Interfaith Transitioning From Dialogue To Action

Today is not like yesterday. And tomorrow shall be different. Time is galloping forward bypassing most of us. For God owns time, enjoining us to own ourselves. The Quran says: “Surely God does not change the condition of a people unless they change what is in themselves.” (Chapter 13, verse 11). The best popular song I heard in Cairo 10 days ago was titled: “I Am the Ruler of a Republic Called Nafsi (Myself).”

Herein lies the essence of sovereignty. The sovereignty of the individual under the mercy of the Creator. The essence of the need to change, to improve, to abandon the ways of yesterday for the sake of today. To realize that faith is one; faith is non-negotiable; faith is not a fad; faith is an inner quality seeking to burst out to commune and to communicate. With whom?

With others with faith, without trying to change their faith. Your faith becomes stronger when it reaches out to others through their faiths. That is when you recognize that your God-given sovereignty is separable but interdependent on allowing the other to pursue peacefully their path to their own faith.

That is interfaith, which needs to transition from dialogue to action. Here I am expressing an abandonment of the method of “conference” of mere words. In favor of an espousal of “interfaith in action.” Action at the level of the individual, the repository of God’s grace, God’s implanted sovereignty, the invisible power to move us to the celestial sphere of goodness and compassion. Each chapter of the Quran, and each action by a Muslim begins with “In the Name of God, The Merciful, the Compassionate.”

The holocaust did not occur by itself. ISIS did not start by itself. The wars, both just and unjust, do not start by themselves. The butchering by ISIS of others of every faith does not occur in a vacuum. Millions, now running away from the lands of Islam to the welcoming arms of western communities, do not simply get up and flee. In all of these situations, the hand of darkness is casting the shadow of annihilation over them.

Now interfaith has a decided role. A role of action. Thus faith must first begin by evolving into conceptional directions.

Through new concepts, through ijtihad - the application of the mind to the non-changing text. Creating new institutions, new media, new leadership, new civility. Civility which, for example, would frown on insulting a sitting president of the US, by calling him “a closet Muslim.” As if Islam and Ebola are one and the same.
The sins of the bad few should not be transferred to millions upon millions whose hands are free from shedding the blood of others.

And if we are serious about putting interfaith in action, let us forget about the need for an intergovernmental organization, like the UN to do it for us. Why? Because the Charter of the UN, which was celebrated on October 24, adores only national sovereignty. It celebrates the sovereignty of the State, leaving the sovereignty of the individual behind. It makes of the veto a tool for obstruction, not a medium for good change.

Just think about it!!  Non-governmental organizations, like Catholic Charities, or Doctors Without Borders, or the thousands of Jewish and Islamic charitable organizations, are more effective than the UN. They, through putting interfaith into action, are eclipsing the UN Economic and Social Council and the World Health Organization combined. Non-Governmental Organizations are what the UN Charter, in its preamble, calls “We the People.”

Today, the weakest human organization is government. In fact, America’s neoconservatives today call for the destruction of federal government. Let us face it: Today’s effective actor is the individual. Functioning through the great marble halls of interfaith festooned by the chandeliers of collective action.

As we seek that interfaith action, we need new vehicles. New vehicles are motored by a new vocabulary to express them, to carry them out. We need to know, for example, that in Islam “Allahu Akbar” is not a battle cry. Terrorism must be forced to disgorge that manipulation of religious vocabulary. Its real meaning is: “We are all equal before God.”

And “Tawheed” (meaning the Oneness of God) is the glue that binds our God-given sovereignties to one another. Elohim and Allah are holy names of the same Creator.

And for vehicles, we need to launch or refurbish or support institutions which systematically put interfaith into practice. The Sophia Center of the Huntington Seminary of the Immaculate Conception was a beacon for interfaith in action. I served there. But with the passing of its founder, Father Bob Smith, it died with him. What a loss!!

For 40 years, Temple Emanuel has been one of my fora. Its banner, held aloft, became the vehicle for events like this one. And the iconic Al-Azhar of Cairo, the citadel of moderate Islam, since the year 975 AD, is now leading “the Religious Revolution” to counter jihadism.

From vocabulary to vocation. In secular Egypt which I visited earlier this month, I saw a progression. From the horrible year of Islamic rule by the Muslim Brotherhood (2012-2013) to action through interfaith. Represented by millions of Muslims cheering on the Coptic church.

And in 2011, Al-Azhar has been calling for a huge change of concepts. It advocated that “Islam does not recognize a State based solely on religion.” The world outside of Egypt did not hear that historic call. Reason: it was in Arabic.

The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia intone the myth of a Sunni Islam vs. Shii Islam. But Pope Francesco, the Jesuit in white robes, the Pope of the Poor, is a better defender of Islam than the Wahhabis in their keffiyehs and white robes. For a long time, the Jesuits have immersed themselves in the study of the Quran and Islam.

The second successor of the prophet Muhammad was Omar. Omar gave specific orders to the Muslim armies upon their arrival at Jerusalem in the middle of the 8th centuries. I teach his legal decrees at Fordham Law. He prohibited the sequestration of churches and temples. That was interfaith in action.

Four centuries later, St. Francis of Asisi put his interfaith into practice. That was nine centuries before the Wahhabis co-ruled Saudi Arabia. He tried to mediate the conflict between the Crusaders and Saladin -a Kurd.

In the New Egypt, the secular Constitution of 2014 provides for the official recognition of the Torah and the Bible. All Jewish temples in Egypt are now being refurbished.

This is the new age of the individual -sovereign, rebellions, suspect of authority, has the social media at his or her fingertips.

But that individual does not know what to do -except scream. Let us heed the call of that sovereign and work toward changing that scream into a symphony of putting interfaith into action.

Transformation of Egypt Through Revolution: Issue Analysis from the Fall of Mubarak (2011) to the Rise of El-Sisi (2014)

Volume I of my blogs can be purchased in a bounded copy from: https://www.createspace.com/5729103

In Fending Off Its Attackers, What Does Egypt Need to Master? The Art of Response!!

In national life, the most critical juncture is transitioning. From chaos to stability. From poverty to development. From dictatorship to democracy. From the Rule by One, to participation.

The New Egypt is now at this critical juncture. Transitioning from a have-not country to a have country. From the dependent State under Mubarak, to the strong State under El-Sisi. From borrowing and foreign aid, to being self-sufficient. From a country concerned with the affairs of other Arab States, to one concerned primarily with its own improvement.

That is why the great Egyptian educator, Loutfi El-Sayed, advocated one essential principle for Egyptian development. He cried out "Build Fences Around Egypt!!" That is the essence of "charity starts at home." But Egyptian leaders did not heed that call. Examples from the Nasser period:

• Did Egypt need to unite with Syria from 1958 to 1961: No. To Syria, Egypt exported a stern military intelligence governance. From Syria, Egypt got a deluge of nonsensical rhetoric about socialism and Arabism.
• Did Egypt need to be immersed in the Palestinian problem to the extend of losing its unity with the Sudan? No!! The plebiscite of 1954 in the Sudan resulted in 7 to 1. Seven for unity, from Damietta on the Mediterranean to Lake Albert at the source of the Nile. Water is power.
• An Egyptian/Sudanese union would have been the strongest backbone for the Nilotic population in dealing with the outside world. Instead, of bringing in the Sudanese leadership, beginning with Ismail El-Azhari, to co-rule the Nile Valley, North and South, Egypt sent Salah Salem to perform a tribal dance in southern Sudan.
• To southern Sudan, an intelligent leadership in Egypt should have sent Coptic leadership. From ages immemorial, the Coptic Church had been advocating a federation between the Egypt/the Sudan and Uganda and Ethiopia. But the wise voice of the Copts were inaudible to the ears of Egypt's strong man, Nasser.
• Did Egypt need to rush headlong into the Yemeni civil war of 1962, following the disastrous dissolution in 1961 of the artificial union between Egypt and Syria? No.  That was a tribal coup, leading to a mountain warfare for which the Egyptian army has never been trained. It caused rupture with Saudi Arabia, depleted Egypt's meager resources, forced Nasser's Egypt to use napalm against the tribes supporting the Imam (the present day Houthis).
• That involvement also whetted Israel's appetite to attack Egypt in 1967. Resulting in the greatest catastrophe in the history of the modern Arabs. Resulting in the second Israeli occupation of Sinai, on Nasser's watch, the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Namely the rise of Greater Israel. Only Sinai was returned to Egypt, thanks to Sadat's vision of "let us first take care of Egypt."
• For that liberation, Sadat was assassinated. The first Egyptian head of State to exit life in that fashion since Mameluke days. And as Sadat was breathing his last on October 6, 1981, and paving the way to an inept Mubarak as President, the PLO issued a statement of treachery. "May the hand that pulled the trigger be blessed," the Arafat organization intoned.

The Arab system which produced the present League of Arab States in 1944 has a birth defect. It unites the Arab States peripherally. You can only see the outer field of vision. But enhances their division substantially.

Since its establishment, the League of Arab States (LAS) has convened 144 regular sessions. This is without mentioning the new mechanism of Arab summits. At that rate, and by simple math, LAS has met 2.5 times each year of its lazy existence. And not much to show for it.

Just consider the role of LAS in the present Syrian horrific genocidal conflict. With 11 million Syrians either in full flight or trapped inside as internally displaced. Who is acting on this mammoth Arab catastrophe? Not LAS. But Russia, the US, Iran and Assad the butcher of Syria. Suspending Syria's membership of LAS had zero impact on Assad.

So why keep what doesn't work? Unless the Arabs are eternally wedded to the concept of LAS as a talisman. An object held to act as a charm to avert evil and bring good fortune. Most of Arab North African States have more commercial, financial and trade agreements with Europe than with other members of LAS.

From all the above, there are objective lessons: The only useful mechanisms in LAS are its functional adjuncts -its sub-agencies working on trade, education, health...etc. The least useful in the LAS mechanisms are those dealing with political and sovereignty issues.

The Arab system should learn from the Organization of American States (OAS). Reason: The inter-American system does not allow for interference in internal affairs. The Arab system is diseased by that interventionary germ. Illuminating examples: splintered Hamas, and petro-dollar puffed-up Qatar supporting the terroristic rebellion of the so-called Muslim Brotherhood inside big Egypt. A hopeless endeavor which the New Egypt is robustly confronting.

Now back to the need for this New Egypt, re-emerging into "the strong State" to practise the Art of Response. Just focusing on one recent report by David Kirkpatrick, New York Times correspondent in Cairo, and a consistent attacker of the policies of post-Islamist Egypt: His article is dated September 22, 2015, and its parsing (analytical examination) should serve as a sample for the need to learn the Art of Response.

In my view, the David Kirkpatrick article is a model of what appears to be deliberate animus toward post-Islamist Egypt. It is headed: "Egypt Destroying Far More Homes Than Buffer-Zone Plan Called For."

I shall use it as a sample illustrating the art of response as a demolition tool. Here is a suggested technique honed through my practise as a defense attorney.

First: Find consistency of bias by his paper - The New York Times.  And show how that consistency is in violation of the obvious facts. Bias is basically an irrational smothering of the facts. The New York Times has nearly always attacked post-Islamist Egypt through its editorials and its reporters based in Cairo. It is a bias in favor of the mother of terrorist organizations called the Muslim Brotherhood. That paper still regards the Brotherhood as a legal and peaceful opposition.

Second: Impeach the source or sources of that article. This one is fairly easy. The sources are invariably the same. Kirkpatrick invariably seeks out the same poisonous wells. In the case of this article, these are: Human Rights Watch, a non-governmental organization in search of funds. Through attempting to interpret the facts about the New Egypt to fit its own theoretical notions of what constitutes the upholding of human rights. It is a private corporation in search of aggression through intervening in internal affairs via the human rights pearly gate. Ignoring that in countries in transition, like Egypt, the collective rights of the populace trump the rights of the individual.

Third: Parsing the offending text: This is the coup de grace -the stage of the death blow through correct factual analysis. While doing so, put a big mirror fronting the faces of the likes of Kirkpatrick. This is intended to uncover the idiocy of bias through reporting. Here we cite only 3 excerpts.

• (1) "The government has destroyed more than 3,255 homes and other civilian buildings... More than 3,200 families have been displaced... And security forces are still in the process of levelling the entire border town of Rafah, which has a population of 78,000."
• Counter-points: Terrorism in Sinai is an outright warfare. Egypt is acting on the western adage: "Everything is fair in love and war." Sovereign Egypt cannot wage that war with its hands tied behind its back. Its military commanders are in no need of consulting before acting. US pilotless drones over Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen do not pre-warn their victims. I, have seen the huge devastation in Falluja, Iraq, during two US demolition operations. Following the total defeat of Nazi Germany, the allies in 1945 levelled the city of Dresden for no obvious defensive reasons.
• (2) "The government has produced no public evidence that militants have ever received weapons or aid through the tunnels."
• Counter-points: This is the abyss of idiocy. No need to cite instances of "public evidence," which Kirkpatrick himself ignores in making his mythical case. Common sense is sufficient evidence, when asking: "From where did the Gazan and other terrorists gotten their weapons? But thanks, David, for at least admitting that the tunnels exist or existed." But for what purpose? Please also note that when a weapon is smuggled through the tunnels dug by Gazans, the weapon is not stamped "Tunnel-Procured."
• On the very date of that offending Kirkpatrick article, US Congress heard testimony on the role of those tunnels in terror warfare. In a hearing for 2 hours before the Senate Armed Services committee. The witness was General David Petraeus, former CIA Director (2011-2012) and former Commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. So please hear him declare to the approbation of all committee members. "The Egyptian Government has done an excellent job in destroying those tunnels through which weapons flowed."
• (3) After a militant attack on a checkpoint killed 28 soldiers, the Sisi government announced plans for a buffer zone in October. 
• Counter-points: At long last, Kirkpatrick sets forth the legitimate reason for Egypt's need to create that buffer zone. But what he concedes by one hand, he, without shame, takes away by the other. That is particularly where he describes those legitimate actions by Cairo as "scorched-earth tactics." He conveniently forgets that Sinai was earth-scorched only twice, in 1956 and in 1967. During two wars of aggression by Israel against Egypt.

A buffer zone in Sinai to keep ISIS affiliates in Gaza, including the murderous terrorists of the so-called "the Province of Sinai" cannot compare in magnitude with US actions in 1941/42 against American citizens of Japanese descent. Remember the concentration campus established by the Roosevelt administration in which thousands of citizens were herded. Ostensible justification: national security in the aftermath of the sneaky attack by imperial Japan against Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

This is although Kirkpatrick is not the only example which could be used to demonstrate the art of response in rebuttal.

For we have other examples taken from the present campaign for nomination by the Republican party for US President in 2016. One of these is Dr. Ben Carson. An Afro-American physician who made a most egregious declaration against Islam and Muslims during a debate in Las Vegas.

Carson said that he regarded Islam as incompatible with the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Then added that therefore no Muslim could ever be president of the U.S. Yet contrary to Carson's demagogic assertion, my research in 2016 for the American Bar Association proved that Islamic Law and the U.S. Constitution have 80% of their principles in common.

So when the Carson campaign called me recently for a contribution, I fully employed my art of response. In my refusal to make a financial contribution, I could not possibly dwell on the virtues of Islam. Not to, a confirmed bigot. Therefore, I simply reminded that caller that Carson, through his racism, was endangering US security. By providing jihadists with ammunition for their claim that Islam was disrespected, denigrated. Worse still, that Islam was under attack.

Because of their idiocy, shameless individuals, like Kirkpatrick and Carson, deserve to be objects of the Arab proverb: "Those without shame have no limits to what they do or say!!"

Thousands of Arabs Are Fleeing!! From What? From a Disastrous Arab System!!

Aylan Kurdi, a Syrian of 3 years of age.  Lying lifeless, face down, on a Turkish beach.  Washed by the sea waves as dead fish.  Nearby were the bodies of his brother and mother.  Emblematic of a disastrous Arab system.  Those bodies graphically depicted a lifeless Arab State system.  In fact a non-system, except in name only.

And across those merciless waves of the Mediterranean, thousands upon thousands of Syrians and Iraqis were in full flight.  With their babies and meager belongings, braving barbed wire, fences, and inclement weather.  All running from the horrors of misrule, butchery, and hunger in their countries of origin.  Mostly Muslim, running into the welcoming arms of Germany and Austria, facilitated by Greece and Italy.  Seeking refuge in Christian countries; in total fear of Muslim countries where death is everywhere.

Anomalies, yet realities.  Arab refugees, by the thousands, lost faith in their flags, traditions, symbols, and religious incantations.  To them, the words of Arab leaders were mere lies.  And they were lies.  In Damascus, the capital city of death, banners proclaimed that the Arabs were "One Nation, with an eternal message!!"  How cynical!!  As you raise your head to read that banner, you are greeted by a barrel bomb whistling its way to you from above.  With a clear warning: "Are you still here?!!"

Arab flags are mostly of three colors (red, white and black).  Representing a famed Arab poem.  That is when the Arabs truly believed in the words of their focal points, from rulers to poets.  The poet had meant red, for liberational struggle; white, for pure intentions; and black, for victory over an unjust past.  But the millions of refugees have come to see in their national flags only doom and gloom.  Trust in Arab governments is gone.  Trust in the often maligned West is the new creed.

ISIS, Bashar, sectarianism, and jihadism are now all one.  Yes, Islam is a faith of tolerance, collective care, and rescue for the downtrodden.  This is what the Book (the Quran) says. But is there much generalized faith in the great Quranic instruction which abhors senseless death, extra-judicial executions, car bombs, human suicide, and arcane interpretation of Islam?  If there is, show me.

Show me where is verse 32 of Chapter V of the Quran is observed.  Read it and judge for yourself. If follows:
"...We prescribed to the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless it be for retaliation or because of spreading corruption on earth, it would be as if he had killed all mankind.  And whoever saves a life, it would be as if he had saved the life of all Mankind..."

Where is Bashar from that heavenly standard?  Where is Maliki, who as Prime Minister of Iraq, openly practiced sectarianism?  Did Qaddafi of Libya, or Saleh of Yemen abide by it?  We are not talking about lax observance of basic human rights!!  We are here dealing with genocidal acts against citizens!!

Most of the Arab geographic area now looks like a cesspool of brazen untruths, and unbelievable inequities.  Splashed over billions of screens of social media.  While Europe getting together to host Arab and other refugees, Arab petro-dollars are gearing up to  refurbish images of their leaders.  Through very costly western public relations firms.  Funding for image, not for substance.  Including fancy speeches about human rights in the halls of the UN General Assembly later this September.  Image, image, image!!

And speaking of "inter-faith!!"  The Arabs still regard it as "a dialogue."  A conversation.  A kind of a composition.  A statement in flowery words meant to enhance the standing of those who utter them.  Not the importance of the message, which is only honored in the breach.

Action?  The main action is in the West.  That is where compassion towards Muslim refugees is flowing beyond bounds.  Pope Francis has called for opening monasteries and the Vatican itself, to shelter that Muslim stampede.  Germany has allocated nearly $5 Billions to care for those arrivals in Munich.  Austrians have stood for hours to say to those immigrants: "Welcome to your new home."  Even an individual, a young woman lawyer in Florida, Carolina Maluje.  Partly Syrian, partly Chilean.  Told me recently: "I must do something for those Syrian immigrants."

An Arab foreign minister from a petro-dollar country was asked: "What has your country done for the Syrian refugees?"  His answer was an example of obscurity.  "Many of my countrymen are married to Syrian women," said he proudly.  How impenetrable to sight this can be!!  Thanks God, there arose Arab exceptions.  Mr. Naguib Sawiris, an Egyptian Copt and a billionaire, rose up to purchase a Greek or an Italian island to house those refugees.

The flood of Arab immigrants has revealed where the rule of the law is observed by only a minority of 22 Arab governments.  Arab advocacy of one common history, and one common language has remained only aspirational.  Non-supported by a broad culture.  A culture illuminating a road map drawn by the intersection of common interests.  As a result, the League of Arab States has been frozen in paralysis since the adoption of its Alexandria Charter in 1944.

No way could an Arab Union, similar to the European Union, emerge in the foreseeable future.  For loyalty, in the majority of Arab States, remains confined to the tribe, or the region, or the province.  That is unless you are in a country like Egypt or Tunisia.  Reason: national cohesiveness is a reflection of a historical continuum which began centuries ago.  The fate of a divided Sudan, a divided Yemen, a divided Syria may travel to cover other Arab States beyond these unhappy examples.

In spite of these disheartening contradictions, the migration catastrophe has evoked in the Arab homeland a sense of shame.  Acted upon individually, by each sovereign State as an act of charity.

Amr Musa, former Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, made a high-ringing statement on September 9 in Austria.  The occasion was the annual meeting of the International Peace Institute which was convened to discuss challenges to the present international legal system.  As usual, his emphasis was on hope for solidarity in regard to the immigration catastrophe affecting the Syrians and the Iraqis.

You read it, then ask the humorous American advertising question:  "Where Is the Beef?"  Proposals on top of proposals.  Who will implement?  Who will pay?  Who will evaluate the performance?  And who will remove the root causes?  Questions dancing over the horizon of hope.  Soon to be forgotten.  A high-level meeting.  But with a low-level energy!!

Nonetheless, Aylan Kurdi's lifeless body has, in its own way, convulsed the Arab State lifeless body to twitch.  A short spastic contraction of the fibers of the Arab muscle:

• Jordan is now a host of more than a million Syrians.  The only Arab State with historically open borders to all Arabs;
• Same numbers in Lebanon and Iraq;
• Egypt hosts a quarter of a million;

Of course, numbers do change.  What does not change may be presented succinctly hereunder:

• Europe had started a coordinated policy.  It is based on future quotas of Syrian and Iraqi immigrants.  With Germany taking the most.  While other members of the 28 Member States of the European Union, like Greece, may take the least;
• The Arab world, where the Syrian killing fields exist, has no coordinated policy in this regard.  Each State is on its own.  However the Arabs are bound together, through the League of Arab States.
• Those binding ties are focused on the League's image.  Ambassador Ahmed Bin Hilli, Under-Secretary-General of the League, on September 8 rose to defend the League against European criticism of weak Arab action.  The issue, he fulminated, will be discussed at the forthcoming 144th session of the League at the ambassadorial level.  Again the image is in the forefront; the real action, coordinated or not, remains in the realm of eternal hope.

In the meantime, policies, plans, and implementing mechanisms are being set-up elsewhere in Europe and the Americas.  Said the lady President of Brazil, "the image of that dead toddler, Aylan Kurdi has shocked us all as a challenge to the whole world."  A whale of a difference between Arab paralysis, and non-Arab actions. Primary reason why the Arabs are fleeing from most of their homeland.  In droves.  They are not heading East.  They are heading West in a massive Hijrah!!

Running away from an Arab State system whose nominal faith is the great Islam whose Book advocates: "Cooperate with all in what is good and pious.  And do not cooperate in what is sinful and aggressive." (Chapter V, Verse 2).

And since God is One under the principle of Tawheed (God's oneness), the castaways, mostly Muslim, are seeking the certitude of safety provided by Christian governments.  For there is action on the belief of "The Peace Prayer" of St. Francis of Assisi.  In part it says: "For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned."

All this is happening under the dark shadow of 9/11 where men, covering their box cutters under the cloth of Islam, caused the murder of 3000 innocent victims.

That faith in murder has been passed on to phantom governments like Syria's, and phantom caliphates like ISIS.

The Arab code of old was superior to the Arab code of today.  Because the older code regarded the admission of failure as the road to reform.  In his instructions to the Arab judiciary, Omar, the second Caliph to succeed the Prophet Muhammad in leading the nascent Muslim State said it all.  "Never hesitate to reflect on your judgment of yesterday.  For nullifying a bad judgment is better by far than perpetuating an error."

Alas!!  That was 1400 years ago.  Today's Mr. Hilli, the Under-Secretary-General of the League of the Arab States does not abide by that golden rule.  To him, admission of the shortcomings of the League is a sign of weakness.  Forgetting that the whole world is witnessing leaks in the plumbing of the Arab system.  Leaking millions of horrified millions of Arabs of all denominations.  Running away from what used to be a Homeland, but no more.

That broken system needs an army of plumbers.  For fixing the leaks in the moral infra-structure of Arab lands can never be done by pretending that it does not exist.  Reason why Omar, though a Bedouin, was, by all accounts, the real "Arab Profile in Courage!!"  Ignoring his Code shall result in a million Syrians expected to flee their country by the end of 2015.

How Appalling To See a Mainstream Writer Like David Brooks, Seemingly Legitimating The ISIS Mega Crooks!!

He is an admired Op Ed page writer employed by the New York Times.  When I buy that paper, I begin reading it not from the front.  But from the back.  Looking to learn something new from Paul Krugman on economics.  He is a Nobel Prize Laureate at Princeton University.  And from David Brooks, a distinguished commentator on American social trends and values.

Being a creature of habit, I did the same on August 28.  Both Krugman and Brooks were on the same Op Ed page.  What a jolt from reading Brooks!!  Under the title of "When Rapists Win."

To his credit, he begins, in his inimitable style, to assess ISIS as we all know it.  His first line sums it in a few words: "The ISIS atrocities have descended like distant nightmares upon the conscious of the world."  Yet, amazingly, his column proceeds, unpredictably, to an abyss of illogic.  Seemingly to legitimate the ISIS mega-crooks, by conceding to them their grounds.  On what basis, if I am reading him correctly?: On the basis of a fait accompli.

Herein lies the roots of my disgust with one of my favorite writers.  Samples raising red flags:

• "(ISIS) offers a confident vision of the future.  It fills the vacuum left by decaying nationalist ideologies;"
• (Its) intent is to use this as a wedge with which to expand beyond its base in Iraq and Syria and weaken secular nationalist borders in Lebanon, Jordan and in even more innately nationalist countries like Egypt;"
• "This is a war about a vision of history.  ISIS have legitimacy because it controls territory and has a place to enact them."

Mr. Brooks: "A confident vision of the future?!"  Does jihadism have "a future," or "a vision?"  Only because they marched in and occupied land where no government existed?  Where the Sunni population, crushed by the Maliki sectarian rule, which had been propped up by America's crazy invasion of Iraq in 2003, sided temporarily with the ISIS hordes?  And in Syria, Bashar had to vacate the northeast to hold his crumbling lines around Damascus?

Mr. Brooks: You are theorizing imaginatively about the issue of territorial control, illegally achieved, as if it were irreversible.  You are claiming for ISIS a pasture which our own government, the U.S., does not concede.  Let alone, the international coalition of 40 other countries.  Not even the Kurdish Pesh Merga which has pushed ISIS out of Kobani and other areas.

Your expression of defeatism is not only unsupported by the facts on the present ground of battle against that paper tiger, called the Baghdadi Caliphate.  It flies rudely in the face of two historical facts, not of the type of your depressing "vision of history."

Your first fallacy is that ISIS is "weakening secular nationalist borders."  It is the Arab Spring, wherever it has overcome the resultant civil wars, that is redrawing "the secular nationalist borders."  This is the start of nullification of the colonial borders forced upon the Arabs by the victors of the First World War.  The Arabs are now in the process of burying Mr. Sykes and M. Picot.  Two conspirators who nullified promises given to the Arabs in return for turning against Ottoman oppresive rule.  Post-Assad Syria may witness the rise of three states, replacing one unified Syria.

Your second fallacy is your unthinking statement about Arab nationalism.  For your claim: "For the past many decades the Middle East has been defined by nation-states and the Arab mind has been influenced by nationalism.  But these nation-States have been weakened (Egypt) or destroyed (Iraq and Syria).  Nationalism no longer mobilizes popular passion or provides convincing historical narrative."

Mr. Brooks: From where did you get that?  Surely, at least in the case of Egypt, you did not get it from the Egyptian street.  My proof on your distance from objective reality: The U.S. government and media still overlook the significance of 35 million Egyptians rising in a historical "Egyptian Intifadah," on June 30, 2013.  Calling on now deposed Islamist President Morsi, "IRHAL" (Begone!!).  In spite of these realities, the Brotherhood is still looked upon in many American quarters as a legitimate opposition whose removal constituted a coup by the Armed Forces.  A continuous affront to the free will of the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian people.

On these grounds alone, I doubt it, Mr. Brooks, that you are as familiar with Egyptian history as I am.  I am not in competition with you.  You have The New York Times as your vehicle.  I have the facts about the history of modern Egypt as mine.  And facts are more supreme and durable than media.  Especially when those media are either biased or uninformed.

As a teacher of Egyptian history, let me share with you a bit of that history:

• For the past 7000 years, Egyptian nationalism has been the glue that binds the nation;
• Never has Egypt witnessed civil war, nor, in spite of colonial British attempts, has it been split between North and South;
• The only army in the Arab homeland, whose recruits and officer corps owe allegiance only to the State, not to provinces, is the Egyptian army;
• In 1952, Colonel Nasser ousted King Farouk by staging an army coup.  Upon the King's departure from Alexandria, the front man of the coup, Muhammad Naguib saluted his monarch with a 21-gun salute.  Farouk's last words to General Naguib were: "Take care of Egypt's army."  That is nationalism at its best, Mr. Brooks.
• In spite of modest economic means, Egyptian women surrendered repeatedly since the 1870s, their golden ornaments to shore up state finances.  The first women revolt against the hijab, was in Egypt in the early 20th century; an assertion of Egyptian secularism;
• Egypt is the only Arab State which officially celebrates Christmas as a national holiday.  That is on January 7, which marks the Eastern Orthodox Christmas.  And the only mass political party in Egypt whose symbol is the Crescent with the Cross within it replacing the star -the Wafd party, established in 1919;
• In homage to the roots of the faith of its majority, Islam, the only Arab flag which is adorned by the falcon of Quarish, the Arabian tribe of which the Prophet Muhammad was a member of its main branch (the great Hashemites) is Egypt's flag.

And I hope that your argument, David Brooks, about the weakening of Arab nationalism, especially by a phantom called ISIS, had found its inanity (silliness) on August 6, 2015.  That is the date on which Egypt inaugurated Suez Canal II.  Built within less than one year by subscriptions from only Egyptian citizens.

With Suez Canal II yesterday, and now with the discovery of huge gas reserves off Egyptian territorial waters, Egyptian nationalism shall continue to express itself in the new song: "Tomorrow, Egypt Shall Be Sweeter."

Finally, and in regard to the assertions of The New York Times of August 18, 2015 which headlined "Egypt Expands State Power With a New Security Law," I have the following rebuttal:

State power in Egypt does not expand through the promulgation of security laws.  Laws are invariably an external result of internal developments.  That power expands through nationalist fervor.  Uncomplicated by the resort to the total denial of due process manifest in our American phenomenon of "Guantanamo."  Shameful, yet falsely trumpeted as a security measure.

Mr. Brooks: Guantanamo has "become (one of the) recruiting tools "for jihadism.  Quoting the words of none other than President Obama.  His efforts over the past 7 years to close that abysmal institution of horror and torture have failed.  Due to the obstructionism of the Republican-dominated Congress of the U.S.

In a Broken Democratic System, Donald Trump, An American Billionaire Clown, Is Bidding for the Presidential Crown!!

Here is a buffoon with billions of dollars.  Running on his riches with 25% approval rating.  Talking like a thug, yet aiming at the U.S. presidency on a Republican ticket.  Calling his other 15 contenders all kinds of nasty names.  With none of them standing up to him.  Including Jeb Bush about whom he said: "He cannot negotiate himself out of a paper bag!!"

On Donald Trump's head, a cap reads: "Make America Great Again."  Now none of his crowded field of opponents can use this phrase in their campaigns.  He has copyrighted it.  How?!  It is difficult in the law of patents (intellectual property) to protect such a common phrase.  You cannot patent "Hello!!"  But he did.

Trump, a real estate developer, is riding the wave of discontent of the general public.  People are weary of Washington, D.C.; of sluggish economic recovery; of partisan feuding between the Democrats and the Republicans; of economic inequality; of illegal immigration; and of the rise of China whose economy is today's second only to America's.  The words "establishment politics," evoke mistrust and anger across party lines.  On the scale of political respect, local measures are at the top; federal measures are well below them.

Several years ago, I read Trump's book "The Art of the Deal."  There is nothing exciting about that book.  With this publication, Donald Trump makes it sound as if it were the yellow brick road to richness.  And in the age of super commitment to riches, Trump peddles his persona along the line: "I can make you rich too.  I know how to make deals."

So what deals is he promising America if ever he became president -a very doubtful proposition?

• He will vanquish ISIS!  How?!  He says: "I can't tell you;"
• He will stop Mexican and other illegal immigrants from coming to America!  How: By building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  Then insanely he adds: "I shall have Mexico pay for it;"
• As to China, Trump claims that he, if president, will force China to open up its markets to US products.  "They buy my condos!!"
• How about Russia?!  Trump will rebuild American military might that would scare off Putin from challenging the U.S.; no specifics;
• Thousands gather to hear him.  After insulting a woman anchor on Fox News, his popularity with women jumped in numbers.  His being foul-mouthed makes the public like him.  "He talks like any one of us," they say.  

"Make America Great Again" is repeated by that man who has never before run for any public office.  Through sneers, bombast, vulgar sound bites, Trump has shaken the system.  On both the Republican side (especially Jeb Bush), and the Democratic side (especially Hillary Clinton).  Diagnosing American  democracy, one spots cancer.  Money has subverted this great constitutional system, primarily through one fateful decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the case of "Citizens United," the Court, by 5 to 4, made a bad judgment.  Decided that spending money on electioneering is constitutionally valid.  Why?  A form of Free Speech!!  We know that "money talks."  But that is a saying applicable to transactions.  Not applicable to controlling the outcome of elections -the expression by the citizen of his or her choice as to who represent them in the enactment of legislation.

To American democracy, Citizens United is a cancer whose diagnosis is not hard to find.  That diagnosis is learnt from its impact whose best illustration is the Koch brothers.

• Charles and David Koch, the famous private billionaire brothers are, in the words of Time Magazine of August 17, 2015, "Power Brokers Recharging To Elect a Republican in 2016."  In a brilliant article by Philip Elliott, the brothers, through their unlimited funding of conservative candidates to Congress, "have retooled with more money, better strategy and a new plan for victory."
• How do they subvert the free will of the American people through their massive wealth?  One recent example: They convened for dinner a seaside summit for 450 like-minded conservative donors.  And Charles Koch welcomed his guests by triumphantly declaring: "we grew up with every advantage."
• Their institutional mechanisms include: The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce; Americans for Prosperity; Generation Opportunity; and Concerned Women for America.  Their philosophy is limited government; their biggest focus for the next two years is on four States (Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia).  Without winning these States, no Republican nominee can win the White House.
• Transparency is not required of this conservative enclave which plans to spend $889 million before Election Day in 2016.  Obama is their political adversary.  While conservative Republican nominees like Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Ted Cruz are their favorites.  Said one of the loyal Koch donors, a lawyer by the name of Tim Busch: "These guys are using business principles to create political solutions."

So you can shout "one person one vote" all you want.  But the high dam of dollars lets through the sleuths (openings) selective publicity for or against candidates whose backgrounds may not be widely known.  TV ads are very expensive; massive mailings add to the cost, and the average citizen is caught in the web of hearsay that an enlighted decision on election day is quite difficult.  For this is an electorate as culturally diverse as the American pool of voters.  That is not democracy, but plutocracy -the rule of the wealthy.

Juxtaposing Trump with the Koch brothers yield the same undemocratic results.  For Trump prides himself on being his own funder to accomplish the defeat of the Democrats in 2016.  Thus trying to bring all three branches of government under the low stifling ceiling of conservatism.  Congress, the Executive, and a right-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.  Mixing extreme language with rudeness, he, in a search for "Make America Great Again," yells:

• "I am rich;" and he brags about his prior donations to his very Republican opponents; for the purpose of embarrassing them into silence; 
• On the wings of his private Boeing 757 plane, and his $7 million Sikorsky helicopter, he swaggers like a prize fighter wading into adoring crowds;
• Trump vulgarly mocks the modesty of Jimmy Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.  He spreads his hands, curls sneeringly his lips as he says: "Carter had it wrong when he would walk off Air Force One carrying his own suit bag in a show of solidarity with regular folk...  They don't want that.  They want someone who's going to beat China, beat Japan;"
• With untethered megalomania, he looks upon dealing with the world as if he is selling condos.  In his words: "Trump gets things done.  I know how to get things done."  "Jeb Bush (one of his 15 opponents) shall be unable to get things done with China, with Mexico;"
• He claims that other world leaders are "more cunning" than American leaders.  Proof: "The U.S. cannot get its products in China."  And Trump blames American indebtedness to China in the amount of $1.4 trillion, on the claim that "Our people are babies."
• "When was the last time that you saw this country have a victory?  We don't have victories.  What things am I going to do different?  Almost everything."
• Regarding ISIS, Trump has a solution: "We are going to have to do something very strong... One of the elements of what I said is that we go and take over that oil.  We just go in there and we blast the hell out of them, we take over that oil."
• On the Iran deal, he denigrates the expertise of Secretary of State John Kerry, plus that of the foreign ministers of the US other five partners.  "There are things in the deal that I'm sure (Kerry) doesn't even know about that I will find.  And if they make a mistake they've got big problems."

In the present broken democratic system in America, Trump flaunts his billions as a sure way of aspiring to the U.S. presidency.  On the unregulated campaign funding, he dismisses his need for outside donations.  "I'll take your money, if you insist.  But I shall spend a billion dollars of my own money to fund my campaign."

Unfortunately, the present system has availed idiots like Trump a hospitable environment.  His approval rating stands at 25%.  That of Congress is a miserable 9%.  In a recent survey, participants were asked to provide the first word that comes to their minds upon hearing specific names.  The result: "Liar," for Hillary Clinton; "Killer," for Jeb Bush; and "Arrogant," for Trump.

No wonder, David Duke, head of the Ku Klux Klan (anti-blacks), has supported Trump.  Trump's racism has been glaringly manifest.  Calling Mexican immigrants "rapists, criminals, and drug users."  White supremacist feelings are back.  People are, as per the description of The New Yorker magazine dated August 31, 2015 "fearful and frustrated."  By 2030, the Latino population shall be a full one-third of all Americans.  And by 2050, the whites in America are expected to be a minority.

Again to money as a determinant of electoral victory.  With Jeb Bush having raised $140 million, and Hillary Clinton $100 million, for their respective campaigns, the public sees in these figures, an early indication of pre-eminence.  Add to the mix what another Republican contestant, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the darling of The Tea Party, proclaims.  "All politicians are liars and thieves."

In support of that perception, a former political consultant for Trump, Roger Stone, adds his voice.  "There are two things going on.  One is the total revulsion of American voters with politicians and the entire political system.  And secondarily, just the belief that he (Trump) can't be bought."

As a decisive judgment by the Supreme Court, Citizens United has enhanced the cracks in the facade of the representativeness of the American system.  The power of that Court to impact the presidential election system was manifest in putting George Bush II ahead of Albert Gore in 2000.  A disastrous presidency in both birth and war-like approach to foreign policy.  Especially in warring on Afghanistan (2001) and on Iraq (2003).  Both losing wars.

In his new book on the need to amend the Constitution, retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, put in perspective the central issue of the dangerous absence of regulating campaign financing.  Said that venerable Justice: "I shall explain why it is unwise to allow persons who are not qualified to vote -whether they be corporations or nonresident individuals -to have a potentially greater power to affect the outcome of elections than eligible voters have."

Centuries before Justice Stevens, the Romans defined the primary motivation for good governance.  In two words: "Liberum arbitrium" (Free will, free choice).  So with the present enfeebled democratic system in America, where clowns like Trump is now bidding for the presidential crown, we should ask ourselves: "Is America entitled to advise other nations on how to practise democracy?"

To me, the answer is No.  Why?  When your own door is broken and left un-repaired, you have no credibility telling someone else to fix their broken windows.

Egypt's "Field of Dreams": Connecting the Seas Began in 1380 B.C.

That great American film, "Field of Dreams," captures the imagination by one sentence.  "If you build it, they will come."  The reference was to a mid western hope in the future of a corn field.  A corn field from which the ghosts of great baseball players, long departed, appear to the field owner.  Playing, then disappearing in the thick of corn stalks.  Wondering if it was a signal for carving out a baseball arena on his farm.  Yet afraid that no spectators would come, he was advised: "If you build it, they will come." 

So it was the case with Egypt's field of dreams.  Connecting the Mediterranean and the Red Seas.  A dream that began in Ancient Egypt in 1380 B.C.  A canal that shows Egypt as a world crossroads.  Making of commerce a rational substitute for conflict.  Yet when the dream became a reality with the opening of the first Suez Canal in 1869, it brought both commerce and conflict.

The Suez Canal of 1869 was the successor regime of all the prior efforts.  Beginning with Pharaoh Sitti I (1380 B.C.) through Amre Ibn Elass in the 7th Century A.D.  It was the latter who led the Arab and Islam into Egypt during the Second Caliphate of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab.  Amre wanted to link the two seas.

But Omar, with his clear Bedouin cum legal mind, vetoed the connection.  Allowed only a link from the Nile to the Timsah Lake to the Red Sea.  Omar feared foreign intervention if the two great seas were linked.  Amre, a successful military leader, didn't mind courting that challenge.  But Amre was over-ruled by his boss in Madina.

Amre couldn't play circles around Omar again.  He had done it before and gotten away with it.  Omar had instructed Amre not to march into Egypt -at least not yet.  Quick over-expansion of Islamized territory was not an acceptable formula for the Omar Khalifate.  But Amre, nonetheless, crossed over into Egypt with his armies.  Pretended that Omar's instructions arrived a bit too late.  Resulted in Omar keeping his "General Mac Arthur" (Amre Ibn Elass) under constant watch.  The first instance in history of civilian control over the military.

A digression intended to link the name of Suez to the inner core of the Egyptian psyche, and spirit.  Not with numbers. But with symbols often missed by Egyptian media for lack of connection to the Suez connectedness.  Lack of "Egyptianess!!"

Now Egypt has Suez I and Suez II.  A whale of a difference between the two symbols.  Though tied at the hip, implicating Egypt's sovereignty.

Suez I was a project spearheaded by Ferdinand de Lesseps, a French Vice-Consul in Alexandria.  Received from Khedive Said Pasha, a son of Muhammad Ali, the great founder of a strong Egypt, permission to dig the canal in 1854.  The hesitant Khedive needed England's view.  Though France and England were allies during the Crimean war, the British Consul offered no clear opinion.  Resulting in the signing of an agreement dated January, 1856.

An unconscionable agreement as far as Egypt was concerned.  An "adhesion contract," so heavily restrictive of one party, Egypt, while non-restrictive of another, the Canal Company.  This grave inequality of bargaining power is manifest in the following:

• The Company builds a feeder canal drawing fresh water from the Nile, covering all needs for work on the Suez Canal;
• In return, Egypt donates all land for work and construction, tax-free;
• The Company has the right to charge all Egyptian users of that fresh water.  Together with the free use of Egyptian mines and quarries; 
• Egypt provides for free, four-fifth of the labor needed, with new shifts of manpower every three months;
• All dues of passage in the Suez Canal, whether for human or cargo per tonnage to be collected by the Canal Company;
• Profits are to be debited 10% as interest on investment.  The balance is then divided between Egypt 15%; 10% for the foreign Canal founders; 75% for the canal administrators and upkeep.

So for 15% of the net profits, Egypt provides land, labor, fresh water, natural resources, and security.  For 99 years, a colonial regime was established by a foreign company on lands deducted from Egyptian sovereignty.  What an imperial bargain!!  The nominal suzerain, the High Porte of the Ottoman Empire responded: "Hell, No!!"

Ignoring that refusal, de Lesseps, went ahead with open bids for subscription, in November 1858.  Nearly  half a million shares were snapped up at 500 francs per share all over western Europe.

Egypt did not own the Company.  The Company owned Egypt.  And 1 million of its peasants (25000 each 3 months for 10 years), most of whom perished for lack of care.  While slavery was outlawed in Africa south of the Sahara, indentured slavery was instituted in Egypt by a contract with a Government which existed in name only.

British Prime Minister Palmerstone protested to Istanbul the loss of Egyptian lives.  Not primarily for humanitarian reasons.  But for fear of growing French influence in Egypt, the gateway through Suez to India where rebellion was seething.  Anglo-French rivalry in Egypt focused on the Canal.

That was Said Pasha.  But with Ismail Pasha succeeding him in 1863, Egypt acquired new claws.  The strong State was back, clawing at the illegally gotten advantages.  Attacking the enslavement of its citizens, to the applause of Great Britain.  Paying the avaricious Company two million Egyptian pounds for 177,642 shares bought by the weakling Said, but had remained unpaid.

Then Ismail labored for the reduction of the number of Egyptian Canal diggers; forced the Company to disgorge State land sequestered by the Company through machinations and bribes.  And with approval of the Ottoman High Porte, the Company received an eviction notice: Accept the reformation of that stupid contract or get the hell out!!

De Lesseps nearly had a heart attack; the astute Ismail agreed to have Napoleon III arbitrate; decision for Egypt on July 6, 1864: No enslavement; no crack of the whip on Egyptian backs; restitution of the huge swathe of land to the sovereign owner -Egypt.

The Company was left with only 200 meters on the two sides of the Canal.  The price was steep:  Nearly 3.3 million Egyptian pounds; an enormous price to retrieve what Egypt owns.  But Ismail paid up, saying: "I want the canal to be for Egypt, not Egypt for the Canal." The Ottoman Empire issued the firman (Imperial Executive Order) approving the deal in March 1866.

And with a big bang, the Suez Canal was inaugurated in 1869.  Monarchs were personally invited by Ismail who travelled to Europe, personally carrying to them invitations.  All expenses paid from his personal funds.  Ismailia, the city on the Canal, which was appropriately named after the patriotic Khedive, was bathed in light and splendor.

The French Empress, Eugenie, danced all night, and still asked for more.  A palace in Cairo by the Nile was built in her honor (now the Marriott Hotel).  Roads were paved to the Pyramids.  And the Opera Theatre was built at Opera Square, in the heart of Cairo.

By the standards of 1869, the cost of the party was huge, 1.5 million Egyptian pounds - i.e. pounds sterling.  Ismail, like the U.S. of today, was well practiced in deficit funding!!  The debts led to the British occupation of Egypt in 1882.  The Sudan also came under British hegemony.

The Canal continued to be the lighting rod for Egyptian nationalism; Sinai was ceded by the Ottoman Empire to Egypt in 1906; with the collapse of the Ottomans in World War I, Great Britain's creeping annexation leaped over the Canal and Sinai into Palestine.

From the records of the Canal Company, the aggregate cost of the Suez Canal was 17.5 million pounds.  Of that amount, Egypt paid the staggering amount of 16 million pounds.  Not counting the huge human cost and Egypt's exposure during times of weakness, to foreign intervention.  But with the end of World War II, Egypt, thanks to the impetus of the Canal, rediscovered its sinews of power: location, demography, diversity, cultural cohesion, and national fervor to wipe out any vestiges of past humiliation.

By 1956, the British occupation of the Canal Zone was gone; and Nasser, the new strong man of Egypt, nationalized the Suez Canal Company.  Egypt's adversaries cried foul; propagated in policy, media and foreign affairs, that "Egypt has nationalized the Canal!!"  Utterly stupid.  You don't nationalize what you own.  The nationalization was for the Canal Company which had been chartered under Egyptian laws.  And every shareholder was paid in full.

But the myth was propagated in order to "cut Nasser to size."  A prelude for the Israeli, French and British vicious aggression of 1956 against a country, Egypt, for daring to exercise its inherent sovereignty.  With the cessation of hostilities, peace-keeping by the UN was born.  But for a life of only 10 years.

For in 1967, Israel struck again in the so-called 6-day war.  Sinai was reoccupied; thousands of Egyptian military lives were lost in both Sinai and at the Canal.  Yet Egypt, under Sadat, burst again across the Canal in October 1973, destroying a newer myth: Israel's invincibility.

Now in little over than 40 years, a second Suez Canal has been dug.  Inaugurated on August 6, 2015 by El-Sisi, the present-day advocate of "the Strong State."  

But what a difference between the environment of building Suez Canal I and building its younger sister Suez Canal II.

We have seen from the above, the miserable circumstances surrounding the de Lesseps project (Suez Canal I).  Suez Canal II is the concretizatoin of the New Egypt:

• A historic symbol of washing away the oppression meted out to the Egypt of the 19th century;
• An abashed declaration of an Egyptian equivalent of "Yes, We Can;"
• Dug by the armed forces, under the command of Vice Admiral Mohab Mameesh, in less than one year;
• Funded in mere 8 days by totally -Egyptian subscriptions induced by the spirit of Egypt of January 25, 2011 and June 30, 2013;
• An impetus for China to build the Kra Canal in Thailand to bypass the Malacca Strait.  A new maritime silk road shortening the voyage by 1200 kilometers.  Ending up in Suez welcoming two arms;
• China is also planning road and rail routes through Pakistan.  All ending up in Suez "aller et retour;"
• 85% of world trade carried expeditiously by the giants of canal containers plying their cargo "24/7;" from Port Said to Suez, and vice-versa.
• Seventy kilometers of daily transit from 49 to 85 crossings over the next 10 years.  The volume of world trade moved by sea is expected to double in the next 20 years.
• CNN described Suez II, the new companion of Suez I, as a "game changer for the future of world trade;" "the most strategic waterway in the world;" "a vital lifeline connecting the East and West;"
• MAERSK, the largest shipping company in the world declared: "It is more profitable for us to use the Suez Canals.  We shall stop using the Panama Canal;"
• Suez II was projected to be dug and operational over a period of 5 years.  Shortened at El-Sisi's insistence to only one year.  "We don't have the luxury of time," declared the Egyptian President.
• And in short order, a Presidential decree was issued creating "The Suez Canal Economic Zone." From ship repairs to rest and recreation, to training in maritime commerce, to amusement parks.

Washing away the shame of yesterday: the slavery, foreign manipulation, and the arrogance of power.  Now all gone!!

Still doomsayers predict less financial and economic returns.  No proof on that.  Only to fulfil a self-induced prophecy of unfulfilled expectations.  But the Suez Canals are primarily about:

• National resurgence; and Arab achievement in the midst of the cyclone of destruction of the Arab Spring;
• An Arab symbol of hope and restored strength, dissecting the Arab homeland by flags of all nations parading on ships on water in the heart of the Eastern Desert.

Commented Judge and Senator, Mrs. Taghreed Hikmet of Jordan: "It is a gift from the nation to the world."  In its present hour of peril, the Arab Nation is in sore need of boosters.  That historic Nation could always count on its big sister, Egypt, to faithfully provide.

In a way, the Suez project is an Arab iconic project.  Protected by armed might from Port Said in the North to the Gulf of Aden in the South.  Defending the freedom of navigation, world commerce, and, above all, the sovereignty of the host and owner -Egypt of 100 million Arabs.

All of this is while combating terrorism, jihadism, and anti-Islamism.  And at the same time singing the new lyrics inaugurating Suez II: "Tomorrow Egypt Shall Be Sweeter!!"