The Shaming of America: Republican Congressmen v. The U.S. Constitution

They can't stand having an Afro-American being the President of the U.S.  From Day One, in January 2009, Senator Mitch McConnell declared that the Republicans had one mission: To insure that Obama is a one term President.  They and their supporters on the Right keep on questioning Obama's citizenship and his love of America.

Recently, former New York City mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, wondered in  public whether the President cherished America.  At a State of the Union message, a Republican Congressman heckled Obama while delivering that message to a joint session.  He shouted, "Liar."  Unprecedented.  Obama, unruffled looked at that offender and responded: "Thank You."

During campaigning in opposition to Obama, Senator McCain, Republican from Arizona, was asked a question from his audience.  The lady asking the question made in fact a comment attacking Obama.  She, on national TV, said: "He is an Arab."  In a subdued voice, McCain, with microphone now in hand, responded: "No!  He is not an Arab."  As if being an Arab in America was a grave national security breach.

Republicans in Congress, now in the majority in both houses, are shaming America.  Their attacks on Obama have turned into a violation of the U.S. Constitution, especially in the area of foreign affairs.

That document, crafted by geniuses in checks and balances, promulgated in 1787 "in order to form a more perfect union" gave the President primary responsibility for foreign affairs.

He is "Commander in Chief;" has power "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties;" "appoint ambassadors," with the Senate's "advice and consent," but with a simple majority of one vote; and make use of international agreements and compacts, at times with congressional participation.

On these bases, it has been asserted in case law that the President acts "as the sole organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations." (Justice Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Curtiss-Wright case).

By comparison to the primacy of the Presidential role in foreign affairs, Congress, under Article I (Section 8) of the Constitution, has been accorded limited powers.  Congress can "provide for the common defense," can "declare war," and can "raise and support armies."

So primarily, Congress real prerogative lies in controlling the defense budget.  Its power to declare ware has been used in about 5 cases, in the course of more than two centuries.  Even in this foreign affairs domain, that power has been overwhelmed by the resort by the President to executive agreements which can speedily and privately commit the U.S. to action in foreign affairs without the need of any congressional involvement.  This is the essence of what is legally described "pure executive agreements." 

Also in regard to military action, the President may act unilaterally in actual hostilities against the U.S.  When this happens, the only authority left to Congress is its exercise of "the spending power."  But limiting the presidential power at times of hostilities can only be done by Congress through its enactment or non-enactment of military appropriations every two years.

The entire weight of legal constitutional scholarship is that the President has paramount power to represent the U.S. in day-to-day foreign relations.

Yet in the course of this month of March, Republican Congressmen have shamed the U.S., through shaming President Obama.  John Boener, Speaker of the House, on his own and in service of his narrow interests invites a foreign leader to address a joint "meeting" (not session) of Congress.

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel was thus afforded the unheard of luxury of having Congress become a theatrical prop for his electoral aspirations to secure a fourth term.  The repeated standing ovations on Capitol Hill for him represented a massive Congressional indictment of Obama's efforts, still ongoing, to secure a deal with Iran on its nuclear aspirations.

Not to be outdone by these Republican efforts to undermine Obama's primary authority in foreign affairs, a 37-year old Senator from Arkansas addresses a letter to the Iranian authorities.  The letter from Tom Cotton warned Tehran not to conclude a deal on the nuclear issue.  Why?  Because that inexperienced Senator, with only 65 days in the Senate, offered a crazy warning:  A deal with Obama could be cancelled by a successor.  In essence, Cotton is telling the Iranians and the world: "Commitment by our President is worth nothing."

Are these lawmakers or are they Clowns?  CLOWNS, in a failing roadside circus.  For they have:

• Infringed the Constitutional prerogatives of the U.S. President for whom foreign policy is a primary domain;
• Weakened the hands of the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry.  This is in the midst of international negotiations aiming at reaching a consensual deal with Iran and all the five members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany;
• Confirmed the perception in the Arab and Muslim world that Israel, in regard to the Likud attempt to have and hold a Greater Israel, from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea, at the expense of the creation of a sovereign State of Palestine, has the backing of U.S. Congress;
• Ignored the fact that Israel is already a nuclear power, yet making, through the Likud in Israel, any nuclear program in the Arab Middle East, an existential threat;
• Made a great institution like U.S. Congress represent members who put their aspirations for keeping their seats ahead of the interests of "a more perfect union;"
• Hollowed out the incantations of America addressed to the outside world that when it comes to democracy and human rights, America, as Ronald Reagan put it, was akin to "a City on a Shining Hill;" and 
• Enhanced the trepidations of America's allies that trusting America, especially in this global war on terrorism, is a risky gamble.

Putting perceptions aside, here are some realities drawn from applicable international law:

• If and when made, the deal with Iran is subject to approval by the UN Security Council.  A scholar at Princeton University, Seyed Hussein Mousavian wrote on this subject an op ed in Al Monitor.  He aptly titled it: "On Iran deal, Republicans cut off their nose to spite their face."  In it he points out that: "If a deal is reached, the Security Council would pass a resolution enacting its terms, which Congress has no authority over rescinding."
• In his hallucinating letter, signed by 46 other Republican Senators, Senator Tom Cotton reminds Tehran of US sanctions.  In another swipe at Obama, he in effect states that even if a deal is reached, the US Senate could still maintain sanctions on Iran.

In opposition to a constitutional scholar called Obama, Cotton must have had real cotton in his ears during classes in international law.  Sanctions work only if several other States, especially neighbors and big Powers cooperate.  Our "Tommy," in his incongruous role of a volunteer advisor to the Islamic Republic of Iran, should know that in a deal internationally accepted, unilateral US sanctions would not have their intended effect.  

• War is no longer a U.S. option.  Especially in a fanciful war on Iran.  Just look at the administration having a difficult time in Congress just to agree to an authorization for the President to combat ISIS.  In reality, Obama needs no such authorization.  In his recent testimony before Congress, John Kerry cleared Obama's objective.  The Administration was calling on Congress only to speak "with a single powerful voice" at this critical juncture.

One of the four pillars of national sovereignty is the State's ability to conduct foreign affairs.  Today's Congress, with Republican majorities, is proving that the U.S. governmental system is plagued by more "checks" than "balances."  Retired U.S. Major General Paul Eaton said it to the point: "The idea of engaging directly with foreign entities on foreign policy is frankly a gross breach of discipline."

The rise of the extreme right in the US, including the Tea Party and the likes of Ted Cruz, Sara Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Bill O'Reilly, represents an endemic desire for endless war.  The lessons of the wars in Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003), with their consequences of sectarianism in the Muslim world and the economic great recession in America, seem to have been lost.

It is ironic to have the great party of Lincoln turning into the party of war.  American efforts to "contain and degrade ISIS," even through an international coalition, seem to have spawned an internal American war.  A war against Obama.

A thoughtful commentator, Dr. Sayed Amin Shalaby, the Executive Director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, recently quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski.  In his book entitled Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power, Zbig, as per his nickname, as quoted by my friend Ambassador Shalaby, argues that America has to understand that its power abroad will increasingly depend on its ability to face its internal challenges.

Well said!!  A return by Congress to the U.S. Constitution is one such primordial necessity.  The shaming of America is an factor in international destabilization.

A great America President, a Democrat, a hundred years ago, wrote while at Princeton University, a great book.  It was a must read for me as a graduate student and a teaching assistant in the 1950s in America.  Titled Congressional Government, President Woodrow Wilson warned against congressional usurpation of presidential powers.

It was Wilson, a real Cassandra, who as U.S. President, crafted the League of Nations.  The Republican Senate of his day prevented America's membership in it.  The League, without the US in it, collapsed in 1939, ushering in the Second World War. In spite of that, a Wilson legacy is still standing: His advocacy  of people's right to self-determination.

An editorial in the New York Times of March 13, addressed this weird coup-like Congressional episodes.  It said: "The Republicans are the leaders in Congress.  But their efforts to undermine Mr. Obama in every matter are infecting ALL governance."

An op ed article in the same issue of the New York Times by Professor Kathleen Duval headlined "We Have a President for a Reason."  Denouncing that Republican power grab, it concluded: "It would be strange for a group of 21st Century senators to take advantage of the negotiations with Iran and return U.S. to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness."

Time Magazine of March 23 includes an article by Ian Bremmer, a foreign affairs columnist.  In it, he says: "This move undermines the credibility of future Presidents, Democrats and Republicans."

Yet the process of the shaming of America keeps on going in various directions: President Obama calls Netanyahu to chide him for declaring retreat from the promise of two-States.  But Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House, travels to Israel to stand by Netanyahu's side.

And on March 23, the craziest of U.S. Senators, Texan Republican Ted Cruz, announces his candidacy for President in 2016.  This icon of the Tea Party, in his totally unpromising bid for President, accuses Obama of communism.  Shameless!!

Want To See A Thriller? Watch Hitchcock Not Al-Jazeera!

This is not about the case of Al-Jazeera journalists litigated in Egypt.  I do not have before me the file on that case.  This posting has to do with a much larger issue: Does press freedom know no limits?!  Because this is the basic issue confronting Al-Jazeera as it fabricates its case around the world against the New Egypt.

For eight long and productive years, I learnt an important lesson from one great journalists source -Forbes Magazine.  From 1976 to 1984, I was retained by Forbes great co-founder, the late Malcolm Forbes.  He, and his four sons, and the editor, James Michaels, were my inspirational source.  After choosing me to be the editor of the Arabic edition of Forbes Magazine, I posed a question to Malcolm: "What is the most important department at Forbes?" With a tilt of his head, twinkle in his eyes, and an assertive wave of his hands, Malcolm Forbes drew me closer as he whispered: "The Facts-Checking Department."  How profound!!

When I began watching Al-Jazeera TV network, I felt truly ambivalent about what I was seeing.  Captivated by its global resources as it presented documentaries on Arab history.  But repulsed by its news presentations of current Arab issues.  As if I was watching the production of a schizophrenic network where the past was revered, but the present was slanted.

The Al-Jazeera's slant decidedly pointed to its own funding Mecca - The Petro-State of Qatar!!  Not one word was ever uttered evaluating Qatar as a family business.  But torrents of news and innuendos and oblique hints disparaging nearly every other Arab regime.

Al-Jazeera called itself "The Pulpit of the Pulpitless" (in Arabic: "Minbar Mun La Minbara Lahu").  OK!!  But as the channel's popularity grew, in the midst of the dearth of similar technological resources for other Arab media, a decided tone of pomposity crept in.

Interviews became marked by long leading introductions; assertive interviewers ended their questions with the arms-twisting phrase of "isn't it so," without more; frequent interruptions of the interviewees; non-ascertainable facts peppered the news programs; and clips selectively vouching for Al-Jazeera's editorial commitments ruled the airwaves.

Conclusion: ideology took a front-row seat; facts, as gleaned from facts-checking, took a back seat.  As in the sordid practice of personal injury lawyers, chasing after ambulances to get injured clients signed up, Al-Jazeera was chasing any opposition group in the Arab homeland as the only source of credible news.

One of their leading interviewees was Abdel-Bari Attwan, the past editor of "Al-Quds Al-Arabi."  He, without shame, eulogized in a full-length page Saddam Hussein the day of the execution of that mass murderer.  Called him "The Leader of the Arab Nation!!"  But "the best" of Attwan, a Palestinian who was educated for free at Cairo University, was yet to come:  On Al-Jazeera, he described the mastermind of 9/11 as "Sheikh Osama Bin Laden." (Sheikh means an Islamic scholar).

On Al-Jazeera's airwaves, Attwan advocated a resumption of war between Egypt and Israel.  Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Quds Al-Arabi, described Hamas invasion of Egypt through the Sinai tunnels as "legitimater for being the strategic depth of Hamas."  

This is not to mention daily attacks on other Arab Governments from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan to the East, to Morocco to the West.  Now fast forward to Al-Jazeera's attitude towards the turbulent scene in the New Egypt from December 2010 to the collapse, under massive popular pressure, of the fascist Islamist regime of Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.

Two and a half years of misery in the most populous Arab country where the Islamists for a while highjacked the Revolution of January 25, 2011; attacked the Copts and the Shiis; gloried in the burning of convents and museums; attacked nuns; burned books; manipulated university students; side-lined Al-Azhar; issued crazy fatwas; allowed uneducated preachers in mosques to celebrate a retrograde interpretation of Islam; aligned themselves with haters of secular Egypt from Hamas to Qatar to Turkey; and called for drastic revisions of security measures in Sinai.  For one fateful year, Egypt was ruled by a Taliban-like cabal with one difference: The Taliban espouse Afghanistan; a Brotherhood Supreme Guide said: "To Hell with Egypt."

Throughout that period of internal terror, Al-Jazeera raised the Islamist flag as high as Qatar wanted; Qatari petro-dollars illegally poured in; foreign NGO, without any accountability to the Government, treated Egypt as if it was a No-Man's Land; and Al-Jazeera's news reports became so one-sided as to qualify for "news fabrication."  They focused on how chaos was the daily event in Egypt.

It was a constant drumbeat by Al-Jazeera creating a world-wide false impression of a failed State.  No sovereign State on earth could allow such an organization to go on falsely destroying its fabric from within.  States have the sovereign obligation to keep national dangers outside their borders.

A sample of Al-Jazeera playing games with the facts on the territory of the New Egypt is Al-Jazeera's reporting of a non-factual article by Michelle Dunne.  Dunne is described in that article publicized by Al-Jazeera on Nov. 4, 2014 as "a senior associate in the Middle East programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace."  In her article, Dunne, whose husband was implicated in a case brought before the Egyptian judiciary against an NGO alleged intervention in internal affairs, had plenty to say through which to vent her incurable Egyptophobia.

In her own self-proclaimed expertise, Dunne denounces Egypt's measures of counter-terrorism in Sinai as follows: "There were the remarkable scene of Egyptian bulldozers demolishing houses to create a buffer zone in Rafah following allegations that militants or weapons had entered from Gaza to carry out the attacks.  While the tunnels under Rafah have been a persistent and serious problem, the total media blackout in Sinai makes it impossible to know what actually happened and whether the demolitions were truly necessary or rather a hasty exertion of collective punishment against Sinai residents."

How insane can Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment and Al-Jazeera of Qatar get!!  Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis (Friends of Jerusalem), and based in Gaza, has proclaimed these terror actions to the whole world.  They have targeted both Egyptian security forces and foreign tourists.  They have declared Sinai an emirate of ISIS.  Is Dunne and Al-Jazeera so deranged as to expect from Cairo detailed and open access to military operations and measures of self-defense?  On what basis in law or fact does Dunne, through Al-Jazeera, characterize internal and sovereign defensive actions by Egypt in Sinai as "collective punishment against Sinai residents?!"  Total fabrication which is shamelessly uttered behind the facade of "press freedom."  Is it any wonder that in mid-December 2014 she was refused entry to Egypt?  Is that press freedom, on a sinister invention of news and malicious mythinformation?

To me at least, it is the kind of hate-mongering which makes of both the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Al-Jazeera Network pro-conflict propaganda organizations.  Their manifest purpose is destabilizing the New Egypt.  Permanent war seems to be their lifeblood of existence in this age of chaos.  Why is this my conclusion?

• Because freedom of the press is designed to enlighten, not to obfuscate; to shed light on credible facts as the best means of mass education;
• Because freedom without limitation is the definition of chaos.  Like the Olympic connected circles, the limits of my freedom is where the outer limits of your freedom begin;
• Because the age of Nazi Goebbels teaches all of us that a steady barrage of lies about other people, whether for religious or ethnic or imperial reasons, shall lead ultimately to catastrophes like the Holocaust;
• Because it violates the UN Charter purposes of developing "friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" (Article I, para. 2);
• Because interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States, as through negative and non-substantiated media reports, is prohibited under international law (UN Charter, Article II, para. 7) except in apartheid-like situations;
• Because defamation of States or people or faith through surface conclusions and blatant fabrication of rumors and events, such as manifested by Al-Jazeera and Michelle Dunne, are not only unethical.  They are also means of fomenting mistrust of governance.  That is especially so in countries like Egypt which is going through the dual difficult tasks of reconstruction as well as containment of ISIS-like terrorism;
• Because the "Freedom of Expression" does not apply to someone mischievously yelling in a crowded theater "Fire!" causing death and injury by a terrified stampede.

A seminal article appeared in the New York Review of Books of January 2015 by David Cole, under the title "Must Counter terrorism Cancel Democracy." In it, that legal scholar deals with government powers during national emergencies.  He says: "Properly regulated, surveillance is a legitimate governmental function in peacetime and wartime.  Every country does it; no country forbids it."  With regard to El-Sisi Administration, Al-Jazeera and Dunne seem oblivious to this reality.

The claim by Al-Jazeera to a bogus total, unbridled, unregulated, and non-substantiated stream of invented facts about sovereign States is rebuffed by law and ethics.  Their claim of credibility has been found to vanish through a permanent ideological pattern of smear campaigns against secular Egypt.  Al-Jazeera shamelessly manifested its tilt towards a defunct Islamist regime some of whose leaders are now in refuge in Qatar which bankrolls Al-Jazeera.

The Qatar/Al-Jazeera symbiosis is the clearest evidence of Al-Jazeera's absence of independence.  To Qatar, it is "His Master's Voice!!"

The New Egypt is charting its own course, come what may.  It has a secular constitution which nullified an earlier totally retrograde Islamic Constitution; a president who was fairly and openly elected by secret ballot in June 2014; a cabinet of technocrats under the steady stewardship of Prime Minister Mahlab; an upper House of Parliament in which woman, Copts, the disabled, and other previously marginalized communities and minorities are represented; lower house elections are slated to be held later this year.

And Egypt has an independent judiciary.  That judiciary, through the Court of Cassation, the highest court in Egypt, and of which Bar I am honored to be a member, is the ultimate judicial voice in the case of the remaining two of Al-Jazeera journalists.

How obscene for the New York Times of January 2, 2015, to plainly advocate outside intervention in that judicial matter?  Can the New York Times call for such intervention in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court?  How contradictory to the principle of judicial independence does the author of that article, Kareem Fahim, a clone of David Kirkpatrick, call for by-passing that judicial process in sovereign Egypt?!  

In this morass of malicious one-sidedness which goes by the misnomer of "Press Freedom," Al-Jazeera again steps in.  In that New York Times article, Al-Jazeera condemned the Egyptian Court decision for judicial review.  It arrogantly states: "Al-Jazeera said that the Egyptian authorities had a choice:

"Free these men quickly, or continue to string this out, all the while continuing this injustice and harming the image of their own country in the eyes of the world.  They should choose the former."

Yes, Al Jazeera, you, through your fabricated half-truths, know better than the leadership of the New Egypt about what should and shouldn't be done.

But thanks for making my case!!  I have always felt that you were not truly engaged in airing news backed by facts.  You, and the likes of Michelle Dunne, are engaged in imaginary thrillers.  

But when I want to see a thriller, I can assure you that you are not my first choice.  Hitchcock is!!

Whistle Blowing By Great Egyptians on Corruption and Terrorism

From the scene, they are gone.  But from our historical memory, they cannot be forgotten.  Makram Obeid on corruption, and Ahmed Fathi Soroor, on terrorism.  In present day culture, it is not common to celebrate thinkers and doers of the past.  But the focus on the New Egypt should also take into account the whistle blowers of yesterday.

Yes, they are gone either from life (Makram Obeid), or from power (Ahmed Fathi Soroor).  A nation that lives on celebrating only its present, is a nation which is bereft of nurturing its young on the model of those who loyally cared for its causes.

Let us begin with Makram Obeid Pasha on corruption.  It is the national malaise which contributed to the eruption of the Arab Spring.  That great Coptic whistle blower, having split from The Wafd Party of Al-Nahas Pasha, addressed a petition to King Farouk.

His petition on behalf of "Al-Kutlah Al-Wafdiya Al-Mustaqillah" was not in one or two pages.  Under the title of "The Black Book In the Black Era," it was a book of 268 pages.  Printed at night to escape the sanctions imposed upon him by the Wafd government of the post-Second World War.

Its super-high level of classic Arabic is music to my ears -a person who looks upon his native tongue as his primary anchor in the concept of Arabism as a culture.  Before we get to the substance, let us examine his last paragraph on page 268 as he beseeches King Farouk to make right what Makram Pasha perceived as wrong.  Lost in this translation, Makram, a Coptic icon who had learnt the Quran by heart, is the cadence of his summation.  He says:

"Your Majesty: Your throne is the refuge of this good nation.  We pray that Allah strengthen your hands so that they may pull us up from this abyss.  So that you may unburden it from its daily struggle for life's needs.  So that you may right what is wrong.  So that you may restore rightful entitlements to those who truly possess them.  So that the Egyptians may again remember what this government caused them to forget: justice in governance; freedom of expression; integrity in word and deed; the true meaning of national and personal dignity."

As if Makram Obeid Pasha, in 1946, was anticipating the signs raised in Tahrir on January 25, 2011.  Those signs read: "Livelihood; Freedom; Social Justice."  As a student at the Cairo Teachers' Institute, Makram Pasha invited me to his house where I was hypnotized by his love of the motherland.

How did he, by his book, raise the alarm with regard to corruption as infesting the governance of Egypt?

He posited that the heart of corruption is putting personal gain ahead of public gain.  As a Minister of Supply and Trade, he strictly applied the laws restricting exports needed for home consumption.  "Charity-Starts at Home."  Subverting this judicious rule, namely, equality before the law, Prime Minister Nahas Pasha would intervene, without the knowledge of Makram Pasha, to enable his wife's relatives to secure for them sugar, rice and other provisions for export and the black market.

Makram Pasha summed all up as follows: "The Prime Minister even tried to stop me from bringing before a military court (Egypt, following World War Two was still under martial law) his relatives.  The Public Prosecutor had charged them with illegally trying to export textiles needed to clothe the marginalized Egyptians.

His assessment was: "This is a scandal.  And it is one of many like it.  Nepotism, illegal commitments, the prevalence of making governance a personal game for profit.  These, Your Majesty, are all forms of corrupt behavior tending to exploit the Government only for the benefit of the ruling class.  It makes ruling a game whose goal is to corrupt the trust between those who govern, and those who are governed."

What more do you need for the clearest definition of corruption in any age, at any time, and in any country?  God Bless your memory, Makram Pasha Obeid.  You were truly ahead of your time.  You resigned, not once, but three times.  Because you put Egypt ahead of your position, your personal gain, the illusory glow of being the Deputy Leader of a great national party.  Your portrait still adorns the walls of the Wafd headquarters in Cairo.  The main gate is adorned by the symbol of historical Egypt:  A Crescent Hugging a Cross!!  A great image for all of us.  Except for the Muslim Brotherhood, on which several "Black Books" shall be written!!

Now we turn to Dr. Ahmed Fathi Soroor, Speaker of the Egyptian Parliament for many years under former President Hosni Mubarak.  This scholar of criminal law produced in 2007 in Cairo one of the most definitive papers produced anywhere in Arabic on the issue of terrorism.  His removal from office, his incarceration at Tura as one of the top leaders of the defunct National Party, and the charges levelled against him for alleged corruption are not reasonable justification for not benefiting form his unique legal expertise.

In its search for inclusiveness, the New Egypt is called upon to abandon what I call "The Hatshepsut Syndrome." If you lose power or die, all your achievements should be erased.  This is especially dangerous in countries like Egypt which needs every iota of knowledge in order to keep its caravan of progress moving forward.

At my request in his office as Speaker, Dr. Soroor who was previously Dean of the Cairo University School of Law, where I continue to be adjunct professor, gifted me with a copy of his paper.  Within 150 pages, it is a veritable gem.

Judicious analysis; multi-faceted research in Arabic, English and French; clarity of thought; superb organization of every aspect of terrorism; and a lawyer's approach to a highly controversial issue.  Let the New Egypt be not afraid from one of its great scholars as it battles terrorism in Sinai, on the Libyan border, and within its interior.  When you are sick in bed, calling for the help of a competent physician, you don't query that physician's personal history.  You need to be cured.

Under the title of "The Rule of Law Confronting Terrorism," here are the highlights of Professor Soroor's paper:

• In its Introduction, he confronts head on the spurious attempts to link between terrorism and Islam;
• He highlights one of the central facts about terrorism: lack of an internationally-acceptable definition of that term;
• He focuses our attention on other challenges: security challenges affecting public law and order, and concern for having those security challenges overwhelm the need to safeguard human rights and civil liberties;  
• On this crucial point he suggests a balance anchored in constitutional law, namely: espousal of the exigencies of necessity, together with the proportionality of response;
• He calls on the State to be a State of laws which observes the need for democratization, combined with safeguarding human rights;
• He focuses our attention on the globalization of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values.  Astutely, Dr. Soroor puts that mix within one container which he describes as "the values of the international community;"
• He links between the legal challenges facing the struggle against terrorism both internally and externally.  On the external front of these challenges, he reaches out for the precepts of the international human rights law, as well as of the international criminal law;
• In dealing with the dilemma of defining terrorism, the author brilliantly separates between three types of terrorism: acts perpetrated by individuals, acts inflicted by groups or organizations, and State terrorism;
• He separates between terrorism and the struggle of oppressed populations for liberty; condemns disproportionate use of military means, and abhors "extra-judicial killing;"
• Soroor reminds us of Egypt's penal code as amended in 1992.  That is several years before the promulgation by the League of Arab States of its Convention on Terrorism (1998), and of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation of a similar Convention (1999).
• In the context of the above, Professor Soroor reiterates Egypt's attempt to define terrorism.  As provided in Article 86 of Penal Law No. 97 (1992), it states that terrorism is:

"Any use of force, violence, threat or intimidation, by a suspect in the pursuit of a criminal scheme, either individually of by a group, with the intention of adversely affecting public order or endangering society's peace and security.  

This includes causing bodily harm or affecting communal freedoms, or damaging the environment or communications or transportation means, or funds, or buildings of either public or private property, or their occupation or sequestration, or impeding the exercise by public authorities of their duties, or affecting the functioning of places of worship, of educational institutions, or hindering the application of the Constitution or the laws and regulations which are in force."

• This is the broadest ever definition of "terrorism," in both law and procedure which in effect underpins the comprehensive efforts of the New Egypt in combating jihadism in 2015.  That was nearly a quarter of a century since the promulgation of that law in 1992 in Egypt.  Professor Soroor aptly calls it "The National Program on Terrorism."  And this many years before the UN acted on this global issue, by the General Assembly in 1999, by the US after 9/11, and by the UN Security Council in 2004.

The "Egyptian National Project" as expounded by Dr. Ahmed Fathi Soroor, former Dean of our Faculty of Law, of Cairo University, also deals with the Geneva Convention of 1949.  He provides a broad construction of the theory of "the Right to Protect." His legal construction should be applied by Cairo in its attacks on terrorism in both Sinai, in the Center, and over the Libyan borders.

So let us not shy away from bringing back to life the work of our luminaries, regardless of the allegations, trials and tribulations of the two Egyptian Revolutions of January 25, and June 30.  Let us abide by the British adage: "Use whatever instrument you have at hand."  

Better still, let us abide, but in a different context, by the great poem by Ahmed Shawqi who admonished:

"These are our monuments.  Gaze on them after we are gone."

Our thought monuments on corruption and terrorism have been selflessly bequeathed to us by Makram Obeid Pasha, and Professor Ahmed Fathi Soroor.

Would someone volunteer to convey this blog posting to Professor Ahmed Fathi Soroor? 

For I know that when I stand before my students at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, lecturing on the terrorism plaguing the New Egypt, I feel his presence as a scholar who was amongst the first whistle blowers of the late 20th century on the dangers approaching Egypt.

The lessons which we should learn from that unique Egyptian scholar need to be re-learnt at this critical juncture.

Here Comes A False Turkish Don Quixote Ordogan!!

He is delusional!!  Working hard toward the Turkishization of the Arab Spring, especially in Egypt.  I knew that something was missing:  One finger in his right hand as he raised it in a Rabaa salute!!  And why a Rabaa salute by Sultan Ordogan: an approving nod towards the Muslim Brotherhood as it waged a coup in 2012-2013 against secular Egypt.

Don Quixote saw in Spanish windmills hostile knights to be attacked.  In his mold, Ordogan sees in the Egyptian Revolution of June 30, 2013 a tidal wave drowning his dream of a Caliphate.  Ordogan's problem does not lie within what he does within Turkish borders.  His constant attacks on the New Egypt reflects his being on the wrong side of history.

Our Turkish Don Quixote is welcome to have his palace of 1000 rooms (estimated cost at $750 million); to have his troops welcome Abbas in Ankara in uniforms of 16 stages of the Ottoman Empire; to declare his support for the Palestinian cause.  But Ordogan has no business interfering in the internal affairs of Egypt.  Especially as Egypt transitions to what El-Sisi calls "a strong State."

Having taught in Cairo modern Egyptian history, including Ottoman rule, I find Ordogan woefully lacking in knowledge of why the Ottomans collapsed.  The Empire (and the caliphate with it) did not fall because of its opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine.  This is what Ordogan told Abbas during that recent state visit.  It collapsed because it became hostage to three evils: internal corruption; oppression of the Arabs and of minorities; and succumbing to the fatwas of ignorant ulamas (scholars).  Those ulamas advised the Sultans that training of the armed forces by non-Muslim trainers was un-Islamic.  The same stupid thesis of Nigeria's Boko Haram (western learning is un-Islamic).

By contrast, Egypt even while under Ottoman suzeranity, welcomed training by non-Muslims.  Thus Egypt twice was on the verge of burying the Ottomans under an Egyptian flag.  Though the Ottomans occupied Egypt as of 1517, Egypt declared its independence from the Turkish yoke twice.  Once in 1769 under the leadership of Ali Bek Al-Kabeer whose sway extended from Yemen to Damascus, passing through Jedda, Mecca and Medina.

The second, opting out of the Empire was in 1840 under Muhammad Ali, whose son, General Ibrahim was about to occupy Constantinople in 1839.  He was forced by England and France to retreat out of fear of a dynamic Egyptian empire replacing "the sick man of Europe" - the Ottoman empire.  As of 1840, Egypt continued to be nominally within Ottomanism.  But Cairo looked upon Constantinople only as a notary public for the selection of the successors of Muhammad Ali.

The Arab rebellion of 1916 against Turkish rule was a water shed in Arab history.  That rebellion was led by the Hashemites, not by Lawrence of Arabia.  By joining the Allies against Turkey during World War I, the Arabs put their aspiration for independence ahead of staying within a nominally Islamic Caliphate.

The Ottomans forced the Arabs to make that historic choice.  For it was the Young Turks who reneged on their treaty of 1912 with the Arabs which called for Ottoman recognition of Arabic as the Arabs national language.  After all, Arabic is the language of the Quran.  This Turkish chauvinism went further amok.  Great Arab national leaders were hung to death in 1915 in Damascus public squares.  That was in addition to the Turkish massacre of Armenians due to unfounded suspicion of collaboration with Russia.

So, Sultan Ordogan, please treat yourself to a refresher course in the history of the Ottoman Empire.  Simply leave the New Egypt alone.  Non-interference in the internal affairs of other States is the best recipe for regional and international peace.  Good fences make good neighbors.

Believe me!!  If you want to parade your honor guard in costumes going back to the 14th century, Egypt might retort by sending you papyri of ancient military Egyptian uniforms going back 7000 years.  Including chariots and charioteers!!  But I doubt that the New Egypt would fall for the trap of Ordogan theatrics.

The Turkish Ministry of Education has decided to introduce the old "Ottoman" language to its educational curriculum.  Egypt, since the discovery of the hieroglyphic language through the Rosetta Stone unearthed in 1801 by the great French archaeologist Champolion, has kept it alive.  Contrary to the purpose of reviving Ottomanism by Ordogan, Egypt values the teaching of hieroglyphic as well as the Coptic language at its universities.  In this respect, Egypt's reason is for culture not for hegemony.

While Egypt is working for the strengthening of its new axis with the Gulf, Turkey's Ordogan is working toward compensating for the European Union refusal to admit Turkey to its membership.  Hence the Ankara alliances with cul de sac pan-Islamic movements.  While the New Egypt was welcomed at all levels during El-Sisi's visit to Kuwait, including unambiguous Kuwaiti statements of support for the new Egypt, Turkey was critical of Egypt's calls on Qatar to account for its funding of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In the context of Egypt's emphasis on internal development, Abdel-Wahab Al-Badr, head of the Kuwait Development Fund noted the following:  "The creation in Egypt of an additional Suez Canal to be inaugurated in August 2015 is expected to turn Egypt into a new Singapore.  80% of world transit trade shall go through Suez."

As the Young Turks cracked the whip against non-Turks in their dying Empire, the oppressed began to exit in droves seeking safe refuge.  To where did they flee?  To secular and tolerant Egypt, the permanent rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate.  In Cairo and Alexandria, the Lebanese Christians set the example.  They launched modern Egyptian journalism, including Al-Ahram, now the official printed medium of the Government.  They issued the great periodical of Al-Resalah.  On Al-Resala's high literature, we were nurtured in high school.  They established the modern theatre, cinema and comedy; made Egyptian songs the lingua franca of the entire Arab world.  And they propelled Arab nationalism on a distinctive secular course.

Thus the loss of the Ottomans was the gain of the Egyptians.  What remained in Egypt from Ottoman days were mere relics: The fez, the titles of Pasha, Bek and Affandi.  More durable are the jokes in Egyptian cafes about Turkish oppression symbolized by "the whip," over-taxing the poor, and empty fanfare.

At Davos (2015), El-Sisi, at that World Economic Forum, spoke poignantly about the New Egypt.  He stressed the national focus on making it a haven for foreign investors.  Reason: virgin possibilities, and legally insuring profit repatriation.  While acknowledging terror as a global menace, he assured his world audience of Egypt's capacity to undertake the twin tasks:  Development and combating terrorism.  

While Sultan Ordogan was on a visit to Somalia, a failed State, his nemesis, the Egyptian President had a mission with a real future impact.  At Davos, El-Sisi was deftly making an apt distinction.  Between faith as a private right, and interpreting faith to the masses, as a communal responsibility. Sadly, Sultan Ordogan chooses not to espouse that distinction.  His Islamism is under attack internally in Turkey.  It is also being challenged externally by his formidable opponent, Gullen.  Gullen is a Turkish Islamic powerhouse residing in Pennsylvania and calling for investigating Ordogan's corrupt practices.

Shouldn't Ordogan, in his foreign policy, give priority to securing Turkey's eastern border against the free movement of foreign jihadis?  By the thousands, those misfits pour via Turkey to join ISIS.  By contrast Egypt's eastern border has become a priority security issue.  A buffer zone has been created in Sinai with the aim of degrading the Friends of Jerusalem and their Hamas cohorts who are declaring Sinai an "ISIS Emirate."

Mind you, Ordogan is not the only aberration on the scene of globalized Islam.  More graphic events are taking place.  From the barbaric, as in the case of ISIS, to the ignorant or malicious, as in the multiple cases of self-declared experts in the Islamic faith.  Here follows some examples of the latter breed.

• Thomas Friedman declares recently in his Op. Ed column in the New York Times that "there is no real Islam."  Tom: There is, especially if you become at least versed in Muslim culture and the Arabic language.
• A so-called security expert on TV channel MSNBC (liberal) appeared on February 17 to make a startling declaration.  On the reputable talk show of Chris Matthews, that security expert has an incredible explanation for ISIS beheadings and immolation.  He declares that "it is important to remember that Islam spread by violence and the sword."  No, Mr. Expert!!  Islam does not recognize "offensive war."  Only self-defense is permissible, as in every other legal tradition.
• In regard to the air bombing by Egypt and the Emirates of ISIS in Libya, CNSNews.com carries a startling report on February 17.  "The United States does not support Egyptian and Emirati air strikes against Islamist militias in Libya."  Amazing!!  On the one hand, how can Egypt and its allies not forcefully respond to the massacre at its western borders of 21 Egyptian Christian citizens?  On the other hand, Washington, D.C. does not dictate Egyptian sovereign decisions, nor has Cairo ever interfered with US drone attacks in Yemen, 15000 miles away from D.C. 
• A statement of condolences was issued on February 17 by the Egyptian Consulate-General in New York.  It reflected Egypt's reasons for national mourning, and added: "We emphasize that that heinous act perpetrated at the hands of terrorism in Libya shall not weaken the unity or the stability of our homeland.  On the contrary.  Such barbarism shall only enhance Egypt's determination to uproot terrorism.

It is gratifying to note that there are also American voices of sanity reflective of a sympathetic understanding of Islam.  Even prior to the assassination of 3 Muslim students in the Carolinas, a well-known cartoonist in Arizona, Steven Benson contributed to the on-going debate on Islam and global security in a very impacting cartoon.  In the Arizona Republic, Mr. Benson published two frames: One with ISIS operatives clad in black, with swords raised; the other with anti-Afro-American Ku Klux Klan (KKK) clad in white with burning crosses.  The captions reflected the whole debate objectively through comparison.  Benson wrote: "ISIS is to Islam what these guys are to Christianity."

So please, Don Quixote Ordogan: Feel free to raise your hand in "the Rabaa salute" (four fingers) anytime you wish.  It reminds us not only of the defunct Muslim Brotherhood.  It also reminds us of the Nazi salute.  The only difference is that the Nazi salute kept the five fingers of the raised hand together.  In your Rabaa salute, I am puzzled as to where you hid the missing finger.  

You too, Sultan Ordogan is among the latest and meanest aberrations in the enduring Islamic faith.

Looking for ISIS Enablers? Find Some of Them Among Egyptian Editors

Ironically, some of Egypt's editorialists are in effect ISIS enablers.  Whether through malice or ignorance, they advocate a Cairo surrender!!  On the top of the great Muhammad Ali's Mosque, they, in effect, are advocating that El-Sisi should hoist an impossibility -a white flag.  The army which dared cross the Suez Canal in 1973 to destroy the Bar Lev Line and reclaim Sinai from Israeli occupation is not likely to heed Egypt's editorialists.

The attacks in northern Sinai by Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis (Friends of Jerusalem) may go on for a while.  Their terror warfare, though resulting on January 29 in massacring 30 army personnel and civilians, may go on for a while.  But with each passing day, Egypt's huge military establishment learns from experience.  Its response to the friends of ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming more sophisticated.

The pointed advocacy for surrender to global terror is in fact causing massive retaliation, especially through a widening the territorial buffer.  Hamas is bottled up in Gaza, and its calls for a Rafah Crossing bonanza are no more than exhalations of desperation.  You cannot hurt Egypt and, at the same time, issue deceiving proclamations of a Gazan-Egyptian brotherhood.

That crossing might one day be a bridge between Egypt and an independent State of Palestine.  For now, Hamas is no more than an Islamist rebellion against a putative State of Palestine.  Perhaps one day it shall submit to commonality with Egypt in recognition of a State of Israel.  You cannot deny, as Hamas Charter does, "the right of any Jew to an inch of Palestine," and call yourself a credible member of the international community.  Hamas should learn the basics.

Now to Egypt's editorialists -its adversaries from within.

• A genius by the name of Dr. Mahmoud Khalil mocks his country's renewal of the emergency law in northern Sinai for another 3 months.  That professor at the Faculty of Public Information of the prestigious Cairo University is stupidly sarcastic without cause.  He claims, through his empty suit, that "the military attacks (by Ansar) proves the inability of the present authorities to deal with the situation in Sinai."
• In his column (WATANTAN) of January 31, in Al-Watan newspaper, he sounds nearly gleeful.  From his comfort zone in Cairo, he opines more blatant imbecilities.  "Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis which carried the operation at Karm Al-Qawadees (northern Sinai) has augmented its lethal power many folds, while the opposing security forces have a diminishing prowess."
• Professor Khalil: Do yourself and Egypt a favor: learn the art of evidence!!  Have you counted?  Or does your measure rest on the mere ability to remotely explode a car laden with explosives, or sacrifice an ignorant suicide bomber?  Have you ever learnt anything from the ample lessons of terror warfare?  Apparently none!!

So you go on to call on the Egyptian government to abandon its legitimate warfare, come out from its fox holes with hands raised in the air, an declare, to quote your comic phrase: "We are a failure!!"  You should abandon your classroom and come out confessing your abject failure to even comprehend, let alone to "teach," a new generation of holders of degrees in public information degrees.

Turning now to Fahmy Howedy, an Islamist writer in Al-Shorooq of January 31.  He, apparently without any previous experience in military intelligence, boldly states: "What happened in Al-Arish, clearly points to significant failure in the gathering of military intelligence."  Sir!!  On what basis have you formed that judgement?  On the basis of its mere happening?

Have you ever been in Sinai?  I don't mean the pleasure spots of Sharm El-Sheikh, Taba and Hurgada.  I mean through the dunes and crevices of a vast province where trees have surrendered their existence to parched rocky hideaways.  I was there.  Several times.  So was my son collecting Sinai plants to discover their medicinal values -a report by a then 16-year old, now deposited with Cornell University.

If you, Mr. Howedy, wants to be an expert in desert warfare (which I personally gained as a UN officer in Algeria during its brutal war of independence) go to the scene.  Get some sands in your boots.  Get a few lessons on Bedouin life, on tribal disconnects, on the sacrifices of our desert troops, on psychological warfare.  Only then could you come back to us.  Proclaiming that "the measure of competence is the ability to sabotage an operation before its happening."  And you call this editorial wisdom?

Then in the language of a defeatist, Mr. Howedy, the Islamist guru of Al-Shoraaq, goes on saying: "Have the measures taken in Sinai diminished the threat of terrorism or enhanced it?  The operations undertaken by Ansar are performed with a high level of professionalism while the counter operations are rudimentary and are attributed by the government to the Muslim Brotherhood."

Mr. Howedy: Is that what your pearls of wisdom are all about?  Well, if you call raids by Apache helicopters, and the unremitting pursuit of terrorism in Asian Egypt rudimentary, this forces me to call you a simpleton!!  The term is defined as "foolish; gullible; a half-witted person."  The terror operations chain of custody couldn't be clearer -from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas to Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis to ISIS.  If you, Mr. Editorialist, cannot make that linkage, it is not surprising that the Brotherhood cells in Egypt and abroad draw comfort from your editorials.  So does Qatar, Turkey, Al-Jazeera TV, and the sheet called Al-Quds Al-Arabi, especially that of February 2.

Now to our editorialists as cartoonists.  Helmy Al-Tooni glorifies in the creation of a cartoon in the newspaper Al-Tahrir of February 1.  The cartoon by that Nasserite artist depicts Egypt as a bride in her wedding gown; flowers held tightly by her right arm; tears streaming her lovely youthful face; pyramids in the background.  An arrow has struck her heart.  With blood streaming, she bemoans the Egyptian leadership's presumed failure to protect, Bride Egypt, says: "Whoever married me must be able to protect me!!"

In support of this fallacy, another grossly misleading argument is advanced.  Another editorialist by the name of Assem Hanafi makes a fanciful claim: "The Muslim Brotherhood is armed with a domestically-manufactured bombs which they are at liberty to explode at any time, and at any place."

With this deluge of non-thinking editorializing by well-known writers within Egypt is it any wonder that that defeatism has infected foreign correspondents?  David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times, who is pre-disposed to constant attacks against the elected President of Egypt, El-Sisi, pushes the envelope even further.  On January 30, he, together with Merna Thomas, proclaims  to the world a habitual epitaph for Egypt's ability to confront terrorism.

In a lead paragraph, they both assert a misleading fantasy.  The Sinai terror operations are made to be unlike what is happening all over the world.  Those operations, they preach, are "prompting fears that the Egyptian government's campaign of home demolitions, curfews and sweeping arrests has failed to choke off a budding insurgency there!!"  Then they quote from their already predisposed habitual sources.

From Khalil Al-Anani of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies -a so-called expert in extremism, they produce a quotation.  Al-Anani says: "The insurgency is getting stronger and stronger, and the government's strategy is a failure."  And from Tamara Cofman Wittes, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, another defeatist is quoted.  She opines that: "It is clear that this extremely coercive approach is not working."  

I wonder what Ms. Wittes, a former deputy assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs is comparing the defensive/offensive Egyptian measures to.  With the existence in the U.S. of 50,000 private security firms?  With the uncontrolled gun possession in the U.S. of 300 million had guns, a gun per person in America?  With the unremitting U.S. campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and through the U.S. Africa military command?

Where has objective measuring of the advance in global counter-terrorism gone?  Apparently nowhere.  Except for a false focus on Egypt which is fighting on two broad fronts: Terrorism and the economy.

The icing on the cake should now be reserved to David Hearst.

In the World Post he surpasses all the above-cited doom-sayers.  He, as if through a bull-horn, shouts: "Egypt is more unstable than ever, with full-scale military operations in the Sinai and mass protests around the country that never seem to die down."  Last time I checked, I found unfortunately that the "mass protests in that never seen to die down," are in his own backyard: In Furgeson, Missouri.  Incredible.

Shouldn't the likes of Kirkpatrick, Al-Anani, Wittes and Hearst spend sometime learning that their doomsday chants about the New Egypt are akin to mere sound echo at the Grand Canyon?  The ABC of wisdom in today's international strategic studies is to shun combat predictions and to keep the U.S. safe from the unintended consequences of intrusiveness in the internal affairs of other States.

This is especially poignant when it comes to the New Egypt.  Post-Islamist Egypt has charted a course toward "The Strong State."  No room for an Islamization by the defunct Muslim Brotherhood.  Give it a rest, folks: Morsi.  This is in spite of an unfortunate reception accorded recently by the U.S. State Department to his acolytes, calling themselves the "Egyptian Revolutionary Council."

Those in D.C. who accorded that group a false sense of recognition should wake up to the realities of a possible Cairo - D.C. rapprochment.  On this point, let us cite the New York Times.

Written by David Brooks, a conservative with Republican party leanings, he, under the title of "Being Who We Are," says:

"The Middle East is not a chessboard we have the power to manipulate.  It is a generational drama in which we can only play our role.  It is a drama over ideas, a contest between forces of jihadism and the forces of pluralism.  We can't know how this drama will play out, and we can't direct it.  We can only promote pluralism -steadily, consistently, simply."

Well said Mr. Brooks.  From the Islamic reign of terror in Egypt, under the Morsi regime, a great lesson has been learnt.  The Muslim Brotherhood, a determined adversary of pluralism, was given a historic chance which they miserably squandered.  ISIS, their related organization, declared through The Friends of Beit Al-Maqdis, Sinai as an ISIS Emirate.  How brain dead can you get!!

Once more, we see the devilish features of ISIS and its new franchises clearly in the mirror of assassinating the Jordanian pilot and the two Japanese hostages.  These features inspire this invocation addressed to all those who predict failure of the efforts of Egypt in Sinai and other related combat activities against ISIS waged at present by the international coalition.  

Our invocation is: May those who predict failure in the elimination of Jihadism everywhere have their heads examined, their voices stilled, their ink running dry, and their predictions proving as false as their pitiful understanding of this global war of values!!

In this information warfare, the primitiveness of Egyptian editors is staggering.

How Satanic!! A Massacre in Paris Masquerades As Islamic!!

How can that be?!  A pair of desperadoes, French citizens of Algerian dissent, with Kalashnikov rifles massacre 12 co-citizens on January 7, claiming vengeance for Islam!!  What Islam are they mouthing?  And how can January 7, 2015 be different from 9/11?  Except in the number of martyred fatalities!!

The despicable crime against "Charlie Hebdo," a satirist magazine which I have never seen, caused the bullets to ricochet!!  As stones skipping on water in a pond, the ricochet has hit Islam itself!!  There is no faith on the face of this earth that can cover this naked aggression against humanity.

Massacres of any type are acts of madness.  They are extra-judicial; collective punishment; crime against humanity!!  Charlie Hebdo is the face of humanity.  The offending brothers are the face of real evil!!

From the Armenian massacre by the Ottoman Turks during World War I; to the Jewish massacre by the Nazis during World War II; to the Shii and Kurdish massacres by Saddam!!  Three faiths united by a common bond: death for believing, though faith is non-negotiable!!  In each of these cases, a fictitious high ground is claimed by the perpetrators.  Clear illustration of the toxic combination of faith and politics, producing neither faith nor politics which are defined as "the art of the possible."

Again to "Charlie Hebdo:" Cartoons are not cartridges.  They are cartouches which included Charles De Gaulle, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Muhammad.  They did nothing to change a belief, not even by one inch!!  The rules of war in Islamic law call for "proportionality."  A gun in the hand of an assassin who is not even a warrior is not the same as a pencil in the hand of a cartoonist. 

The ignominy has not been brought upon Islam and its Prophet by those murdered journalists.  But the Kalashnikov guns have caused anxious questioning about the faith of 1.5 billion Muslims.  In true Islamic parlance: "only God Protects Faith."  Instead, infamy has been again brought upon the term "Muslim."  Confirming the saying by the late Egyptian philosopher, Abbas Mahmoud El-Akkad.  "No imperialism has hurt Islam more than by the hands of its ignorant adherents."

That ignorance lies like sleeping or in active cancer cells in the various crevices which hold nearly hidden truths:

• In Sharia (Islamic Law) the martyr is not the suicide bomber.  It is his victim: an uninvolved civilian;
• In Islamic tradition, an immigrant must respect the laws of his new abode.   His new abode cannot be the arena for his practices;
• In real governance, faith and the State cannot be interchangeable.  Faith is a choice; governance is an organized mechanism for communal life;
• In Sharia, there is no proslytization; no missionary endeavours; no in your face conversion;
• In Islamic Law, there are the Quran, the Sunna, and ijtihad (reason where the text is absent or unclear).  In ijtihad, there is a special jurisprudence: "Fiqh Al-Maslaha" (public interest);
• By definition, "Sharia is for everywhere and every place."  Here lies a total misunderstanding.  This does not mean imposition.  It means adjustment in application to suit changing circumstances;
• It is legally wrong to have several states in America banning lawyers like me from citing Sharia in their courts as a source of law.  The ban is unconstitutional.  But the blame from that Islamophobia lies at the door of jihadism;
• By tradition, Muhammed laughed in his councils at the joviality of drunken Arabs;
• In Islamic Law, an "infidel" does not mean a "non-Muslim;" it means a person without values;
• In Islamic jurisprudence, no one has the authority to declare others as "apostates;" that judgement belongs only to the Creator; no room for an ISIS or other jihadi scum; no middleman, no broker, no commission in terms of a religious credit;
• In Islam, the term "Holy War" does not exist.  Jihad is an internal self-improvement and self-defense of territory and faith in case of external aggression.  The State, not free lancers, has the monopoly on the use of force.

Might I also have been in the cross-hairs of those depraved assassins?  Possibly!!  Well; my recently republished novel in Arab is entitled "An Impostor In the Village."  It was originally authored and published in 1948 in Cairo.  Its republication in 2014 has an Arab Spring reason.  The novel's message is that the manipulation of faith for sordid ends produces catastrophic results.  Thus by implication, the novel depicts the conduct of the Muslim Brotherhood in the two Egyptian Revolutions: January 25, 2011, and June 30, 2013. 

In both cases, while the Brotherhood was misunderstood in America as a legitimate opposition, its advocacy and practice of terrorism forced El-Sisi Administration to declare them a terrorist cabal.  Secularism won over the Islamists because Egypt of 100 million has a secular and Muslim/Coptic DNA without which the country is non-recognizable.

In its historic document of August 2011, Al-Azhar, that Cairo citadel of more than 1000 years of moderate Islamic learning, responded to the ongoing confrontation everywhere between secularism and religionism (excessive religious zeal).  One of its eleven principles, all cosponsored by the Egyptian Coptic Church, declared in effect: "Islam does not recognize a State based solely on religion."  This explains why El-Sisi on January 1, chose Al-Azhar as his pulpit from which to call for "a religious revolution."

The killers at Charlie Hebdo cried "Allahu Akbar!!"  Their war cry belied the huge distance between them and Sharia.  For that term, "God is Great," means only one thing: We are all equal, in the eyes of God, regardless of our faith or non-faith.  They missed that crevice.  And hit the wrong target.

The real Muslims in the Charlie tragedy are the French police officer, Ahmed, a Muslim.  Executed outside of the scene of the murder en masse, on a Paris pavement as he laid injured, but representing the valor of his professions.  His execution recalled to mind a young Indian Muslim girl, Noor Enayat Khan, a French heroine of World War II.  Dropped behind Nazi lines in occupied France to coordinate Morse Code signals in aid of the Resistance, she, a Sufi, was executed in 1944 in a Nazi concentration camp.  Both Noor and Ahmed are the face of true Islam.  So is the Muslim who helped hide jews inside a non-functioning freezer from massacre by a cohort of the assassins at Hebdo at that Kosher deli at the outskirts of Paris.

In Algeria, in the early 1960s, I saw amity between the FLN and the French army outside Oran.  De Gaulle has sanctioned my entry into Algeria as UN Porte Parole (spokesman) toward the end of that war for Algerian independence.  I was a UN junior officer, an Egyptian who spoke French.  De Gaulle hated Nasser, but welcomed French-speaking Egyptians.  There, east of Oujda and in Tlemcen, I saw Algerian and French combatants become brothers.  That was the age of Houari Boumedienne, not the age of the bottom of the barrel, the evil brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi.

Pity the conflicting reactions from the Muslim world to the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  It pains me to translate into English those condemnations into Arabic.  Following the Paris massacre, Sarkosi, former French President, admonished against "mixing between that crime and French Muslims" (5 million of them; 8% of France's population).  Rouhani of Iran blamed the crime on Islamophobia encouraged by France.  "President Rouhani: Blaming the victim for the commission of the crime is like blaming the woman victim of rape for the violation of her womanhood."

The guiding light for the assassins at Charlie Hebdo is Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi -the false Caliph of ISIS, a thug from Anbar, Iraq.  The guiding light for the real Muslims, a vast majority, is Salah El-Din.  "Saladin" in the midst of war welcomed St. Francis of Asisi as a peace-maker between the Muslims forces and their crusading adversary.

France welcomed Muslims to its territory, including the parents of those assassins.  Citizenship is a bestowed right, not an inherent right.  Its violation is an act of treachery.  That violation is not redeemable by self-help: individuals assuming the mantle of avengers.

"Muhammed: We have avenged you, Messenger of God" -yelled one of the two killers of 10 French journalists and two police officers.  Guess what -Mr. Blood-on-Your-Hands: Muhammad and his Ummah (community) would never sanction your massacre masquerading as Islamic.  For it is pure Satanic!!

I am a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at a Jesuit law school in New York City -Fordham University School of Law.  My father, a graduate of Al-Azhar in Cairo, introduced me properly to the Prophet Muhammad.  From my specialization I conclude the following: To Muhammmed, terrorism would have been a denial of Allah -the God of all.

In the Quran, it is said in the name of Muhammad, addressing his community: "Say: 'I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me that your God is One God' (Chapter 18;verse 110).  This is the essence of "Tawheed" (the onness of God).  This universalizing principle unites faiths of all types together.  It is like a golden thread that keeps a necklace of pearls together.  From the smallest to the biggest adorning the neck of every human being.

The first word in the Quran is "IQRA" -whose surface meaning is "READ;" but its comprehensive meaning is "LEARN."  The problem with the villains of January 7 is that they live in a bubble of ignorance.

Their like-minded terrorists in Nigeria, who have just massacred 2000 in one incursion, adopted the name of "Boko Haram" (western learning is un-Islamic.)  By contrast the Prophet Muhammad urged his community to seek education -"even in China," his farthest point from Arabia.

While the Ottoman Empire avoided non-Muslim trainers, thus hastening its collapse, Egypt under Muhammad Ali (the founder of modern Egypt: 1805 -1849) nearly occupied Constantinople in 1839/1840.  Reason: French training in every field, from the army to archeology, since the days of Napoleon in Egypt as of 1798!!  

When Khomeini was chased out of his sanctuary in Iraq by Saddam as urged by the Shah after 1975, his refuge was in France.  It could, therefore, be safely said that the Islamic revolution in Iran, a shii majority country, was launched from France, the mother of "the freedom of speech" (liberte de l'expression).

Nearly a hundred years before Khomeini's Islamic revolution, France was the birthplace of even a more pervasive Islamic movement.  Led by two of the greatest reformers, Jamal El-Din Al-Afghani and Muhammad Abdu, who were united in Paris, it aimed at Islamic modernization.  

Upon his return from Paris to Alexandria, well before his death in 1905, Sheikh Muhmmad Abdu was greeted at the pier by a group of reporters.  He was asked "How did you find the West?"  His answer fully reflected the values of France's protection of personal liberties.  Akin to what Islam calls for, though ignored in the practice by most countries of the Muslim world.  His words eternalized by the ages, especially in this age of chaos were: "I found Islam there, and the Muslims here!!"  An emphasis on value as compared to superficial belonging.

Now that we all are "Charlie Hebdo," and you, the three assassins, have already reached hell, use your hotline with a sizzling message.  Text jihadis everywhere: "Your end is near.  The pen is mightier than the Kalashnikovs!!"  A lasting advice from "Charlie's Angels" who are now rushing to get a copy of the million copies of the incredible "Hebdo!!"

Your satanic acts in which 17 innocent victims were martyred made Paris on January 11 the capital of the world.  At that one-million person rally, the Muslims marched with signs declaring "Not In My Name!!"  NOT IN MY NAME EITHER!!

After 6 Months of El-Sisi Presidency - An Egyptian Version of "Yes - We Can!!"

It was one of the highlights of my ten-days of stay in Egypt in December.  Guest of Hajj Yousri Nagy and his family.  The inauguration of the Passenger's Terminal of the Hurghada Airport on the Red Sea.  An iconic event celebrating the return of the Egyptian spirit of patriotism and the desire to excel.  After all, the inheritors of the land of the Pharaohs were saying, in response to an El-Sisi impromptu speech, "Yes - We Can."

Egypt is, after all, a land of symbolism.  Its edifices convey an uninterrupted recorded history of 7000 years.  From the Pyramids and the Sphinx, to the Hanging Coptic Church where the Holy Family hid from persecution.  From the Muhammad Ali Mosque, a symbol of an Egypt moving ahead of a dying Ottoman Empire, to the new Suez Canal where water is expected to flow this February, creating two Suez Canals -each a one-way global waterway.

It is a confident Egypt, in search of a new age of progress through science and technology, in search of 13 million tourists a year, in search of pivoting to the East to end vestiges of dependency on the West, and in search of assertive secularism over the non-content Islamism of the Brotherhood which dupes its adherents by the fiction of being a Muslim Brotherhood.

Throughout this 10-day period of stay in Cairo, I was able to discern tangible evidence of the framework of the New Egypt after only six months of El-Sisi presidency.  No -I am not in anybody's pay!!

"Tahya Misr" (Long Live Egypt) is the new motto which reflects a post-revolutionary focus on Egypt itself.  No more ideological preoccupation with non-Egyptian issues under an inarticulate banner of "Arab nationalism."

With the Egyptian economy in a sorrowful state, coupled with terroristic attacks targeting Sinai, Egypt is forging an eastern axis with Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States (all sources of generous capital infusions eclipsing any US aid), plus Jordan.

That axis has a central global mission: combating ISIS and other barbaric marauders.  It requires coordination with Cairo, an Arab wing of the Anti-ISIS international coalition.  Hence a twenty-one gun salute greeted El-Sisi this December upon his arrival at the Amman airport.  Units of the proud Jordanian Arab army strutted to the tunes of bagpipes as El-Sisi and King Abdulla II saluted.

In mid December, a two-day conference sponsored by "Dar Al-Tahrir" and publicised under El-Sisi name, was organized as "The Anti-Terrorism Conference."  It was addressed by Egyptian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mahlab who declared that "those who seek to transfer their terror trade to Egypt shall fail.  For Egyptian culture, and all shades of Egyptian public opinion, confront terrorism through a culture of religious moderation and of total support of the army and the police as they daily combat that scourge."

The broad representation at that conference of the Cabinet at the ministerial level was indicative of the variety of official contributions to that globalized the historic task of terrorism containment.  The ministers of interior, energy, supply, religious affairs, communication, local development, culture, oil, transitional justice, and the presidential advisor on national security.

The conference targeted five fronts through which anti-terrorism should be tackled.  Aside from the military blunt instrument, there are other tasks: improvement of public services; continuation of Al-Azhar's efforts to rebut the misguided notions of extremists; bettering the advocacy of religious tolerance through mosques and churches; revamping the educational curricula at all levels; and monitoring groups and associations which advocate exclusion.

More anti-terrorism conferences: This time by joint co-sponsorship by Al-Azhar and the Coptic church.  Headed by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Dr. El-Tayib, and Pope Toadros, their respected voices were raised to stress that there is absolutely no conflict between Islam and Christianity.  The conferees denounced the mixing between the barbarism of terrorism and Islam, a faith of moderation and tolerance.  While terrorism, the conference noted, seeks the expulsion of Copts from their homeland, Islam does not decree jihad except for self-defense and repelling aggression against faith and country.  Its exercise is the monopoly of governments, not of free-lancers.  In this regard, there is no difference between ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Friends of Jerusalem, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  They are all links in the same satanic chain.

Now the thrust of external Egyptian foreign policy beyond the Arab homeland is in the direction of containment of Turkish Islamism, as exercised imperially by Ordogan.  This seems to be the knob of Egyptian focus on the Mediterranean, which is marked by espousal of Athens, Nicosia, Italy and France.  An epitome of diversification when seen through the Egyptian "NACH OST" (thrust toward the East).  Witness the forthcoming visit by Putin to Cairo.

As a tenet of this diversification of the New Egypt's foreign policy is the sidelining of Ordogan of Turkey as a delusional master of an uncertain destiny.  It is a quiet assault on the neo-Ottomanism which sees the Muslim Brotherhood as a loyal opposition.  Only idiots may assess the blood-thirsty Brotherhood as a democratizing force.

Aside from the big picture, the new normal, the New Egypt is forging ahead:

• The Giza Zoo is full of visitors, especially entire families;
• The trains are running; the buses are again crowded;
• Thousands of customers are crowding little shops selling produce, fruits, as well as housewares, all made in Egypt;
• Syrians are not herded into refugee camps, but are fully integrated within a welcoming Egyptian society;
• Restaurants are busy serving all types of cuisine;
• Tourists are back, with some of them taking pictures through their apps even with President El-Sisi;
• International conferences are being held in Cairo and elsewhere;
• The name of a Copt recently martyred by terror gangs in Sinai Kyrollos is now given to, a primary school in the province of Sharkia where the 29th Pharaonic family held sway in Tal Basta -a mere 3 miles from my village -Kanayat.

Conclusion: El-Sisi summed up the surge of new energy in the New Egypt: "The era of regimes is gone.  The era of 'The Egyptian State' has begun."