In Egypt Under Nasser, Nobody Could Open Their Mouth. But Under El-Sisi, Everyone Is A Big Loud Mouth!!

This is the case of "The Islands v. Ignorance." Ignorance compounded by the herd mentality that seeks in nearly every decision by Cairo authorities a cause for a false "cry wolf!!" For Tiran and Sanafir are as Saudis as Sicily is Italian.

Just look at international maps. Because to study history, you have also to study geography. Study the maritime line in the Gulf of Aqabah: It moves north from the Red Sea to Al-Aqabah.

Ras Muhammad to the west; Ras Nusrani to the west (Egyptian territorial waters); Jazirat Tiran and Jazirat Sanafir to the east (Saudi territorial waters); Ash Shaykh Humayd to the east (Saudi mainland; end of a long road from Maan (Jordan) to the north). Then the maritime line ends at Al-Aqabah, north.

The hordes on the Cairo streets (a few hundreds, big deal) were herded there by another area of ignorance -international law. Maritime lines fall in the midpoint between two littoral sovereignties. Saudi Arabia is east of the Gulf of Aqaba; Egypt is west of that Gulf. With territorial waters filling the geographic space in between.

That principle of delimitation of territorial waters was ignored by Saddam. The dividing line in Shatt El-Arab between Iraq and Iran was formalized in Algiers in 1975. Between Saddam and the Shah. Then the Shah made a mistake. Asked Saddam to banish an insignificant cleric, by the name of Khomeini from Iraq. Saddam obliged. Ended with Khomeini establishing "The Islamic Republic of Iran" upon his return from exile in Paris. 

Saddam nullified the Algiers treaty; attacked Iran in 1980 with a nod from America; waged a losing battle for 8 years. And in 2003, after the American unjustified invasion, Saddam was caught in an earthen cave and hanged. And prior to that, the Shah died in Cairo, and was buried with honors.

There is a lesson we teach at US law schools: "Pacta Sunt Servanda." (Pacts Are To Be Kept). In the Quran: "O Ye Faithful, Respect Your Obligations" (Chapter V/Verse 1).

Of course there is a pact between Cairo and Riyadh. The agreement of 1950: The two islands, under Saudi sovereignty, were to be administered and defended by Egypt. The danger was Israeli encroachment south in the waterways. "Administering" does not transfer sovereignty. It means an AMANAH (bailment), entrusted by a bailor (Riyadh) to a bailee (Cairo) until the rightful owner returns to claim that bailment.

Sovereignty is not transferable, as it does not reside in any government. It resides in the body politic (the corpus), the demographic corporation, called "The People." King Salman did not come to Cairo to buy territory. He came to witness the signing of the return of the AMAHAH to his country. And El-Sisi did not surrender Egyptian territory to Salman. Cairo could not keep what it does not own. Otherwise, it would be an occupier, an aggressor against its sister State, Saudi Arabia.

Back to my zones of maximum comfort: international law, history and diplomacy. From these disciplines, I raise the following issues. To the idiots parading their lunacy on Egyptian streets or media, I say:

• Sinai itself was not Egyptian territory until ceded by the Ottoman Empire to Egypt in 1906. That cession transformed Egypt from an African country to an Afro-Asian country. That was only 110 years ago. Just examine the cession agreement. Its delimitation did not jump from Sinai south to the edge of the Arabian peninsula.
• And it does matter that the Saudi State came into being in 1932. Sovereignty does not reside in a regime. The Hashemites, under Ottoman rule, were the regime. 
• Tiran and Sanafir, if not for Egyptian military custodial presence have been uninhabited. The absence of any other form of human life did not transform them to "terra nullius" (land without ownership). There is an owner -a big visible and important owner called The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In fact terra nullius, as a term, exists only in imperial parlance to justify illegal land grabbing. Akin to the Zionist fiction about settling Palestine -"People without land for land without people."
• Rightful Saudi ownership of the two islands has been repeatedly asserted following the Arab/Israel war of 1948.
• These assertions were manifest as Israel occupied the port of "Um Rashrash" (now Eilat); followed by Israeli complaints later at the UN regarding "Egyptian occupation" of the islands.

A mountain of written evidence of Saudi uninterrupted ownership of Tiran and Sanafir is on the record. Including:

• In the law of the Arab economic boycott of Israel, enacted on October 19, 1955; 
• In official Egyptian memoranda to the UK and the US regarding those Arab punitive/defensive measures;
• In the expressed desire later on by Saudi Arabia for the return of its islands to its sovereign fold, as the triggering reason for Egyptian occupation was no more; and
• In the statements by the late Ambassador Muhammad Awad Al-Koni, Egypt's Permanent Representative to the UN at the Security Council. It was on May 27, 1967, a few days before the 1967 war, when Al-Koni stressed that "Egypt has never, at any time, claimed that these two islands were part of its sovereign territory." I was there in the Council chamber when the remarkable diplomat, Al-Koni, in his exquisite French language, and gleaming shiny head, read his historic statement.

So the Saudi/Egyptian agreement of April 2016, regarding a land bridge between the two sister States, was a positive step between two sister-States. Two sovereigns, engaged in inter-Arab economic integration. The very step which the fragmented Arab world needs today in this darkening age of terrorism and fragmentation. Caused primarily by ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their affiliates and terror proxies in Gaza and elsewhere.

The protests raised by Egyptian media qualifying that historic measure of mapping Arab borders on land and in the sea by Arab hands, are utterly repulsive. Shrill voices, from which I select the following utter nonsense dated April 14, 2016:

• In Al-Shorook newspaper, Fahmi Howreidi claims: "The Egyptian side is to blame for national anger. That side is the party which decided to relinquish the two islands and attach them to Saudi sovereignty."
• In "Al-Misriyoun," its Chief Editor Mahmoud Sullam heatedly argues:"How dare President El-Sisi call on us not to dwell upon the islands matter? Are we his pupils or are we in a military encampment?"
• In a crescendo of total absurdity, another so-called writer by the name of Ashraf Al-Barbari claims the prize of "Ignorant Cum Laude." For he attacks the decision on the following idiotic bases: a) sovereignty over the islands should have been arbitrated; b) Friday, April 8, the date of the Saudi/Egyptian agreement should be called Black Friday. Egypt's cession of the islands to Saudi Arabia was a huge shock as it caused young Egyptians to lose their national compass; c) For decades our history books have stressed that no Egyptian territory should be given up. Mr. Al-Barbari: please show us which history books offer this advice which is a total abstraction? Like defining the word "water" by the word "water!!"
• In Al-Masri Al-Youm," Hamdy Rizk calls on the Egyptian Parliament to nullify that agreement in fulfillment of its national obligations. Mr. Rizk: It behooves you to learn that Parliament has no say in purely administrative matters framed within prior accords.
• In "Al-Tahrir," Nasser Arraq claims that the speed of reaching that agreement, without first engaging the public in it before signing on it, manifests utter disregard for the popular will. Sir: This is not a plebiscite!;
• In "Vito,"Abdel-Qadir Shuhaib attacks El-Sisi for "covering up for 8 months" those negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Dismissively he tells El-Sisi to treat Egyptian public opinion with respect as it is unacceptable to conspire against it in a game of deception.

Other media outside of Egypt joined the fray. The New York Times of April 16 reported on the Cairo demonstrations gleefully. It said: It was "an unusual burst of public outrage" because of "an unseemly concession to Saudi Arabia in return for billions of dollars in aid, and an unforgivable wound to national pride."

Egyptophobia and misreading of history in plain sight were also reflected in the blog by a pro-Nasser Lebanese American. His name is Assad Abu-Khalil, professor at California State University at Stanislaus. In his "Angry Arab News Service," he promoted a lie connected to King Salman's visit to Egypt: "The statue of Ibrahim Pasha in Cairo was placed under a shroud." Claimed reason: He led the Egyptian charge against the Wahabbis in Najd, in the Arabian peninsula in 1819.

Yet my contacts in Cairo informed me that "Salman's visit had nothing to do with the renovation work on the statue." When Abu-Khalil was contacted for retraction, he declined. According to the Los Angeles Times, that Professor's blog is "Known for its sarcasm but knowledgeable commentary. Is being consistently pro-Nasser and anti-El-Sisi."

This is ideological misrepresentation unbecoming an Arab-American professor at a major American university. For ideology is a partisan advocacy. It is not teaching. Particularly when it comes to the malady of hate, which is floating hostility. A form of mental constipation.

I do my best to judge leaders by their degree of dedication to the national interest. With that measure, and judging by the storm over Tiran and Sanafir, I raise the following queries about Nasserism in action in foreign affairs:

Has Nasser ever been elected through the process of "one person, one vote," or by any other democratic formula? No!! And where were the Egyptian voices which were raised in protest against his policies which led to: 

• The break-up of the Nile Valley, North (Egypt) from the Nile Valley, South (the Sudan); or
• The authoritarian unification between Egypt and Syria (1958-1961). And its collapse, largely because Nasser's surrogates in Syria (Amer and Al-Sarraj) converted Syria into a police State.
• And when did Nasser involve the nation in consultation before embarking upon other existential decisions? Like expelling the UN Blue Helmets from the Egyptian-Israeli lines of demarcation? Thereby providing Israel with the pretext to strike on June 5, 1967.
• Then, following that greatest Arab military defeat in modern history, mournfully lamenting: "We expected the enemy to come from the east, but they came from the west!!" Historically laughable, especially coming from a military leader!!
• Nearly the entire Egyptian air force, sitting on the ground, was wiped out in 3 hours! Sinai was occupied - Again!! So were Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Until today, with the exception of Sinai, liberated from Israeli occupation by Sadat. The future of these other Arab areas is still in doubt. Including Jerusalem.
• And under what Egyptian circumstances was that most humbling of Arab defeats took place? 
• Nearly a 100,000 Egyptian army recruits were marched to Yemen by Nasser as of 1962. To be inserted into a Yemeni civil war. What for? Not for any reason of Egyptian defense or development. It was for ideological reasons of Nasser's making. Pitting in its wake Egypt against Saudi Arabia whose southern cities were bombed by the Egyptian air force.

With Nasser's gaze upon his personal goal of becoming the paramount Arab hegemon, Israeli's gaze was upon becoming the hegemon of the Arabs.

It took a leader like Sadat, whose focus was on Egypt, to rescue for Egypt, through war and diplomacy, what belonged to Egypt-Sinai. Like in the age of El-Sisi, an Egyptian leadership should first and foremost work towards The Strong Egypt.

So I ask again, where were the voices of open and noisy protest against Nasser? Who was aided and abetted by his "Philosopher of the Revolution," Muhammad Hassanain Heykal. It was Nasser who was the historic loser of Arab territory!!

In the Tiran-Sanafir issue, Egyptian media uncovered for me an Egyptian perceptional fault line: The dictator who loses territory is reverently called "The Eternally-Remembered" (Khalid Al-Zikr). But the openly-elected leader, El-Sisi, is vilified in the post-dictatorship era as "a sell out." For respecting Cairo contractual obligations. How ironic!!

History cannot be invented. It can only be recorded and reported. So back to the shrill voices within Egypt against El-Sisi. The leader who saved Egypt from a bloody civil war. The leader who cut Islamist fascism down to size. I have never met him. He doesn't know me. But I know him through his actions and plans for "The Strong State." That is enough for me.

On the issue of water and Al-Nahdha Dam in Ethiopia. The emboldened but vain voices say that El-Sisi's stand is another sell-out. Ignorance!! Ethiopia is a sovereign State developing its resources. Same as in the case of the Aswan High Dam. The 1929 water treaty was a colonial creature. Treaties, like contracts, are subject to change. "The Contracts Theory of Changing Circumstances!!"

The only voice raised in favor of a Nilotic alliance (Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Congo) has been that of the Coptic Church. Ethiopian clergy were "created" in Alexandria. Those Popes looked upon Egypt, and rightly so, as a "Nilotic State."

But in the Nasser era, it was "Hail to the Southern Province" (the Northern being Syria). And in the Morsi era, Hamdan Sabbahi called for bombing Ethiopia on the issue of Al-Nahdha Dam. A bravado voice of the insane. El-Sisi resorted to diplomacy through the modern doctrine of functionalism. Sharing the wealth. Particularly now that the Sudan, as a possible Great South, is no more. The future lies not in warring on Ethiopia.But on friendship with Addis Ababa. And in hopefully developing the White Nile in cooperation with Khartoum and South Sudan. 

Even an open dialogue by El-Sisi with representatives of civil society, unimaginable under Nasser, was the subject of media derision. By the pens which have found their ink only after July 3, 2013.

On April 13, El-Sisi told that conclave:

• "The military establishment has taught us to fear for our country and its people, respecting every grain of sand in it. We do not sell our territory to anyone, nor do we usurp the rights of anyone."
• "I am an honest Egyptian who is not for sale; who did not conspire against anyone; who did not deceive anyone. The Supreme Command of the Armed Services did not conspire against the Muslim Brotherhood. We dealt with former President Muhammad Morsi honorably, with honesty and respect." Of course they did. For 3 fateful days, from June 30 to July 3, 2013, El-Sisi tried to coax Morsi towards a new beginning. Through a fresh plebiscite. Morsi and the Brotherhood's Guidance Bureau, gave those efforts thumbs down.

Media response to those assurances by El-Sisi on April 13: a truly pathetic campaign by several Egyptian so-called "opinion-molders." More protests by "The Ignorance Brothers" 

The great historian Jamal Hamdan, with knowledge and clarity, on April 13 contributed to the undeniable verdict: "The Islands Belong To Saudi Arabia." The 3rd of his iconic 4 volumes in Arabic on "Egypt's Personality" bears an interesting title. "The Genius of Geography" (Aabqariyyat Al-Makan).

In the foolish attacks by Egyptian media persons, one finds total ignorance of that "genius," compounded by falsification.

In a lunatic desire to get the mobs aroused. The very hordes which paralyzed Egypt for months. Besieging, among other establishments "The Journalists Syndicate." 

All of the journalists named above have a debased auxiliary. Examples: Adel Al-Sanhouri in "Al-Yom Al-Sabee" (seeing in the agreement of April 11 haste and a cover-up); Karam Jabr, also in the same paper (the Government failed in educating the public); and Muhammad Al-Shebrawi in "Al-Shaab" (What happened to Egypt's independence?). Let alone: "What was the hurry for concluding the April 11 agreement?" Al-Shebrawi, you are a rare genius: It was in the making for 18 years!!

Even those who are not advocating an outright falsehood of Egyptian sovereignty over Tiran and Sanafir are espousing other ridiculous approaches to that non-issue.

• Makram Muhammad Ahmed, in Al-Watan, calls for an Egyptian Parliamentary review of the April agreement. His purpose: delineating the maritime line between Saudi Arabia and Egypt. A silly argument (in law, meaning nudum factum -without factual merit). As it makes Egyptian military presence on those two rocks a nexus to Egyptian sovereignty.

Had holding a territory been tantamount to a conversion to sovereign ownership, then the entire scheme of decolonization under the UN Charter should be revisited. If you care to find out how idiotic the Makram Muhammad Ahmed proposal is, read my book: The United Nations and Decolonization: The Role of Afro-Asia (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1971).

You find the same absence of legal knowledge or historical facts plainly manifest in Al-Ahram. In an article by Gamal Zahran, he calls the protests against the Egyptian-Saudi Agreement a "Fitna" (insurrection). Claiming in tortured logic that those protests are not directed towards El-Sisi. But towards the surrender of the islands. If that is the Zahran defense of El-Sisi, may I never have Gamal Zahran as my defense attorney.

Real Big Loud Mouths, a deplorable phenomenon of the post-El-Sisi elevation to the presidency. Loud barks never heard during the age of Nasser of imposed silence.

One more thought: The recalled President Morsi opened into Sinai the gates (they call them tunnels) of Hamsawi occupation of Sinai. Under the deceptive label of "Arab brotherhood." That encroachment upon Egyptian sovereignty lies largely today at the root of terrorism in Sinai.

Morsi also gave the nod to the Islamist rule in the Sudan: Shalatin and Halayeb.

No, Dr. Morsi: Shalatin and Halayeb are north of the 22nd parallel. A straight line from Libya to the west, to the Red Sea to the east. Their case is the flip side of Tiran and Sanafir. The latter were entrusted to Egypt by their sovereign owner for administration. Shalatin and Halayeb were entrusted by Great Britain, an occupier of the Nile Valley to the Sudan for administration.

No administrative measure could nullify Egyptian sovereignty over Shalatin and Halayeb. For these are the same legal principles underpinning the UN Charter provisions regarding international trusteeship.

Sovereignty is "inherent" (permanent): Administration is "temporary." As in the case of Egyptian administration over Gaza (1949-1967). Does not abrogate Palestinian sovereignty over it. Regardless of the length of an Israeli siege or a Hamas partisan, noisy, and troublesome presence.

Egypt is a sovereign existence for thousands of years. In contrast, its name, "Egypt" (MISR) does not even need a qualifier. For no less than 5 times, the Quran mentions its name as "MISR." The Bible vouches for Christ uttering prayerfully: "Blessed Be My People Egypt." The land and its people are one.

In the Egypt of El-Sisi, the big loud mouths should first learn their country's history. To me it boils down to three sentences: The Great Pharao Narmer (Mina), 5000 years ago, unified. Muhammad Ali, in the 19th century, modernized. And El-Sisi, in the 21st century, saved from collapse.

Now, in conclusion, I pose a challenge to those afflicted by a Big Loud Mouth syndrome. If you truly want to help the New Egypt, shut your mouth and go back to school. To learn something about Egypt's history.

And take with you Ahmed Al-Naggar, the Editor-In-Chief of Al-Ahram. For protesting the rightful reversion of the islands to their Saudi sovereignty. Ignorantly describing that restoration a treaty of surrender. The only surrender in play here Mr. Al-Naggar, should be your retirement.

The Chinese say: "One Learns From the Ear." And the Quran, in its first word of revelation, says: "Iqraa." In Islamic jurisprudence, that one word is loaded. It does not only mean "Read." Its expansive meaning is "Learn."

And about learning through reading. Officers of Egyptian armed forces read. How do I know that? My proof here was provided to me in 1974 by the late Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail. After the October war, he contacted me with an invitation: "I need you to present a general lecture at the Cairo Military Academy." I immediately booked a flight: New York/Cairo.

There were 500 senior officers from all branches of the Armed Forces. Including Al-Gamassi and Abu-Ghazaleh. I sat on the rostrum flanked by Ahmed Ismail to the right, and the Academy's commander to the left. My presentation was on "strategy" which I had taught in New York to large groups of US Army officers -during Vietnam. Lessons, learnt by me in Algeria during the war for independence. As spokesman for the UN.

When finished with my presentation, Ahmed Ismail called for questions to be written, and recruits to collect those pieces of paper. Then instructed the Academy's Commander to organize 74 written questions into 6 themes. Saying: "Our guest shall answer those themes, because I am escorting him today to our Northern Command in Alexandria."

Having responded, I requested the Field Marshal if I could keep the texts of the 74 questions. His response: "Son. Keep them. You are one of us." On my trip back to New York, I read the 74 questions. How penetrating? An army that reads!! It fights for Egypt. And also reads for Egypt!!

That defender of Egypt today is fighting for what belongs to Egypt. And what belongs to Egypt, as far as Sinai is concerned, is clearly evidenced by the attached map. Delineating the international boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba. Showing clearly the basis for the Saudi-Egyptian administrative agreement which was signed in 1950. Gave Cairo the privilege of guarding Tiran and Sanafir for the Saudis against the never-ending Zionist thirst for territorial grab.

That map is Swiss. Produced by a Swiss company in Bern, from whence my late father-in-law had hailed. Produced by the well-known firm of Kummerly & Frey, in 1984, in support of tourism to Egypt. In three languages: Egypt/Egypte/Agypten (English, French and German).

Could the Big Loud Mouths, unleashed only after El-Sisi became president, shut up and read the map. Maps don't lie. But lying weasels, who have abused their profession as journalists, have perfected the practise of lying. Including Al-Naggar of Al-Ahram, whose name in English means "Carpenter." The cure for his incoherence is at hand. A few good nails could fix his trap door -his big loud mouth. Followed by the map that follows!!

This is a central issue for the New Egypt. Its importance has prompted me to prepare a longer version of it in Arabic. If you wish to have that version, email to me your request. I could then arrange for its forwarding it to you. Share the knowledge. 

When The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions: Egypt's Dismissal of An Errant Justice Minister

Beware of the Ides of March!! Last month, the New Egypt engaged in a rare administrative act: The summary dismissal of its Justice Minister. Dated March 13, 2016. Well done!! Counsellor Ahmed Al-Zind was a well-meaning person. But he has a disease. Incurable. Is called "shooting from the hip." Or diarrhea of the mouth. And Al-Zind shot from the hip, or the mouth, 3 times.

An Arab adage says: "The third hit hurts the most." So former Minister Al-Zind met his quota of imbecilities. When the New Egypt, now under reconstruction, hurts, there is little room for "MAALESH" (Never Mind).

A license for "let go," well-suited for a permissive environment. Intolerable, when the New Egypt is scrutinized in every step, in any direction it takes.

This is especially so in the realm of the administration of justice. Thousands upon thousands of cases are an overload in every court. In a national mood that uses the Court as a wailing wall. The newly-found freedoms in Egypt of post-January 25, 2011 have created a highly litigious environment. Creating a near paralysis in moving the legal calendar from "docket" to "judgment." From "judgment" to effective and humane "execution" (INFATH).

In such a fluid environment, Al-Zind found his salvation. Even before he had the exalted post of Justice Minister for his country. The very country that exports its justice models to the rest of the Arab World.

Here follow the events that fit the description of: "the road to hell being paved with good intentions."

Big Mouth Salvo No. One: While he was President of the Judiciary Council, Al-Zind, watched in justified horror a spectacle. Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood bullies besieging the Supreme Constitutional Court. Intimidating it for having adopted a legal opinion: One-third of the Islamic lower chamber of Parliament violated election laws. So Parliament was disbanded. The Brotherhood resorted to its well-practised fascism: intimidation. Shut that court down!!

A la Nasser in 1954. That is when the cry went up: "Down with the Constitution." The great jurist Al-Sanhoury, head of the Council of State, was beaten up in his office.

As judges of the Supreme Constitutional Court sneaked to their offices through back doors, Al-Zind fumed. And rightly so. But his good intentions suffered from a dangerous absence. Absence of international judicial knowledge.

Directing a threat at the Brotherhood ring of fire, Al-Zind's fuming produced only derision. For he publicly stated: "I shall sue the Government (the Islamist Government) before the International Criminal Court." Alarmed, I sent a word to some members of the Council of State. "Al-Zind should know that there is no private litigation before the ICC. He has no standing. He does not seem to comprehend the tenets of universal jurisdiction under the 1998 Rome Charter of the ICC."

In return, I got an unacceptable response. It amounted to: "He didn't meant it!!" Well, if he didn't mean it, why embarrass himself and the judiciary, and Egypt, by making that burp in public?

And if he meant it, he should have known that the ICC litigation is not private. It is government-anchored; premised upon a decision by the UN Security Council; instituted by a directly damaged party; and to all kinds of other limitations. Primary among these is "inability" of a national judiciary to act. The so-called "subsidiarity" principle.

Big Mount Salvo No. Two: Al-Zind is now in a different capacity. Now is the time for him as Justice Minister to vent in the name of a Cabinet headed by a technocrat, Prime Minister Sherif Ismail. An engineer. The government of Egypt has put on its finishing touches.

With the new Parliament, you now have three co-equal branches of government. As per the Road Map, produced through consensus of the select national forces, including Muslims and Copts, in July 2013. Ending the reign of Brotherhood terror.

That Brotherhood had been judiciously declared a "terror organization." For its conducting a systemic organizational violence, aimed at cowing the newly regained secularism. Fronting university students as its shock troops. Under the false banner of "public demonstrations." Freedom of expression and assembly, which were violently prohibited under Islamist (un-Islamic) rule.

The battle ground moved to previously lawless Sinai. An Asian Egypt ceded de facto by Morsi to Hamas. So north Sinai was infested by Hamas tunnels. But southern Sinai has been blessed by tourism. The armed forces in the North, under the unified command of Field Marshal Askar, took the brunt of armed terror. Casualties resulted.

With that, Al-Zind's Big Mouth grew bigger. Shot again out of anger at the casualties inflicted on the defenders of Egyptian security. Good intentions. But stupid performance. Al-Zind's reaction was utterly out of line.

He declared, and I translate from his Arabic: "I will only be at ease when I retaliate by killing 10,000 Brotherhood supporters in retaliation for each soldier killed."

The opposition to that injudicious threat was swift. It came from senior members of the Egyptian judiciary. One of them was Counselor Mahmoud Raslan, head of the Legislative Unit of Egypt's Council of State. His remarks went as a spear into the heart of Minister Al-Zind's profanity. "Those words should not be coming from a Justice Minister. He is supposedly aware of the role of the judiciary in these matters."

Not surprisingly, Al-Zind verbal bomb was a gift to the Brotherhood's propaganda machine. Through Al-Zind, the odious culprit, the Brotherhood, was now playing one of its historic roles: "Poor Islam is again victim of apostates and usurpers." Foreign funding poured in; so-called "human rights organizations" jumped into the artificial fray.

And Egyptophobia found another hanger to hang its diatribes:

• Security measures were unjustifiably deemed as anti-human rights measures;
• A murdered young Italian doctoral student was automatically seen as a victim of official Security forces. Even before the Italian-monitored Egyptian investigations of that tragic event;
• The propaganda machine of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, generously funded by Arab and non-Arab sources, was gleeful at every utterance by Egyptian officialdom which could be interpreted as signs of regression of the Rule of Law;
• Even the so-called indigenous Egyptian media poured oil on the fire. A fire ignited by Minister Al-Zind. Abusing their newly-found freedom to find reason to exhibit false bravery through its own falsehoods.

So by your calculus Mr. Al-Zind, you threaten to kill one million terrorists (10,000 x 100 victims). That is three times the calculated strength of ISIS before its recent losses!! Bravo for the Zind killing machine!!

Enlightened anti-jihadism calls for cooperation of the adversary, ideologically and demographically. The real task is to peel off from the Muslim Brotherhood the elements which are ready to swear off violence. Integrating such elements and rehabilitating them is not through crazy threats.

The Prophet Muhammad had counselled: "Love thy friend moderately, guarding against his turning one day into a foe. And love thy enemy moderately, hoping for his turning one day into a friend." The New Egypt cannot hope for ultimately breaking up the Muslim Brotherhood if it denies itself the chance of possibly luring them back into the fold. Particularly at this phase of Brotherhood's internal altercation.

On this, I quote former President Nixon. He, the conflict-oriented Republican leader opened, through Kissinger, communication with China. His famous adage: "Sometimes if you hate so much, you may destroy yourself."

Islamic ethos was fourteen centuries ahead of Nixon. The Quran put it elegantly and succinctly: "But if they incline to peace, then incline to it, and trust in God. Indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing" (Chapter 8/Verse 61).

Big Mouth Salvo No. Three: The Prophet Muhammad throughout his Mission, suffered enough. And more suffering after his passing. Especially through the murderous campaigns of the Ummayads. Killing of Imam Ali, and his two sons, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein. In our age, every idiocy by a so-called Muslim has become enough of a pretext to attack Muhammad. And guess what: No true Muslim could, on religious grounds, attack either Moses or Jesus.

Muhammad has never engaged in any armed conflict, except in self-defence. "Unholy War" has never been an Islamic concept. It is a crusader concept. Concept for power, not for the great Christian faith of love and peace.

History is a great lighthouse - A MANAR!! It teaches unalterable truths:

• Faith is non-negotiable. Buried deep in the heart. A snatching hand of compulsory conversion cannot reach it.
• In Islam there is no proselytizing. No evangelizing. Muhammad had nothing to do with the barbarity of the Ottomans in the Balkans. Or with Wahabbism, convoluted from a reform movement into a police theocracy. Or with the fictitious split between Sunni and Shii. Or with Muslim immigrants to Christian Europe abusing their refuge into Islamic Bantustans.
• Nor has Moses to do anything with Netanyahu's rampant settler occupation of lands allotted under international law and through UN resolutions to a Palestinian State. Nor has Jesus Christ anything to do with Western occupation of Muslim lands. He preached "love." And imperialism is about suppression.
• So why go to find guilt with the clean hands of heavenly messengers of revealed or non-revealed faiths as systems of human values? Why mix faith with governance? A combustible formula!!
• Empires also fall when minority rights are ignored. When the "Millet System" was observed, the Ottomans were on the rise. All religions were allowed to be practised. Constantinople was only interested in taxation and army recruitment. But when the so-called Islamic scholars (ulama) assumed ascendancy, minorities became second class citizens, including the Arabs.
• Thus was born the "Great Arab Rebellion." Not by Lawrence of Arabia, but Al-Sharif Hussein. He put secular nationalism above an Islam whose golden seat was occupied by a brutal empire on its way to extinction.

Apparently, Al-Zind was a student of neither law, nor history, nor the role of faith. "Breach of the Peace" is an offense which includes acts of destruction or menacing public order and tranquility. Not only violent acts. But also acts and words likely to produce violence in others. 

Ex-Minister Al-Zind, had certainly "breached the peace" of his country. His Big Mouth is what led him to the exit door for his "disorderly conduct."

So why, Mr. Al-Zind, threaten to imprison every malfeasant, "even if he was the Prophet himself?!" You are bearing His name "Ahmed;" and the name of his cousin "Ali." And the name of Ibrahim who symbolizes the unity between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Isn't your full name "Ahmad Ali Ibrahim Al-Zind?" 

If your real thinking matches your very words, I have an out for you, now that you have been kicked out of the Cabinet: Change the spelling of your last name to "Al-Zinad," (the Trigger?) Judges who know you, Al-Zind, told me that you don't read!! Good Riddance!!

Reflecting Rage As An American State, The New York Times Calls for Sanctioning Egypt!!

Even a reputable newspaper, like The New York Times slips occasionally in the realm of the absurd. The unreasonable, the ridiculous, the war-like. Since its founding in 1851, its motto has been: "All News That's Fit to Print."

Judging those words by an editorial dated March 26, 2016, that journalistic promise induced in me, not concern. But derision, and contempt. Why?.. It was vacuous, unintelligent, and an advocacy for aggressive meddling in Egypt's internal affairs.

Under the title of "Time to Rethink Relations with Egypt," the editorial called, not only for the unwise, but for worse. The unimplementable. Here are its main false assertions. Followed by rebuttals:

A Faulty Assertion: In the summer of 2013, "the Egyptian military took power in a coup."

A Rebuttal: From June 2012 to June 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood's reign of Islamization and terror was leading Egypt precipitously into a bloody civil war.

El-Sisi's negotiations with Morsi, who presided over that descent, failed to produce a plebiscite. Responding to the call by 35 million Egyptian demonstrators, "a road map" agreed by the national civilian forces, including the Coptic Church, produced an interim secular administration headed by a venerable jurist, Adly Mansour.

By June 2014, El-Sisi was chosen for the presidency over Hamdain Sabbahi, a moderate Islamist, in open and internationally-observed elections. The fact that El-Sisi was, at that time, the Defense Minister, does not stamp his selection, by popular will, by the totalitarian stamp of a military putschist. El-Sisi ascended to the presidency of Egpyt through an orderly transfer of power.

Prior to the instalation of El-Sisi presidency, the Morsi Islamist regime, now recalled by the electorate, clung to the myth of "legitimacy by the popular choice of June 2012."

That legitimacy, originally supported by the neutral might of the Armed Forces, was destroyed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Until now, it still clings to the propagandistic myth of "legitimacy," (Al-Shariyiah). The Brotherhood's unforgiveable sin was to assume power through democracy. Then to subvert that vehicle into an instrument of subverting Egypt into an Islamic province.

When you board a bus, your ticket of admission as a passenger is not a license for hijacking that vehicle. The terms of your purchase are clear: Ride peacefully, or get off. For you are no longer a rider. You are a criminally offending usurper.

So was the status of Morsi and his Brotherhood during their one year as "rough riders." The bus driver, the Egyptian electorate, threw them out of the national bus. It was a Brotherhood self-inflicted wound. Not engineered by El-Sisi. But by the hands of the Brotherhood, presided over by a dictatorial "Guidance Bureau."

One of the Brotherhood's "Supreme Guides" had once declared "To Hell With Egypt." (Toz Fi Misr)!! The nation simply responded: "To Hell with the Brotherhood." "Tahiya Misr" (Long Live Egypt).

From an article in Arabic by Egyptian Ambassador Mohamed Noman Galal, former Ambassador to China, I quote the following: "It is Egypt's brave army which assured Egypt's safety and peace; saving the country from collapse. This is by reason of its being a national army which has deep faith in its homeland. Unlike in other several Arab countries, the Egyptian army is not the army of any president, nor is it a sectarian army, battling for either a tribe or a sect." (Al-Wasat newspaper, March 28, 2016)

A Second Faulty Assertion: "Egypt's human rights abuses became even harder to overlook."

A Rebuttal: And who are you to judge? Egypt is not a US protectorate. With the exception of the crime of genocide, the question of human rights is essentially a domestic jurisdiction matter. It has been globally manifest that outside uninvited intervention in the internal affairs of other States has always backfired. Even if, it was done, as in most cases of American unwanted intervention, by proxy. Proxies either of the internal type, or the external genre calling themselves "human rights civil society organizations."

The New York Times cites what it calls: "Egypt's crackdown on peaceful Islamists, independent journalists and human rights activists." It quotes from "leading American Middle East experts." It warns against "an authoritarian rule, leaving few if any Egyptians free to investigate mounting abuses by the State." It decries "arbitrary imprisonment of tens of thousands of Egyptians ... and extrajudicial killings."

All of the above are reflective of an imperial approach towards the affairs of outside proud nations like Egypt. Egypt is not America's burden. America should simply "Butt Out." And even falling in line with the colonial interventionist approach of The New York Times, the following questions must be raised:

• Were there "peaceful Islamists" at the bloody standoffs, lasting for six weeks (July 3 to August 14, 2013) between the occupiers of two public squares in the heart of the country's capital? Adamantly refusing the entreaties of the forces of law and order to peacefully disband? Through well-publicized exists for safe passage?
• Shouldn't The New York Times judge the reactions to such provocation by the standard of the US authorities crackdown on "The Occupy Wall Street" movement, or "The Black Lives Matter" movement?
• Those battles of August 2013 in the Cairo public squares of "Rabaa," and "Orman" did not have to occur. They were avoidable, except that the overthrown Brotherhood was acting upon its oath which includes "Death for the Sake of Allah is Our Most Cherished Wish." In America, we call this "Suicide By Cop," meaning through goading the police to open fire.

A Third Faulty Assertion: "When President Morsi was overthrown, senior American officials dithered... (hoping) that this would be merely a bump on Cairo's road toward becoming a democracy."

A Rebuttal: Egypt's democracy is on track. The Road Map of July 2013 has now been fully implemented. With the inauguration of the new Parliament in March 2016. It needs no outside evaluator or overseer!! This monitoring is the most obnoxious form of intervention in the internal affairs of States.

Now I take off my hate as an Egyptian residing in America, to don that of an American naturalized citizen. I find today's American democracy the least suitable model by whose parameters other forms of democracy could be evaluated:

• The American voter does not directly select his or her Congressional representative. Between his/her vote and the final selection is a sieve which blocks the one person one vote formula. It is a formula to which Egyptian elections adhere. In effect, since its founding, American democracy is a rule, not by the people, but by a higher oligarchical tier;
• This sieve, now represented by the electoral college, still reflects the fear by the Founding Fathers from a rule by the mob, in favor of the rule by the Select. There are voters, then delegates, then super-delegates, then unbound delegates. A dizzying game of numbers, with the primary voter left at the bottom of the formula.
• Thus in 2000, Al Gore, though winning the popular vote in his presidential bid against Bush II, lost to the latter. Becoming a US president whose leadership was overpowered by a war-monger, Dick Cheney, whose vice presidency led to the catastrophic war of Iraq.
• Would the U.S. tolerate Egyptian authorities telling Washington what to do regarding this stratified system?
• At a historic press conference held by Bush II and Putin of Russia, the U.S. President spoke of democracy, causing Putin to emit a rare laughter of disbelief. Bush said something to the effect that the U.S. is a champion of democracy everywhere. At which point Putin remarked derisively: "Like in Iraq?"
• Money has a determinant voice in the make-up of Congress. In the case Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations were entitled to contribute unlimited funds to their chosen  congressional candidates. Consequently, a bigger campaign budget makes it possible for a candidate, through ads and the support of special interests, to overwhelm an opponent with a smaller war chest.
• Until today, the US judiciary has, unfortunately failed to effect reform of campaign financing.

Under these circumstances, how can America, as per The New York Times editorial qualify for being a paragon of democratic virtues? When its own system is begging for a cure? In fact prompting great American jurists like Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired from the US Supreme Court, of whose Bar I am honored to be a member, to call for amending the U.S. Constitution itself.

A Fourth Faulty Assumption: "Over the next few months, the President should start planning for the possibility of a break in the alliance with Egypt." A war-like call premised on urging the Obama administration to end military aid to Egypt amounting to $1.3 billion.

A Rebuttal: To me, this is the height of absurdity by the so-called opinion-makers of The New York Times. Here are my reasons:

• Those funds, which are largely spent on purchasing US weapons, are integral to the Peace Treaty of 1979 between Egypt and Israel.
• Though Egypt is not essentially dependent on them for its defense, including defending against terrorism from Gaza and chaotic Libya, that paper is advocating tampering with a treaty. A treaty is a contract. Sanctioning Egypt by withholding those funds constitutes a breach to perform by the US towards Egypt. A breach of a covenant that cannot occur without adverse consequences.
• The New York Times advocacy for "Rethinking Relations With Egypt" goes diametrically counter the paper's own admission to the contrary. The paper concedes that: "Administration officials... have cautioned against a break with Egypt saying its military and intelligence cooperation is indispensable."
• Then it pivots away from those expert views to that of a fellow at the Brookings Institution, Tamar Cofman Wittes. In an interview, Wittes opines that "Egypt is neither an anchor of stability nor a reliable partner."

Here this question arises: If such punitive views become official U.S. policy, is America a reliable partner of Egypt? My response is that partnership, if subverted into a master-vassal relationship, shall not stand. There are no American bases in Egypt; only joint exercises and training in the use of US military hardware.

Both the U.S. and Egypt are, in any case, pivoting away from one another. Both of them are eyeing the east: Egypt, for technology and armament; America for trade. Obama and presumably his Democratic successor, see America's interest in having a light footprint in the chaotic Middle East. Even calling an old US ally like Saudi Arabia "a freeloader." Meaning a defense dependency on the US with adverse implications for the U.S.

In this context, Egypt cannot be counted within this pejorative description of "a freeloader." Its economy, though struggling, is not dependent on oil; its defense is native; unlike the U.S., its government is not threatened with partisan shutdowns; and unlike the U.S., its ethos is not racialism which, in the case of America, has been accentuated by the historic arrival of the first Afro-American to the Oval Office.

Prudency dictates that America should mind its own internal affairs, which are sorely in need of a fix.

And from its beginning, America has received a historic advice from George Washington, the father of its independence: "No entangling alliances."

Hence the shame of The New York Times to be giving a boost to the thesis of those who are warring on the honored international rule of "friendly relations among nations."

The very definition of friendship is equality in relationships, giving mutual support to its parties. As a dual citizen of both America and Egypt, I could see in that relational balance the very advantage of inclusive bi-culturalism.

Only the enemies of both America and Egypt can take comfort in that editorial by The New York Times. Egypt is minding its own business. Shouldn't America also mind its own business?

The New York Times editorial savagely attacks Obama's policy towards Egypt for being "moored in  a series of faulty assumptions." It is the editorial policy, expounded in that article, that is so hopelessly moored. Mired in unrealities exposing an unmerited spirit of hegemony.

Thumbs up for the Egyptian Council For Foreign Affairs (ECFA). For its comprehensive response to an Egyptophobic letter addressed to Obama. The letter's author is an organization about which I am hearing for the first time. Calling itself "The Working Group on Egypt." That organization is in lockstep with that New York Times editorial in calling for a US retaliation against Egypt.

For what? On the basis of what ECFA described as "unfounded human rights violations and interference in the independent Egyptian judiciary system." The ECFA rebuttal also offered me a teaching moment. It highlighted the illegal silence of some civil society organizations regarding "foreign funding they received, and which domestic social activities they finance... in accordance with Egyptian applicable laws."

Here ECFA noted that the number of such offending organizations was "a small minority" within "more than 47 thousand" such organizations in Egypt.

Were I, as an attorney licensed in the U.S. to sue either The New York Times or the so-called Working Group on Egypt, I'd lose. Law and fairness do not always intersect. If I plead incitement to violence against Egypt, as my hypothetical client, they would defend on the basis of freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Even if that freedom of expression is inciteful to violence and, thus, contrary to public policy.

Throughout history, nations do not die. But in some of them their civilizations are prone to perish. America the young, and Egypt the old are of the type where civilization is enduring. However, in the case of America, there appear early signs of reversible senility. Examples:

• Storms of rage 
• Revived nativism through non-acceptance of the other
• Return to early Biblical evangelicalism
• Glorification of Trumpism where ignorance and bullying are hailed as virtues
• Saluting the idea of fences between nations as means of international communication
• Replacing diplomacy by a nod to the nuclear option
• Insulting feminism through machoism and misogyny
• Freezing work wages at the level of 50 years ago
• Hailing the equivalent of "America Uber Alles" 
• Creating from old allies new adversaries 
• And calling the use of foul language in public "the New Normal"
• Shutting down the Government? No problem
• Defying the Constitution by the Senate Republicans in not even giving a hearing to a Supreme Court nominee? No problem
• Calling for a ban on Muslims or having their neighborhoods in America subjected to police patrols for intimidation in the name of national security? No problem.
• Doubly demeaning the US President, as well as 1.7 billion Muslims, by calling Obama "a closet Muslim?" No problem.

If not in letter but in spirit, most of the above anomalies are reflected in that insulting editorial in The New York Times. 

Conclusion: The USA is in sore need of a new national program of cleansing rejuvenation. Let us call it "Anger Management." A nation at rage is a nation whose civilizational principles are in disrepair!! Mindless rage is a paralysis of reason and of what is now defined as "mindfulness." An awareness of what you do and of its consequences.

Another conclusion: Sadly, a keen observer of the U.S.-Arab relationships will have to regard this phase of American history as regressive. Regressive into an age of darkness. 

How can America be "mindful" when its millions cheer an aspirant to the presidency, like Trump, calling for Japan and South Korea to go nuclear? And for getting rid of ISIS through the option of using tactical nuclear weapons!! Trump's version of the "New World Disorder."

If the possible Republican nominee for president is envisaging Rakka (Syria) and Mosul (Iraq) as possibly the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki of 1945, it is a measure of American reversion to the dark ages -Dark Ages II. 

With such yardstick, the New Egypt should look upon that editorializing of The New York Times, or the mercenary advocacy of "The Working Group on Egypt" as as an inflammation in the American body politic.

Its consequences shall have no more of an effect on Egypt which is presently under construction than that of an annoying fly being swatted to extinction by the frond of a palm tree in Kanayat, Sharqiah, my old Egyptian village.

A Bridge Linking Between Two Bad Shores: Criminality in Brussels And Contradictions In the Muslim World

In Brussels, where terror struck on March 22, there had been words and arms of welcome to the hordes of Muslim refugees. Fleeing the terror in their lands of origin. Hordes harboring in their midst those who are schooled by ISIS to cut the hand and at times the head, of those who shelter them. An unbelievable criminality. And a denial of the essence of humanity: "Live and Let Live!!"

In the Muslim world, the origins of that poison are active. In various forms. From Wahabbism, where the Quran is given an imperfect interpretation. Especially when it comes to denying legitimate access to worship by adherents of other faiths. Faiths that lie at the roots of Islam itself. To the Muslim Brotherhood which hoists a flag bearing two swords. For a faith whose Book, the Quran, does not even contain the word "sword."

To the avalanche of spin-offs of criminal gangs. Gangs inspired or led by thugs: from Bin Laden (they call him Sheikh), to Al-Zawahri, to Al-Zarqawi, to Al-Awlaki, to the biggest joke of all, the so-called Calipha Al-Baghdadi of ISIS.

Passing through the dirt of Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab. Not to mention the Friends of Jerusalem, ensconced within Gaza, the run-away Palestinian strip lorded over by Hamas, a clear and present danger to the New Egypt. Yet Hamas is vainly calling for easy access to Egypt. Insane!!

This New Egypt, is one third of the Arab world, raising the flag of secularism, fluttering through the gentle winds of Al-Azhar in Cairo.

And in the West, the Muslim Brotherhood, now and belatedly declared by Egypt a terrorist organization, is being enabled by an absurd public relations campaign. Calling the Brotherhood a victim of an Egyptian military coup led by El-Sisi, -a duly elected President, and a nation-builder.

Morsi, from 2012-2013, had sought the glory of a Muslim imperial caliphate. A pipe dream whose only outcome would have been turning Egypt from a State to a Province. Where the Copts are persecuted, Hamas is empowered, and the Muslims who are not in the fold of the Brotherhood are cowed into abject submission. The seat of power would have shifted to the Guidance Bureau.

In only one horrible year of failed Islamization of Egypt, Morsi claimed to have accomplished 480 national projects. Called "Injazat" (Accomplishments). Including a trash conversion factory in one of Egypt's 27 provinces.

But the "Injazat" booklet does not mention that Morsi was elected before the drafting of an Islamic Constitution (now repealed); that in November 2012, Morsi has declared himself above any constitutional limitations; and that for 3 days (June 30 - July 3, 2013) he rejected El-Sisi's attempts to have the Brotherhood respond to the screams of 35 million Egyptians for a new plebiscite.

Adamancy, in the context of Islamic ideologues, is falsely considered "the Righteous Way" (Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem). But under Islamic jurisprudence, the welfare of the community comes first. Called the Maslaha jurisprudence. Whatever is in the interest of the community (Ma Yanfao El-Nas), anywhere, and at any time.

In that sense, terrorism in Brussels, or anywhere else, makes a mockery of Islamic law (Sharia). And when some rotten apples engage in that type of genocidal warfare, they give Islam a black eye.

So please do not trouble me with shatter about Islamophobia. It is terrorism that creates both fear and hate for Muslims everywhere.

And don't trouble world history by tracing the roots of terrorism to the days of colonialism. The colonial period is largely gone. Succeeded by a system of Muslim rulership which puts the perpetuation of its rule ahead of national development and the peaceful transfer of power.

Shifting the blame to what happened decades ago, rather than facing the causes of today's realities, shall not be taken as credible history. This is why I look upon El-Sisi's call for a "Religious Revolution" as the right advocacy for moving the New Egypt forward. It is to be here noted that happily Al-Azhar is heading that call.

The tangible proof is to be found in a speech in Arabic by Al-Azhar's Rector, Imam Dr. Ahmed El-Tayieb. Standing before the Bundestag in Berlin on March 15, he addressed many issues of which the following are a selection and a translation of my own. Except for Quranic verses.

• On the new Muslims in Europe: "I say to my co-religionists who now live in Europe... Observe the high values of the societies in whose territories you now live."
• On Islam's Respect for Diversity: "You ought to present similar perceptions of Islam and its tolerance. Perceptions which respect the other, regardless of religion, sect, or ethnic origin."
• On Abhorring Combating The New Societies: He called for the framing of the following Quranic verse: "With regard to those who have not fought you in the cause of Religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not forbid you from being considerate and dealing justly with them. Surely God loves the just." (Chapter 60, Verse 8)
• On the Organic Links Between Islam and Other Faiths: Dr. El-Tayieb told the Bundestag: "Islam is a faith with organic links to other revealed faiths. As Muslims we believe that the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran are all purveyors of guidance and light."
• His Quranic Evidence: Quoting from Chapter V, Verse 46): "And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus the son of Mary, confirming what was before him of the Torah, and gave him the Scripture in which was guidance and light, and confirming what was before it of the Torah, and a guidance and an admonition for the pious."
• On Women In Islam: He raised Al-Azhar's voice in defense of gender equality. "In Sharia, women are equal to men in both rights and obligations. So please do not think that the marginalization of women of the East is attributable to Islamic teaching. This is a misconception. In truth, women suffering is the result of divergence from Islamic teaching regarding women. Arcane tradition and worn out custom, with no relation to Islam have been ascendant."
• On ISIS and Similar Other Armed Movements: Dr. El-Tayieb declared: "ISIS and its affiliates murder, destroy, cut heads off. All in the name of God and of Islamic law... Acts which are antithetical to Islam. Let us bear in mind that no faith would be immune from the charge of violence and terrorism, if it is evaluated from the perspective of the few perpetrators amongst its adherents."
• On Al-Azhar's Role In Revamping the Islamic Discourse: "Al-Azhar is continuously concerned with revamping its message and educational curricula... Everywhere, its scholars confront wrong concepts. Concepts which distort Islam's message. Exploiting it for the advocacy for a blind insurrection, for blood-letting and countries destruction."
• On Inclusiveness Between All Religions: "Al-Azhar, in December 2014 held a conference attended by Muslim Sunni and Shii scholars, heads of churches, eastern and western, and representatives of the Yazidis of Iraq. Its final communique condemned all armed sectarian groups and militias which pursue violence, terrorism, and assault the lives of peaceful citizens... Any violence perpetrated against Christians and others in the name of faith is contrary to the ethos of Islam."

The gulf is indeed wide between the voice of true Islam, as expounded by Al-Azhar's Grand Imam, and the voice of death heard loudly in Brussels. Confronting jihadist ideology through the voice of Dr. El-Taiyeb is the starting phase in what promises to be a protracted struggle.

For despite the centrality of the voice of Al-Azhar, as the premier citadel for Islamic learning, the divergence in Islamic practices throughout dozens of Muslim countries and cultures makes that voice carry less volume.

But hope springs eternal. The Quran, Muhammad's tradition (Sunnah), and ijtihad, as the brain activated for interpreting those texts should undoubtedly come on top. The world of today has heard the pain of Belgium!!

But how could Al-Azhar deal effectively with this generational battle against rogues pretending to be Muslims?

The needs of the Al-Azhar's "Religious Revolution," initially called for by President El-Sisi, are myriad.

Among those needs is adequate funding and staffing whose main expertise is communication in main languages to pass on the great message delivered at the Bundestag.

That call for a "Religious Revolution" by El-Sisi is a historic game changer in the world of Islam. Still a Cairo TV anchor woman, Azza Al-Hinnawi called El-Sisi on the air "a do-nothing president who speaks like Hitler." A below the belt stupidity, even for a person like her with a contribution to the New Egypt that does not exceed a microphone in her hand, coupled with a foul mouth, joined to an empty head that does not even retain the recent inauguration by El-Sisi of Suez Canal II.

Judging by the follow-up on that message of the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, I am left with this feeling: The Al-Azhar's counter-attack against the kind of murderous ideology which led to the Brussels massacre, and was about to lead to the possession of "a dirty nuclear weapon" is lacking of some basic tools.

These include good translations from the classic Arabic, which are still woefully lacking. And Al-Azhar points of strategic and effective communication throughout the world. Staffed by experts who do not take a holiday!! Failure in uprooting ISIS and its sister organizations is no longer a viable option. This is a fight to the finish!!

Let us keep in mind the emblematic treatise by a great predecessor of Sheikh El-Taiyeb, as a Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Shareef. That was Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot. One of his books is entitled "Islam: Faith and Law" (Al-Islam Aaqeedah We Shareeah), published in Cairo in more than 24 editions.

Sheikh Shaltoot ends that book by saying:

• "The fatwas are not binding statements of law;"
• "The views of Al-Caliphah, the Imam, or the judge are not immune from being fallible;"
• "Interpreting Islam is not the exclusive prerogative of any one;"
• "The titles of Sheikh Al-Islam and the Mullah are only but scholarly titles with no binding consequences;"and
• "Ijtihad is more authoritative when arrived at, not individually, but collectively."

Through this freedom of religious thought there appears, through the present fog, another bridge. Detouring all of us, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, to an existence better than that of a constant fear from a pretended Islam that in fact does not exist!!

A Mega Bully In A Mega Pulpit: Trump's Mobocracy In An Annotated Selected Glossary

A: Anchor
A media person whose quality is determined by the kind of questions he or she addresses in public to the Chairman. If hostile and a woman, such a person has "blood oozing from everywhere." Clear reference to the menstrual period. Stamped the Chairman as "anti-feminist."

C: Convention
A formal assembly, usually based, since the 17th century, on tacit consent by its members. When not favoring the Chairman being its nominee for US President, then a hostile take-over is necessary for voiding the popular will as defined by the Chairman.

D: Debate
An ugly form of verbal warfare in which only profanity, misogyny, vulgarity and dishonesty are permitted. Drowning your opponent's voice and trouncing the moderators for reminding you of your time limitation. For the Chairman, these are debating skills and a propensity to lead.

Demagogue
A political agitator appealing to the prejudice of the masses. A term fully applicable to Chairman Trump. He has voiced heated opposition to "political correctness," to "the establishment," to organized political practice, and to the principle of compromise. All peaceful tools in the service of the national good. His vain rhetoric is the very language of the Tea Party, one of whose symbols is Sarah Palin.

Deportation
The forceful expulsion by authorities of individuals accused of violation of immigration laws. Chairman Trump is set to deport 11 million persons falling in this category, within 2 years of his presidency. Requiring 30 jumbo-jet flights for 730 days. This explains why Chairman Trump hates media questions about immigration. Such as those posed by Jorge Ramos, a Latino spokesman physically removed from his rallies.

F: Foreign Policy
Generally defined as a State's approach through diplomacy and other means to relationships with other States to maximize national interest. Chairman Trump, nonetheless, has redefined American foreign policy. Made of sound bites typical of his own brand of raucous disparagement of nearly all foreign powers. Examples: China is "ripping off" America on trade and stealing jobs; Mexico is flooding the southern border with migrants and drugs. As to Japan, "we are getting absolutely crushed on trade." Salvation is through the Chairman.

H: Hand
Terminal part of human arm. For the Chairman, its size determines the Chairman's genitalia. In this department, the Chairman has declared that he was "well endowed." Nature and destiny are on his side!!

Hero
An illustrious warrior who has fought for his country or his cause. But if captured, like in the case of Senator McCain, loses his luster. Chairman Trump put it succinctly when he declared: "I like persons who don't get captured." As if the victim has a say in falling captive.

I: Immigration
A term which, for the Chairman, refers only to skilled foreign workers. On guest worker visas coded as H-1B. Fit for work in Silicon Valley. Chairman Trump is calling for all others to be herded on buses for forcible deportation. But the Latino empire of millions of new Mexican voters is striking back. Denying Chairman Trump, with his blond hairdo, their vote this Fall. The revolt of those vilified are systematically described by Trump as "drug traffickers and rapists."

Islam
The faith of 1.7 billion people, based on two principles: the onness of God, and the surrender to God's will. One of the three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Chairman Trump, in Florida on March 9, intoned another Islamophobic declaration: "Islam hates us." A cunning reversal of his Trump coinage of: "Ban Muslims entry into America." Even the Florida Governor, Rick Scott, endorsed that savage call by Trump.

M: Marco Rubio
A one-term Senator from Florida with a Cuban ancestry. Now out of the race for Republican nomination for President. Described by Chairman Trump as follows: "You know that in Florida they hate little Marco Rubio so much because of the fact that he never votes...He has conned the people of Florida into voting for him." The Chairman, in a humane gesture towards his then opponent Rubio, also said: "I didn't want him to get hurt hitting his head going down."

Mobocracy
Originally Latin for "mobile vulgus," meaning excitable crowd. Now refers to the lower order of a promiscuous assemblage of persons whom Chairman Trump targets for his venomous rantings. Trumpism has a close proximity to being a pied piper, a strolling musician, leading children over a hill to nowhere.

Muslim
A human being believed by Chairman Trump to be so reviled as a terrorist or potential terrorist. His or her presence in, or admission to America is a clear and present danger to the established Trumpian order. The plan by Chairman Trump to rid the world of ISIS must remain under wraps. It shall be executed by the US military, not in accordance with the laws of war. But by the laws of Trump. "This is what a leader is all about," so declared the Chairman.

N: New York
A state in the northeast of the U.S. That is where Chairman Trump has multiple towers. Also where he is adored by the New York City Real Estate Board. Winning New York for Trump is declared by the Chairman a foregone conclusion. Thus he forcefully told his supporters in New Orleans: "We have a shot at winning New York. Can you imagine what would happen if we win New York? New York loves Trump."

O: Outsider
A term in the uneducated language of today's American politics. Meaning someone with no political experience. No part of the so-called "establishment." Meaning all those chosen through the democratic process to represent the populace. Chairman Trump is riding the wave of rage through pushing the fiction of "the Outsider." The Tea Party, the evangelicals who believe in "the end of time," the white blue collar workers are united in the cause of defeating "experience." Trump, promises that he, as an outsider, is the answer.

P: Palin
The last name of Sarah Palin, former governor of the state of Alaska. An empty-headed invention, ill-chosen by Senator McCain as his running mate in his failed presidential bid against Obama in 2008. Known for her ridiculing facts and knowledge, now a side kick for Chairman Trump as he seeks to energize his ultra-conservative supporters. Famously described by a French poet as "a bad joke."

Politics
Used to be defined as "the art of the possible." Now reversed to be "the art of appealing to the prejudice of the masses." Perfected by Chairman Trump in his bid to "Make America Great Again." Hence "a politician," which the Chairman is not, is someone who plays by the rules usually ridiculed as "political correctness."

Putin
The man of the hour for Russia whose strength and practices in his country, and in its "near abroad," are admired by Chairman Trump. A reflection of the Chairman's admiration for strong leadership. Now seen by him as the cause of American decline. Reversible only under a president who does not apologize and does not reward America's adversaries, like Iran, by "very bad deals."

R: Rally
To rally is to get together again. Rousing to fresh energy. In the rallies for Chairman Trump, the theme rallying his crowds is to "get tough," to consider a protester an enemy. Thus the Chairman calls on his private army of bouncers to kick out anybody protesting his theme of hate. The emphasis in Trump's message is not on the First Amendment (guaranteeing freedom of speech). It is on magnifying hate into a creed. Forcing the protesters in Chicago to shut down his rally. "Throw them out," yelled Trump to his bouncers. "Trouble-makers," he described protesters. The result: An atmosphere of hate, violence and divisiveness that has become "the new normal" for the Chairman's electioneering.

Rambling
An incoherent, irregularly non-planned speech by the Chairman. Stoking anger of the mobs assembled to watch his show.

Republican Party
A 162 year old party which should be demolished through either a Trump take-over, or a split through a contested convention intended to deny the Donald the historical advantage of being the chosen one to defeat the Democratic nominee for president in November 2016.

S: Schizophrenia
A psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment. Also contradictory or antagonistic attitudes. Chairman Trump exhibits these symptoms of dysfunction. In his rallies, he calls for his supporters right to free assembly. A First Amendment right. But denies it to those protesters attempting to exercise the same right, by calling them "villains against whom I shall press charges." He declares love for the Chinese, the Japanese and free trade. But simultaneously he calls for 35% surcharge over products imported to the US.

State Department
The department of the U.S. Government that conducts foreign affairs on behalf of the U.S. President. Under Chairman Trump, the lines are already drawn up. All in terms, not of interaction, but of rage, conflict and enmity. In their turn, those foreign powers are adjusting to a possible Trump presidency. Mexico's President says: "His language is reminiscent of Hitler and Mussolini." The British Parliament debated barring Trump from entry into the UK for his "hate speech." China and Japan are distressed. Iran is laughing at him in its bazaars.

Swear
Invoking the name of a sacred being in an oath. It is the highest form of asserting a promise. Chairman Trump, in Florida, the home state of his then competitor, Marco Rubio, resorted to extracting an oath from the enthralled multitude. "Do you swear to vote for me?" And their hands and voices were raised "yes." Reminiscent of the Nazi "Sieg Heil" (Victory To the Savior!) A true mobocracy!!

T: Taxation
A contribution levied by an established authority on persons, property or business. For the purpose of supporting government's programs on behalf of the entire population. "No taxation without representation" was a call  to arms by the 13 American colonies rebelling against Great Britain. So with the position of Chairman Trump. He believes that the conservative and the billionaires causes are not sufficiently represented in American governance. His payment of limited taxes in accordance with the law should not entail making his tax returns public knowledge. The Chairman says: "It is too complicated."

Truth
Truth has consequences. Especially for a billionaire who has captivated millions for being a non-establishment politician. Best characterized by a 60-year old property investor who idolized the Chairman in these words: "He has no gain in this -he doesn't need the money, he doesn't need the fame, he doesn't need the power." Because of this, "the establishment is ganging up on him." When somebody is being persecuted constantly, that means they're speaking the truth!!

U: Unifier
An adjective earned by Chairman Trump in his bid for the Republican nomination for president. Part of the process of energizing his base of conservatives, evangelicals, white, black, Latinos, working classes and monied classes. In a massive surge of support for their idol. Trumpese is a language springing from the street through which these multitudes surge. Propelling him as the front runner in this brutish campaign between Republicans and Democrats. For the Chairman believes that before you build, you should first demolish, as per his practice in real estate. The demolisher, to Trump, is the unifier.

V: Violence
It is the unlawful exercise of physical force. Also intimidation by the exhibition thereof. The rallies, recently called by Chairman Trump, have begun to be marked by violence. Especially in the industrial Midwest. The Chairman, in a direct way, has nurtured that tendency as his way to "Making America Great Again." To him, the protesters against him are "violent;" the Muslims, "most of them hate us;" "Mexico shall be forced to pay for a wall" on the common border; and the US military "shall do what I tell them to do" (including torture).

W: Wall
Not to be confused with "Wall Street." It is a beautiful structure projected by President Trump to be built over a 2000 miles length. Between the U.S. and Mexico. Costing $20 billion. Chairman Trump has determined that Mexico, which rejects that idiotic concept, shall be forced to pay for it. How? As punitive damages for sending Mexicans to America as unvetted illegal immigrants. Through welshing on America's debts to Mexico. The Trump wall, as promised by the Chairman, is expected to surpass in grandeur the Great Wall of China.

War
A state of open hostility between nations, conducted by the force of arms. Waged, in the opinion of Chairman Trump, as the first option to failed negotiations. For the Chairman, the initials U.S. must always stand for "Unconditional Surrender." In conformity with the call by President Franklin Roosevelt, prolonging World War II against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Chairman Trump has always declared "I don't settle."

White House
The name of the residence of the President of the United States. Located in a federal district, called Washington, D.C. Presently occupied by Barack Hussein Obama. Considered by Chairman Trump as "a closet Muslim," with no valid US birth certificate. In the words of Chairman Trump "Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States." If Chairman Trump moves into the Oval Office in January 2017, he may attach the name Trump to the facade of the White House. Renaming it Trump House may not be out of order.

Z: Zee End. An Epilogue
A fitting ending, by remembering President Ronald Reagan. This is on the sad occasion of the passing on March 6 of First Lady Nancy Reagan. She, throughout his tenure as President (1980-1988), was his primary advisor. Though the leader of the Republican party, Reagan looked upon the cold war in a diplomatic way. America's role, he believed, was not to win it. But to end it. And it peacefully ended in 1989. That was the GOP of Reagan. Not the GOP of Trump.

From Ronald to Donald?! What a precipitous descent for the Grand Old Party, the party of Lincoln.

From The Womb of Trump's Fascism Emerges A Chaotic American Spring

The man is an impostor. An impostor in the village. The very title of my novel in Arabic: An Impostor In The Village. Published in Cairo twice. Once in 1948; the other in 2014. And Trump's village is America.

From his lips gushes bombast and abuse. The adage says "loose lips sink ships." Trump's lips has sunk the Republican Party. The Grand Old Party (GOP) of the great liberator, President Abraham Lincoln. At the age of 16, I travelled to Lincoln. Spiritually from my Egyptian village, Kanayat, Province of Sharqiah.

That was through trudging in 1944 for 3 miles to the provincial capital, Zagazig. Headed to the public library to read in English a thin book on Lincoln. Captivated by that bearded and humble man who managed to free the slaves in America, through a bloody victory of the North over the South. Then assassinated in 1865.

So with his party today. Where his assassination is repeated, but this time on his party, the party of Lincoln. By a buffoon called Donald Trump. Whose fascism is worn on his sleeves. Through:

• calling for the building of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico;
• ridiculing blacks, women, and minorities;
• calling for a ban on Muslims from entering the US, even if they were returning citizens;
• using his book The Art of the Deal, the way Hitler had used Mein Kampf;
• accepting, through avoiding clear disavowal, the endorsement of David Duke, the former head of the Klu Klux Klan;
• calling for bombing the families of suspected terrorists to avenge terrorist attacks;
• praising Mussolini as an effective leader; and
• calling Obama an American hater, an alien born outside the U.S., and a non-Christian/a closet Muslim.

The list can be much longer. Trump is a mob inciter whose calls for "let us make America great again" is nothing but a call for a Spartan America whose wars are endless, and her grab of the natural resources of other States (oil as an example) is the fruit of "winners take all." 

Through content analysis, one finds in Trump the making of a dictator, an anti-Republican quasi conservative. And a man who has succeeded in turning his own party against him. Here are samples of his bombast reflective of his sense of vaunted superiority.

• About Hillary Clinton, the prospective Democratic nominee for president: "She's been there (in Washington) for so long. If she hasn't straightened it by now, she's not going to straighten it out in the next four years."
• "Mexico is sending to America its criminals and rapists across the borders;"
• He wants to torture people accused of terrorism;
• Former Senator Norman Coleman of Minnesota declared: "You've got a con man and a bully who is moving forward with great speed to grab the party's mantle  to be its standard bearer. That's almost incomprehensible."

A former Republican presidential contender, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts went on the attack. Spear-heading a belated Republican effort, to stop the Trump express. Called Trump "a phony, a fraud, and a con man." Using the street language of which Trump is a master. Romney was on point:

• Trump University is a fake institution. Graded by its student at 98%. But by serious evaluators at D-;
• Trump resorts are claimed by him to be for everyone. But can everyone afford $100,000 in annual membership dues?;
• Trump's foreign policy is summed up by him in one phrase: "military might so great that no one would dare mess with us." Asked about who advises him on foreign policy, his answer was evasive. Ended up by saying: "It is I who shall decide;"
• He was pressed on dealing with foreign leaders if he became president. His response boiled down to the limited language of the real estate broker that he is. "I deal with all kinds of people. Nobody can close deals like Donald J. Trump."
• Yet he is oblivious of central facts. Dealing with foreign leaders requires circumspection, in-depth knowledge of the issues on the table, and versatility in the art of compromise. Of all this, the fascist Donald is innocent. Especially in connection with expertise in the art of getting to "Yes." An admission unknowingly made by his protruding lips: "I do not settle;"

Thus on establishing peace between the Arabs and the Israelis, he looks at it through only one prism: that of Mr. Netanyahu. Largely due to the clear fact that  Trump has no expertise in foreign policy. About it, he is not a learner, let alone a practitioner. Never mind that Trump had made a sizable  segment of his fortune in the Gulf.

Trump's barrage of attacking the problem of America's trade deficit and/or imbalance denies Japan, China, India, and even Mexico their sovereign right. The right to put national interest above other considerations, except whatever is required by the rules of free trade.

The Trump bogus claim that the entire world, except the U.S., has leaders who are smarter than Obama. Racism and chauvinism wrapped in one package. "I shall bring back to America the jobs off-shored back to America!!" A Trump claim which is not backed by "How?"

Calling Trump a fascist is fully vindicated by the very definition of that term. Fascism defines a political philosophy or a movement or a regime that puts race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader. One of its basic characteristics is the forcible suppression of opposition. Trump is all of the above:

• He describes his supporters "a movement;"
• He calls his opponents like Marco Rubio of Florida "little Marco" and "a liar;" Ted Cruz of Texas "a choke artist."
• To him Hillary Clinton might be incarcerated for using a personal server for her emails, some of which "might have been classified while she was Secretary of State;"
• He threatens Paul Ryan, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, As President, he, Trump shall "make him pay a heavy price" if he stood in the way of his governance. Upon hearing this, the Speaker laughed aloud in his office. And he has reasons for that. Impeachment proceedings against an errant President begin in the House of Representatives.
• The Trump supporters are mainly the enraged lower than middle class. Under-educated ("I love the not-so educated," Trump screams to thunderous applause), angry at the so-called Washington establishment;
• Anger and rage fueled both fascism and Nazism. Another quote from Trump in this year of the angry American voter, aching for the emergence of "a strong leader." He claims: "Our country is being run by incompetent people. And I won't be angry when we fix it. But until we fix it, I'm very very angry."

On anger, professor Jennifer Finney Boylan of Barnard College, Columbia University, hits the nail on its head. She laments "I see a land where to be a citizen means to specialize in the venting of spleen...Apparently it's vitriol itself, rather than any particular strategy for the future, that's propelling the electorate." Then she concludes by stating:"We seem to be mistaking petulance for righteous wrath."

Coming back to my introducing the theme of "An Impostor in the Village." 

• Trump plays on the theme of fear. His call for transformation is nothing less than "TRANSFEARMATION;"
• Conspiracy is his conduit to presidential politics. He speaks, not the language of establishment politics, but the language of the gutter, a proximity link to the "Know Nothing" multitudes. So the theme shifts nearly daily, to whatever the street can absorb. From "Making America Great Again," to placards carried by beautiful young women proclaiming "The Silent Majority Stands With Trump."
• He denies science, climate change. Even claims that he knows a 2-year old who immediately developed autism from a vaccination."
• His hatred for Muslims is pervasive. Even publicizing gleefully an Internet false rumor about a U.S. general executing Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pigs' blood.
• So was Trump's false assertion that Muslims in New Jersey cheered from rooftops the fall of the World Trade towers 

Such is Trump's danger to the security of the U.S. that the stalwarts of his own party, the party of Lincoln now in the process of collapse, are in a stampede to "Stop Trump."  The Impostor, in my novel, uses faith for sordid ends. So with Trump. Using democracy for sordid ends. 

A showman selling snake oil for healing. A chaotic American Spring is upon us. Results unknown.

By Whose Hands Was Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali Robbed of a Second Term?

This is not investigative reporting. These are legal forensics revealing the hands that robbed him of a second term. And these hands are not what is publicly peddled. Not by the Clintonites. But by a UN Charter full of gaps and contradictions.

Looking at the Charter, you discover that it is not what we teach at law schools. At Fordham Law (New York) I focus on the words. Analyzing not the provisions. But why those provisions drafted in 1945 belong to a museum. Not to the world of 21st Century. Since 1965, Boutros-Ghali and I discussed this at length.

First, the term "peace-keeping" does not appear in the Charter, a Second World War document. In San Francisco, the allies of the war were believed to maintain their cooperation in the post-war years. They did not. The cold war inherited that world. Completely nullifying Article 47 which provides for "a Military Staff Committee." You cannot pool your military expertise with your adversary.

That vacuum was provisionally filled by Dag Hammarskjold. That was his response to the tripartite aggression on Egypt by Israel, France and Great Britain in 1956. The "Blue Helmets" were born not in the Security Council Chamber, but in Port Said. The helmets were painted blue, the UN color, in Italy.

Expanded in the Congo of 1960, "the Blue Helmets" was a huge flop. Across one of the rivers, an Italian contingent was massacred by Lumumba supporters. Calling for help by an Irish contingent a few miles across that river, the Irish did not respond. Not because of cowardice. But because the Italian signal could not be understood. Why? No pre-planned training in peace-keeping, including signal unification, could be held. Until today.

That chaos resulting from Charter dysfunction reached the shores of Yugoslavia as it was breaking up. It also engulfed Rwanda. The Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina were ethnically cleansed. A million Tutsis were massacred. Security Council resolutions, as expected, proved to be hollow moralizing.

Second: Not only was the Security Council failing in its Charter-outlined duties. It was ironically expanding its jurisdiction in areas prevented to it by other Charter provisions. Article 2, para. 7 prohibits intervention in "matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State." Fine. Although each State decides those matters as it pleases.

Now here comes the kicker!! Later the same provision regarding respect for sovereignty takes a turn to a dead end street. It says: "But this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII (i.e. on sanctions)."

Guess who decides on sanctions?! A no veto by any of the Big Five (US/UK/France/Russia/China) plus 4 non permanents (total non-permanents is 10). So you now have a system where the 5 permanents agree on selecting a State to be sanctioned (couldn't be one of their proteges). World justice disappears when you have selectivity. Inequality before the law. Easy to sanction an Iraq or a Libya, or an Iran or a Sudan. No Big Power umbrella. No powerful uncle or Godfather.

With no hope in reforming the Security Council, the Council turned its gaze to individuals within sovereign States. Came up with "the travel ban" on individuals without serving advance notices. Also without hopes of reviewing the list of banned individuals. Creating islands of Guantanamo-style preserves without the torture additive.

So you now have two UN systems in one: the General Assembly (akin to a House of Commons), and a Security Council (akin to a House of Lords - the Permanents). But the GA resolutions are a mere wish list -no enforcement mechanism. And the House of Five Lords is the only body which can take decisions. But selectively. Pick and choose. If there is a tie, say an Afghanistan, then a new non-Charter mechanism called "a Presidential statement" has been put in place. Does not even have the teeth of an executive order.

In the thick of this mess, stands the Secretary-General. The most neutral body in the world organization is the UN Secretariat. I have served there for 32 years. The Secretariat is on duty 24/7, serves all UN Member States on an equal footing, and provides data and mission reports for guidance of the SG and, through him, to the entire membership.

But speaking of the Secretary-General, you have to be careful which SG you mean. There are two of them in the same body: An executive SG and a political SG. The former is covered by Article 98; the latter by Article 99.

And within Article 99, I find the problems faced by Boutros-Ghali. That article is the real separator between the League of Nations, and its presumed continuity in the UN of the San Francisco Charter. Better to quote here its text:

"The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."

Thus the political Secretary-General is born through the mid-wifery of Article 99. Armed with the big word "MAY" -meaning "discretion." Theoretically this is a form of power-sharing. A power sharing expressed by Boutros-Ghali in what he inadvertently called "The Sixth Veto." You see, Boutros-Ghali was not a politician; he was a lecturer in international law. Ministering to a collection of rowdy States which, especially the U.S. resented his threatened intrusion into their power preserve.

He was conscious of the political pitfalls. But deeply felt that the Charter, though deficient, could be reformed through "political ijtihad" -interpreting broadly, through common sense, the existing text which cannot be easily revised.

His honeymoon with the Clinton administration was brief. And Afghanistan, not ex-Yugoslavia or Rwanda, was the issue that unleashed the venom of Albright, the then America's UN Permanent Representative. Those were the early 1990's. With both Clinton and his rivals, the Republican Robert Dole, finding in the UN an easy target to prove a nationalist point. That America shall not be legislated to by an UN where anti-American feelings ran high.

French support for Boutros-Ghali could not match a Clinton administration that saw in Boutros-Ghali an advocate of a UN which is not subservient to Washington's diktat.

The great theoretician Boutros-Ghali who was a close friend of mine for 50 years, lost. Through its fossilized nature, the Charter favored the Clintonite politics. That iconic thinker lost the battle for a second term. And was succeeded by a politician, Kofi Annan, who had no problem staying for two terms.

Kofi Annan was chosen to appease African UN membership for jettisoning an African -Boutros-Ghali. From the Big Powers point of view, an appeaser, Annan, instead of a confrontationist Boutros-Ghali. A manager in the place of a thinker. A typical play within the play!!

In Boutros-Ghali's failure to gain a second term, I find a strong echo of Dag Hammarskjold. Their commonality of approaching the Charter is clear. Hammarskjold stood his ground in 1960; had Khrushchev bang his shoe on the table at the General Assembly. Shouting to the S.G. "IRHAL" (Leave). And a year later, in 1961, the white regime of Rhodesia was suspected of causing his plane to fall from the sky.

Boutros-Ghali also stood the same grounds. Advocated reform of the Security Council and ran afoul of Washington. But he kept his promise to his own convictions: idealism not reflected in the political world of rough and tumble in the world of the Glass House by the East River, in New York.

In 1992, in his office on the 38th floor, he privately asked me: "Do you wish to return to serve? Haven't you enjoyed 6 years of retirement?" "No, Boutros," I said. "I have left this cage. Now breathing freedom on the outside. Lots of options."

His silent but approving smile guided me to the exit. It is difficult, in fact impossible, to forget neither his ideas and ideals. Nor that quiet but knowing smile and innate wisdom. A second term was a passing episode in a life which shall always enrich the world he left behind.

And there is more. More to the Boutros-Ghali saga. The media say that he lobbied for the post. Dead wrong. Africa lobbied him for the post at an African summit. Mobutu, then Congo (Zaire) President, motioned to him and whispered: "The Anglo-phone Africans want to nominate one of them. You are our Franco-phone candidate." 

Taken aback, Boutros-Ghali responded: "What would President Mubarak say?" Mobuto winked and said: "I shall call Mubarak!!" And he did. Then the game was on. How do I know that? From the lips of Boutros-Ghali in Mexico City. He had invited me to join him there for personal and confidential consultations. That was before Mitterand, as President of France threw in his heavy political weight, tipping the scales for Boutros-Ghali as UN SG.

Yet through the debacle of the Clinton animosity, forged in the crucible of an old and tattered UN Charter, the process of nominating a UN Secretary-General is at long last about to change. The effort is aiming at breaking the strangle hold of the Big Five on that closed medieval method of nomination. A method whereby the General Assembly is a mere rubber stamp for what the Big Five agree upon in private consultations.

That is the process which sank the ship of nominating Tanzania's Ahmed Salem, in the early 1980's, to replace Kurt Waldheim of Austria. Waldheim, later found to be a former Nazi operative in Greece, was running for an unheard of third term. Salem was his opponent.

America vetoed the Salem nomination. His sin? Dancing in the GA aisles upon the the admission of mainland China to its rightful seat at the UN.

China vetoed Waldheim. And the deadlock continued. For 16 ballots. Salem, in our frequent meetings, would laughingly say "Waldheim has no chance. The process is broken." Finally De Cuellar of Peru was called from a beach resort to occupy the post as a final compromise. Boutros-Ghali followed, in spite of early American misgivings.

In his book "Unvanquished," Boutros-Ghali stressed what the Charter could not accommodate: dedication for being a Secretary-General who dared defy a big power armed with a veto. And no meaningful reform of the council is at present possible.

If I were to write an epitaph for Boutros-Ghali, I would say: "HERE LIES A LEADER WHO SACRIFICED A WORLDLY POSITION FOR WORLD'S PRINCIPLES." Rest in peace, my friend.

May his soul rest in peace. His Egypt bade him farewell in the most celebrating manner -A military/State funeral. For he was a true combatant for his motherland, and for the cause of a universal Rule of Law.