisi administration which they describe as "a coup" against the so-called Islamist regime of Morsi.  This selectivity ignores the fact that Morsi was handed a trust (I voted for him) only to have him engage in the brotherhoodization of Egypt.  An exclusive rule by the long beards which produced an Islamic Constitution (now abandoned).  That Constitution put women, Copts, Shiis, and liberals outside the pale of the law.  The result: Popular recall of that regime through the public square on June 30, 2013.  The Islamic Constitution had no recall or impeachment provisions.

(3) "Constitution:" As part of their creed, the MBs declares that "The Quran Is Our Constitution."  
Correction: For a Muslim, the Quran is the word of God (in Arabic -Allah).  You take it on faith.  You don't vote for it; you don't amend it; you don't litigate by the use of its literal provisions (only 200 legal rules within 6400 verses).  That is with the exception of personal status matters.  If you believe in the Quran, you must also believe in the sanctity of other revealed books.  The Old Testament, and the New Testament.  That is because faith is primarily a matter of the heart.  Non-negotiable.

(4) Cooperation: The Quran provides parameters for international cooperation.  In Chapter V, verse 2, it states: "Cooperate with all in what is good and pious, and do not cooperate in what is sinful and aggressive."  The MBs active cooperation is with Hamas, Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis, and such terror varieties which they regard as "brothers in Islam."  However, that brotherhood is underpinned by criminality and acts violating public order.  It is the brotherhood of a Mafia.  Only the Mafia does not base its acts on religion.

(5) "Copt."  For the MBs, the term denotes a trespasser on Muslim lands.
Correction: The Copt is Egypt, in both belonging, history, faith, and law.  The MBs expansion on that term is "infidel."  
Correction:  In Islamic law, "an infidel" denotes someone devoid of values.  It is God who judges; other humans have no business judging.  This is because the Almighty has created humanity on the basis of equality.  Thus there is no "heavenly apartheid."  You exist through according to others what you claim for yourself.

(6) "Coup." The MBs have changed the meaning of that term.  Before January 25, 2011, it meant an uprising against Mubarak.  So they sat out the Tahrir uprising from January 25, 2011 until "the Camel Battle" of January 28.  Seeing the Mubarak regime wobble, and Field Marshal Tantawi instructing the armed forces to protect, not to shoot, they jumped on the band wagon to own the Revolution which they had invoked God's wrath against it.
Correction: The MBs rule in 2012-2013 was the real coup against the popular will.

(7) "Egypt."  For the MBs, it does not exist.  Except as a territorial expanse, with provincial characteristics.  When it matures, it becomes an "Emirate."  Its recognition in their dictionaries can only be found in the geographic world of Islam.  Its boundaries are not sovereign.
Correction: Egypt has been a State for 10,000 years -8,500 years before Islam.  A State is defined by four criteria: fixed boundary; fixed population; a functioning government; and competence to conduct foreign affairs.  Egypt, as a State, has met these conditions for millenia.  No, says the MBs; the population is supplantable.  Bring the Gazans to Sinai, no big deal!!  Have Qatar or Turkey interfere in Egyptian internal affairs -that is normalcy!!  Ridiculous!!

(8) "Fatwa."  The MBs franchises use it as a double tool of both obfuscation and mind control.  They spew fatwas as a torrent in every direction, clothing their pronouncements in the garb of the unalterable sacred.  You deviate, you go to hell.
Correction: A fatwa is a legal advice, unenforceable, and issues from highly trained specialists, under the guidance of Al-Azhar.  The Mufti, in this regard, is a religious authority who, through the proper understanding of the Quran and the Sunna, fills in the gaps created by changing circumstances.  There is an entire area of Fiqh (sources of Islamic Law) which is called "Jurisdiction Based on No-Text -Textless Fiqh.  Can you imagine that a mass killer like Osama Bin Laden had issued Fatwas?"  The blind leading the blind.

(9) "Ijtihad:"  Ijtihad is the application of mind to the text of the Quran or the Hadith (the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad).  Desirous of rigidity, the MBs claim that ijtihad is closed.
Correction: Sharia is applicable to every place and every time.  The essence here is not that Sharia is international law.  The essence is its adaptability to changing circumstances, and its capability of evolution.  In fact, there is a dynamic branch of Islamic Law (Sharia) called "The fiqh of Maslahah" (the Law of Public Interest).

(10) "Jihad:"  The MBs creed states that "Jihad is Our Way of Life."  
Correction: Who is "our."  Count me and nearly a billion and a half other Muslims out.  We have seen the MBs jihad: butchering; sectarianism; destruction; foreign occupations; fornication jihad through female abductions and recruitment; and black flags of ISIS.

Following the ouster of the Brotherhood in Egypt from power, their resort to terrorism needed a change of slogans.  Today's slogans are "No dignity without jihad; No jihad without armament."  In Islamic Law, jihad is self-policing and defense against foreign invasion.  The term "Holy War" does not exist in Islam.  It is a pet term used by Islamophobes whose hate for Islam is fed by the MB gone crazy.

(11) "Martyr:"  The MBs creed provides for "martyrdom (death for the sake of Allah) is our cherished hope."
Correction: In Islamic Law, the martyr (or shaheed in Arabic) is one who dies fighting territorial aggression against his homeland.  It does not apply to suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians.  It does not apply to Al-Qaeda operatives.  It does not apply to those who inflicted 9/11.  In Islamic Law, the martyrs of 9/11 are not the attackers who perished.  They are the 3000 persons who perished as a result of that criminal act.  Bin Laden had called those attackers "The Great Nineteen."

(12) "Minaret."  The MBs variety regards it as an architectural requirement and an obligatory Islamic monument.
Correction: Where does it say this in the Quran?  A Saudi national, residing in Switzerland, took the federal authorities to court on this one.  They had required him to conform to zoning laws in regard to its height.  He lost; and a plebiscite ensued resulting in the banning of minarets in Switzerland.

And if the MBs varieties are so enamored with monuments, why destroy the monuments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria? 

(13) "Muslim."  For the MBs, it is not enough to say and believe that "God is one, and Muhammad is His Messenger."  You also need physical characteristics: A long beard, a big raisin-like skin impression on your forehead, and a scull cap over your head.
Correction: A Muslim is defined as someone who submits to the will of God.  No mention in the Quran about those other outward manifestations.  To the MBs, a female in jeans and without a hijab is a sinner.  But where in the Quran is this stated?  The Quran says "be modest" in dress.  It does not go beyond this.  Personal freedom, within the accepted norms of each society, is a hallmark of Islamic jurisprudence.

(14) "Shiis."  The MBs regard the Shiis, who are over 10% of the Muslim population, as "apostates."
Correction: The wayward Brothers who in Cairo killed and dragged Shii corpses in the streets, believe that only the Sunnis are Muslims.  Who decreed that stupid notion?!  The Sunnis and Shiis confess the same faith, follow the same precepts, and face toward Mecca, not Tehran, in prayer.

There is no takfeer (apostasy) in Islamic law.  Otherwise, Sunnism shall be taken as replacing Allah.  Because He alone is the only judge.  He has not retained the MBs as his exclusive brokers.  In fact, it is the Sunnis who invented the criminal practice of suicide bombing.  The Shiis, as my late Azhari father who was a Sunni scholar taught me, are the Islamic branch which taught the Umma (The Islamic Nation) the veneration of Muhammad, and love for "Aal El-Beit Muhammad's family."  

I am at present authoring the first biography of Ali Ibn Abi-Taleb in English as based on Arabic primary sources.  Imam Ali was Muhammad's foster child; the First Muslim; and the icon who, among other historic deeds, put Muhammad in his grave.  Ali's partisans (Shiis) are entitled to equal treatment as the Sunnis.  Read "Hadith" (Muhammad's pronouncements about Ali).  Accordingly, you could then gauge how ignorant, indeed catastrophic, is the alienation of the Shiis!!  The problem of succession to Muhammad is not a religious issue.  It is a political struggle for succession long gone.

(15) "Shura:" In Arabic, it means communal consultations leading to decision-making through consensus (ijmaa).  Shura is one of the main pillars of democracy in Fiqh (jurisprudence).  The other pillars are: (a) equality before the law (meaning Adl -justice); (b) transparency (denoting Sidq -truthfulness in transactions); and (c) denial of discrimination on any basis (symbolized by the Islamic adage: "There is no difference between an Arab and a non-Arab except through the performance of good societal deeds."  Expressed in two words "no discrimination" (in Arabic -LA FARQ).

But the MBs made a mockery of "shura." Only to come back through the back door of July 3, 2013 and claim that their odious regime was illegally toppled.  Really?  In office, Morsi was a front for El-Shatter, his money bags; Al-Azhar's Rector was downgraded and was on the verge of removal; Christianity was deemed so un-Islamic that a fatwa was issued that it was forbidden to say "Merry Christmas!!"  

Under the Islamic fascist year in governance, "shura" was the preserve of the "Supreme Guide" and his politburo called "The Office of Guidance."  Some guidance, folks!!  You have even transgressed against the Quran (which you define as your Constitution) where it says: "And those who respond to their Lord and establish prayer, and who on matters other than those God has decreed, conduct them by mutual consultation..." (Chapter 42, entitled Ash Shura, verse 38).  There exists no Islamic democracy, and non-Islamic democracy.  It is universal even if practiced differently in different cultures.

(16) "Tawheed:"  The onness of God; the ideological pillar of Islam.  It eliminated worship of the idols -the multiplicity of gods which prevailed in Arabia, including Mecca and the Kaabah before Islam.  The MBs are so mixed up in their heads that their franchises advocate a stupid myth:  The Pyramids, the Sphinx, and the now-destroyed great historical city of Nemrod, as Idols.

Now ask these obscurantists: "Have you seen someone pray facing the Sphinx and asking it for the forgiveness of sins?"

A monument is a cultural icon, not a deity.  Even the ancient Egyptians knew that.  They created a space between the monuments and the temples.  The Egyptians, 5000 years ago, separated between the State and its cultural IDs, and worship.  In this, they were even ahead of the U.S. Constitution in separating between religion and the State.

Conclusion: I have selected from among 100 terms only some.  But a war of ideas has to be buttressed by a more comprehensive and authentic vocabulary.  It is high time to correct the false dictionaries produced by the Muslim Brotherhood varieties.  This is as important as the use of arms against global jihadism.  Thus the call by El-Sisi on Al-Azhar to wage "a religious revolt" is a call for denying the Muslim Brotherhood and their terror varieties the illegal free run which they have so far enjoyed.

In an interview in early March 2015 with Al-Ahram newspaper, the former Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Ali Gomaa, offered the best ever characterization of the abuse by Jihadis of Islam, as both a faith and a culture.  He told his lady interviewer that ISIS and other jihadis "have conjured up a parallel religion that has nothing to do with Islam."