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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

Because the Brotherhood were standing on a false platform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Grip of Middle Eastern Chaos, Even Lying Becomes a Challenge!!

A lie is an intentional false statement.

This is not in praise of lying.  It is in demonstrating that the Arabs, while in the grip of total chaos, cannot even lie well.  The examples are endless.  So we shall offer here limited samples.  Samples of both lies and chaos.

"The Houthis in Yemen are Iranian agents."  A lie!!  The war in Yemen is an inter-tribal event.  The north is tribal and Houthi dominated.  The south is developed and wants to split from the north.  I authored for the World Bank a study on Yemen and judicial reform.

"Islam is of two kinds: Sunni and Shii."  A lie!!  There is a difference between faith and ice cream.  Faith is in the heart; ice cream is on the tongue.  Faith does not come in flavors: Sunni and Shii.  Ice cream comes in many flavors.  The Sunni-Shii thing is a mere cover for a fight 1400 years ago on who is the rightful successor (Khalifa) of Muhammad.  My present authorship of a biography in English on Ali evidences that his partisans (Shiis) have a logical claim.  Does such a claim in regard to succession make of the Shias apostates?  Nonsense.

"Iran has claimed for itself Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa, not as Arab capitals of independent Arab States, but as under Tehran hegemony."  A lie!!  That statement was never uttered by Tehran as an official statement.  It was a statement by an unofficial person who felt a bit of Persian triumphalism which means nothing.

"Hezbollah is a credible counter-weight to Israel's military might."  A lie!!  Yes Hezbollah stood its ground in 2006 in spite of Israeli huge pounding.  But standing its ground, and gaining grounds are two different proposals.  I wonder with amazement how the intervention by Hezbollah on the side of a killer called Al-Assad can help the cause of Hezbollah in either Lebanon or in the Palestinian/Israeli confrontation.

"Saddam should have been left to rule over Iraq securing its territorial unity."  A lie!!  Like Bashar of today, killer Saddam merely kept the lid on a boiling pot through resort to genocide against both the Kurds and the Shias.  I was in Iraq six times after the American war of choice on Iraq.  I have never met either a Kurd or a Shia or a Sunni who lamented his disappearance.

"The Egypt of El-Sisi, in its closure of the Rafah Crossing, is depriving the Gazans from even breathing."  A lie!!  Rafah is not a toll booth on a highway between Gaza and El-Arish in Sinai.  If the Gazans want access to Sinai, let them convince Hamas to abandon its Charter.  Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, while Hamas claims that not one grain of sand in historic Palestine should be claimed by the Jews.

"The Yemen war is a trap manufactured by the US to weaken Saudi Arabia."  A lie!!  Who in his right mind would expect the U.S. to encourage the Houthis to threaten Saudi Arabia and the security of the sea lanes to and from Suez?  And please make up your mind: Are the Houthis pawns of Iran or pawns of America?  They cannot be both.  Why?  Because they are neither.

"The Arab United Armed Forces has little support in the Arab world."  A lie!!  First, at the Arab Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh in late March, reservations were made about it by only four Arab States: Iraq, Qatar, Lebanon, and Algeria.  That is four out of a total of 21 States.  Second: No poll has been conducted in the Arab world about that.  Third: The Arabs have been hungering for a rebirth of the League of Arab States.  The coalition, as led by Saudi Arabia, is voluntary and its sphere of action is confined to limited engagements.

"ISIS is everywhere and its territorial gains are increasing, covering an area from Nigeria to Pakistan."  A lie!!  Just look at the map.  No territorial contiguity for ISIS.  Except in the no-man lands north-east of Syria and north-west of Iraq.  I was in Anbar, Iraq.  No border markers in that open desert.  Pledges of fealty to ISIS from various corners of the Arab/Muslim huge expanse are largely video fantasies intended for psychological warfare.

"El-Sisi is losing the adulation of large sectors of the Egyptian public."  A lie!! The popular bang at the beginning of his presidency is now translated to nation-building inside Egypt.  Thanks God, there are no high profile Nasser-like excursions about Egypt being "the leader of the Arab world."  Egypt should always be pre-occupied with Egypt.  The enormous mountains of need have to gradually come down in terms of meeting the basic needs of 100 millions.  Nearly a third of the Arab world.

"The Muslim Brotherhood has a huge  influence over Washington, D.C."  A lie!!  One photo op at the U.S. State Department does not arise to the level of a Brotherhood lobby in the U.S. Capital.  The fact remains that US media, thanks to correspondents like David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times in Cairo, has kept a drumbeat regarding the June 30 Revolution being a coup.  But the recent actions by the Obama administration which released lethal armament to Egypt shows a disconnect.  Except in the case of Israel, US media and policy considerations in America are mostly not directly related.

"The Egyptian judiciary, in dealing with cases of detainees, whether Egyptian or non-Egyptian, is a political tool of El-Sisi government."  A lie!!  Egypt's judiciary is immunized from such pressures.  Admittedly, mass sentences do not usually accord with the proper law of evidence.  But as a whole, if you are caught even as a bystander at an illegal demonstration (no license), you might be presumed guilty. After all, presence is a form of participation.

"The use of Egyptian armed forces outside of Egypt is contrary to the Constitution of 2014."  A lie!!  First, read that Constitution.  No such provisions in it.  Second, national defense does not stop at the national border.  Third, there is the Arab Defense Pact of 1950, an inter-Arab treaty without Arab borders.

"For Egypt, the present Yemen War is a repeat of the Yemen War of 1962-1968."  A lie!!  In the 1960's, Nasser acted on his own, by throwing Egypt's armed forces in the oven of an inter-tribal civil war.  The goal was to vanquish Arab monarchies in favor of Arab republicanism.  Egypt suffered massive defeat and further antagonized Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf States, Jordan and Iran of the Shah.  This time, in 2015, Egypt's involvement is through a decision of the Sharm El-Sheikh Arab Summit.  And clear Egyptian national interest in the security of the Suez and the Gulf are implicated.

"Iran has always been an enemy of America."  A lie!!  The U.S. intervened in Iranian internal affairs by toppling Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953.  In his place, America helped re-install the Shah against popular will.  The lesson to be learnt by all, including Iran and the U.S. of today, is: intervention in the internal affairs of other States shall always backfire.  Under international law, Iran of the Ayatollahs is entitled to freely manage its own internal affairs.  But no revolution for hegemony is exportable.

"The Secretary-General of "Khorasan," a terrorist militia organization active in Iraq, announced that they recognize only Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Republic of Iran."  A compounded lie.  First: Khorasan confuses between shiism and "the Rule by the Jurist" (Wilayet Al-Faqih).  The Rule by the Jurist came into vogue only with Khomenei in 1979.  Second: Khorasan, which claims that the Islamic world is borderless, manifests utter ignorance.  Admission to UN membership and regional organization is one of many indications of border legitimation.  Third: Khorasan manifests ignorance of the term "Islamic Umma."  In Islamic jurisprudence, "Umma" does not mean "nation."  It means "community."  

Conclusion: In the midst of massive chaos in the Arab world, even lying becomes a challenge!!  These lies must have been produced by amateurs!!  Engaged in hashish smoking!!

The New Egypt Notion of a New Arab Nation

One of the great novels in Arabic is "The Return of the Spirit" (Awdat El-Roah), by Tawfik Al-Hakim.  In this blog posting, I shall borrow his title for a contemporary context.  Namely the return to the Arab Nation of its spirit.  Enunciated by El-Sisi as Chairman of the recent Arab Summit of late March in Sharm El-Sheikh, Sinai, Egypt.

Closing his inaugural summit speech before all top representatives of 22 States, members of the League of Arab States, minus one -Syria, the Egyptian President, three times intoned: "Long Live the Arab Nation."  An apt reminder that after 4 years of the Arab Spring uprisings, the Arab world was discovering, in Egypt, the broad lines of an Arab concordat.

It is therefore a time for outlining the notion now held by the most populous Arab State, Egypt, of the newly resurrected Arab Nation.  Adversity, like need, breeds reinvention.  The Arab adversity has been the destructive side of the Arab Spring.  Fear has gripped "the Arab World." Now after the Declaration of Sharm El-Sheikh of March 29, 2015, it has been renamed "The Arab Nation."

The wave of fear began to thunder from barbaric terrorism.  Its gusts were submerging the Arab identity.  Arab capitals, namely, Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa, were being renamed by extremist Iranian triumphalists as "cities within the Persian Empire."  Persian versus Arab has become current lingo.

The issue here was misunderstood by the Western media as sectarianism (Sunni vs. Shii).  Wrong characterization.  It was Farsi vs. Arab.  And the Arabs were insulted by it.  Said "Amre Musa," former Secretary-General of the League of Arab States: "I have never felt so insulted in my whole political life."

As Sanaa was being run over by the Houthis, supported by Iranian funds and arms, the Arab leadership, including the exiled Yemeni President, Abdu Rabbut Mansour Hadi, hurried to the Arab summit at Sharm El-Sheikh.  They were in search, not for identity, but for affirmation of what to do about refurbishing their ID.

Saudi Arabia led the purposeful parade; the Gulf States coalesced, including Qatar; El-Sisi and his team, together with the institutional host, the League of Arab States, prepared the ground work; the Saudi air campaign which brought together an Arab Coalition of 9 other States was disrupting the Houthis advance towards Aden; and a revitalized Arab Nation was taking shape, pushing back against what a third of a billion Arabs perceived to be a revival of a massive inter-cultural clash with Tehran.  A clash with massive geo-strategic dimensions.

So what were the policy ingredients of Cairo's notion of a New Arab Nation?  These ingredients are still not receiving a unanimous vote of support from the other 20 Arab capitals.  Nonetheless, the broad framework is emerging.  Its shape is crystallizing along the following lines:

• Egypt now describes itself as "The Home of the Arab Family ."  A softer definition and a lesser involvement, and at a much lesser cost than "The Arab Leader."  The Nasserite ideology has become a museum piece;
• Recognition that the primary challenge facing the New Arab Nation is not ISIS, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda, or Al-Nusra.  Egypt, especially now with the release of previously-withheld US offensive armament, is confident of its combative efforts on these transitory fronts.  
• The main challenge is posed by outside neighborly powers (Iran; Turkey) whose regimes are looking westward, in the case of Iran, and eastward, in the case of Turkey.  "The cultural war" is no longer a term which is reserved to "a religious revolution;" it has been expanded into a confrontationist term which is backed not only by sermons, but by swords as well;
• "The New Arab Nation" is regarded as an amalgam of various faiths, creeds, allegiances and manners of worship.  The reference to a "Muslim Nation" seems, at present, to denote a Sunni/Shii amalgam where Al-Azhar, Kufa, Karbala, Najaf, and Qom shall continue to hold religious sway.  Within that concept of Arabism, the attacks on Christians, especially after the Libyan massacre of the Copts, have become attacks on Arabism.  For Egypt, at least, there can be no more repetition of the attacks on the All-Saints Church in Alexandria on the eve of celebration of the new year of 2011.
• "The New Arab Nation" is now sounding the alarm regarding the fragmentation in more than one Arab State into Statelets.  Especially in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.  Sectarianism, especially with funding from the outside, is the trojan horse whose objective is to replace the flag of the State by tribes with flags.  El-Sisi at the 26th Arab Summit, described this process as the "kidnapping the homeland."  This call for the need of a coordinated inter-Arab push-back was reiterated by a former Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Muhammad Al-Orabi.  In a speech in Abu Dhabi (the Emirates), he, on March 31, stated: "Today's challenges impose on all Arab States the obligation of interdependency in order to escape the dangers of this bottleneck (of simultaneous challenges)."  Minister Al-Orabi had, on March 1 launched an initiative called "With Our Money We Build Our Army."
• At the Sharm Arab Summit, the League of Arab States was resurrected.  From dormancy to vibrancy, through the decision to create a unified Arab armed force for quick intervention.  No more total dependency on a Western military handout which at times, especially in the case of the U.S., was held hostage to the whims of internal politics.  
• El-Sisi advocated; Saudi Arabia led; the other Gulf States coalesced; air forces were scrambled for a showdown over who rules Yemen: the Houthis and a deposed ruler (Saleh) or the Hadi government which came to power through consensus.
• The Arab summit resolution on a unified Arab military force, adopted toward the end of March, had no non-Arab finger prints on it.  Propelled by real concern for fraud committed on the Arab ID card, it had an old and nearly forgotten foundation: The Arab Defense Pact of 1950.  
• But that was only a part of the legal context.  The Charter of the League of Arab States, set forth in Alexandria in 1945 well before the drafting of the UN Charter, was invoked at Sharm.  And the UN Charter was also cited (by implication Chapter VIII, on regional organizations).
• That Arab expeditionary force, to be created in a few weeks before having the Arab Defense Council issue its birth certificate, has become the center piece of the functioning of the New Arab Nation.  Its creation, declared both the Arab League Secretary-General, Dr. Nabil El-Araby, and Egypt's Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri, was largely due to "unprecedented challenges." 
• That Arab expeditionary force benefits also from a political road map: membership in it is voluntary; not intended as a threat to a neighbor or another Arab State; defensive in nature.  
• However the triple threats of terrorism, fragmentation and external intervention  were cited geographically by President El-Sisi in his inaugural address to the Arab Summit.  These were: Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and Israeli illegal practices in the occupied Palestinian territories.
• Other aspects necessary for the resurrection of a New Arab Nation, were not left out.  All the 21 Arab States (with the Syrian seat remaining vacant for now) addressed complementary issues needed for an Arab national renaissance: economic and social development; emphasis on equality before the law; the role of religious institutions in combating terrorism, the elimination of illiteracy by 2024, and the inclusion of women and youth in the efforts of an Arab Nation now under construction.
• In an interview with "The Voice of Lebanon," Amre Moussa, on March 30, commented as follows: "There are basic strategic considerations behind this regional Arab surge towards coordinated action.  Egypt has also a primordial interest in maritime security in the Red Sea and in the national security of Saudi Arabia."
• In that context El-Sisi's visit to Riyadh in very early March, and the meeting of minds between him and King Salman of Saudi Arabia have laid the ground work for the historic Arab summit held in Sharm.
• The Gulf's financial liquidity, now partly channelled through these new defensive inter-Arab structures, shall make non-Arab financial support to States like Egypt less conditional on meeting the donor's restrictions.

As the British adage goes, "nothing succeeds like success."  The anti-Houthi coalition now count 10 States: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Morocco, the Emirates, anti-Houthi Yemen and the Sudan.  Add also Pakistan, a Muslim non-Arab State.

US logistical and intelligence support to that formidable coalition, to which Egypt offered ground troops, cannot be underestimated.  Nor can the timely action by President Obama removing the weapons freeze against Egypt on March 31.  A thoughtful New York Times reporter, Peter Baker, attributed that action to Washington "seeking to repair relations with a longtime ally (Egypt) at a time of spreading war in the Middle East."

Despite continued terrorist attacks in Sinai, including the human loss by the security forces on April 3, there is one clear indication as to where the forces of destruction, and the forces of the New Arab Nation are heading: The former, downward to extinction, the latter upward to a new rebirth.  It is Easter time.  Like in the bible, the Quran provides that "Christ is Risen."  "The Arabs want to be in that number, when the saints come marching in."

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!!