What is the Future for Egypt?

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/08/10/what-is-the-future-for-egypt/

The Arab Spring saw a host of "revolutions" that deposed dictators on the basis of their authoritarian rule, yet post-Arab Spring some states collapsed entirely, others clung on to power and some were overthrown by new dictators. It has now become clear that the Arab Spring was indeed engineered through Western NGO's and youth movements despite claims it being a "blessed revolution". Those who rode the bandwagon of "blessed revolution" should now accept the reality that the Arab Spring was a pretext to destruction and turmoil in the Muslim lands in order to subdue them, demilitarise them and shatter their hopes of political Islam.

Egypt's el-Sisi is a known ally of the U.S. before and after his presidency and it is made all the more clearer when the U.S. fail to clearly denounce the coup that overthrew the democratically elected Morsi, despite it being clear policy that the U.S. does not work with governments who come about through military coups or non-democratic means. They briefly halted military trade for a few years but continued trading shortly after when Egypt began buying from other nations. 

Five years ago under Hosni Mubarak it was imperative to keep Egypt as a strong strategic ally of the U.S. as Egypt was a cornerstone for U.S. strategy in the Middle East and U.S. was a cornerstone of Egyptian strategy. Today, the U.S. have penetrated the Middle East replaced Russian and European influence with American influence, as is the case with Libya and Syria.  However, any strain in the relationship between Egypt and the U.S. will have adverse affects for both, although more detrimental for Egyptians, in terms of security and economy. A sad state of affairs considering the Muslims should not be relying on the West for security and economy but this is ultimately the reality today when the Western nations can destroy the Muslims through proxy warfare, pretext of terrorism and economic sanctions.

Egypt's military heavily relies on U.S. military assistance and this accounts for a quarter of Egyptian defence expenditure. This is because Egypt owns 200+ F16's, 1000 M1 Abrams and other American military equipment which requires constant maintenance, training and support. Such a heavy reliance means that Egypt cannot use its military without the tacit support of America, and so for those people who say it's a bad move by the West to sell weaponry to Muslim countries because one day the Khilafah will control and use it against them, this is unrealistic as the Khilafah may not have the capability to maintain such equipment without U.S. support. Similarly in other Arab countries that have highly sophisticated militaries, such as Saudi, Jordan and Iran.

Trapping the Muslim Brotherhood

It is evident that the Muslim Brotherhood under Dr. Morsi was never allowed to continue longer than it had done.  It was a deceitful trick by the Americans to expose the Muslim Brotherhood channels through legitimising their existence only to hack to death every vein that became apparent. This loss of blood for the Muslim Brotherhood completely shattered almost 100 years of work they have done on the ground in Egypt and across the Arab world. America's plans for Egypt was never going to include the Muslim Brotherhood nor is it to include a military dictatorship but rather it is biding its time to execute the plans for Syria, Libya and Yemen.  Many of the Brotherhood's members are now back underground or in prisons, and some have created shadow parties in other countries such as Turkey.

Will Sisi remain?

Sisi's reign will no doubt remain for now due to the sensitivity of the American military routes. 30 American warships including nuclear powered aircraft carriers pass through the Suez Canal regularly and more than 2000 U.S. military planes fly over Egypt's air space annually. These numbers increase several-fold during wartime. These routes are a big asset for the U.S. as other routes are more costly and give other nations a trump card over the U.S.

A report titled "The Future of the US-Egyptian Relationship"  by American think tank CSIS mentioned that:

“when Egypt was revolutionary, the region felt revolutionary, and when Egypt was tilting Islamic, the region seemed to tilting Islamic.”

Therefore it is better that Egypt is not tilting Islamic  or revolutionary (for now) for the West. It is however impossible to steer Egypt into a "secular democracy" or a "democracy with Islamists" when Sisi is purging the Muslim Brotherhood out of the various sectors it used to enjoy fiefdom in, a group far more interlinked into the fabric of Egyptian society than the Gulenists are in the current purge in Turkey.

It will be Sisi's duty under instruction of the Americans to continue his brutal crackdown while the Western nations conclude their operations in their near abroad, but little does Sisi realise that his undermining of liberal democracy and authoritarianism will also be his own downfall for the West can easily conjure up an Arab Spring like narrative against him and replace him with the "peoples choice".

America needs Sisi for the time being while Syria, Libya and Yemen are being resolved militarily because any impediment to American military at this sensitive time can leave America without control of those regions. Israel also needs a strong Egypt ally while their borders  feel threatened, hence Sisi's continuous vocal support for Israel and its joint objectives in Sinai.

If and when the other regions are concluded, Egypt can easily see destabilisation at their own doorstep as it won't be hard to "stoke up the youth" against Sisi or even a reformed Muslim Brotherhood led by the liberal youth members adopting the Turkish model for democracy.

Wake up call for the Muslims in Egypt

For the Muslims residing in Egypt, you have been stung hard once already and the muddy waters have become clear to who the aggressor was. You may enjoy the price of bread today more so than you did under Morsi but you will surely enjoy the taste of the afterlife more when you work towards the real solution.

Don't hide beneath your covers now because Allah (swt) has made it plain to you that working within a secular system to gradually implement the Sharia is indeed the wrong method!

Let this be a sign from the Almighty Allah 'Azza wa-jalla that the only method to resume the Islamic way of life whereby the Muslims will have protection, security and prosperity is the method of the Beloved Prophet ﷺ!

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/08/10/what-is-the-future-for-egypt/

 

President Obama on a new beginning the Middle East

Speech by President Obama at Cairo University, 4 June 2009 

Also available at whitehouse.gov

---

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities – (applause) – it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum – "Out of many, one." 

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes – and, yes, religions – subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together. 

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security – because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military – we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as – it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace. 

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people – (applause) – I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations – the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress. 

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra – (applause) – as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know – I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. 

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. 

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism. 

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster. 

The sixth issue – the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know – and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations – including America – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith. 

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century – (applause) – and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END  2:05 P.M. (Local)

- See more at: http://al-bab.com/documents-reference-section/president-obama-new-beginning-middle-east#sthash.751VWBkI.dpuf

The Arab Spring seemed natural, but it was far from it...

Recently published book "Fall of the Arab Spring: From Revolution to Destruction" examines modern imperialism vis-à-vis the so-called ‘Arab Spring.’


‘Liberal imperialism’ has continued to evolve. A more novel method for modern imperialism includes the use of the ‘color revolution.’ Adherents of this method, such as Peter Ackerman of the Albert Einstein Institute (AEI) and Carl Gershman of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (See Chapter II), argue unfriendly regimes can be toppled by mobilizing swarms of discontented adolescents, via mass communication media such as SMS, Facebook and Twitter. Illustrating its appeal to the Obama team, this later tactic of ‘civilian-based power’ was utilized as the initial driving force of the so-called ‘Arab Spring,’ and was later superseded by direct military intervention and America’s newest unconventional model of warfare.



Despite evidence to the contrary, the mainstream narrative is that the wave of uprisings against the status quo autocratic Arab regimes were entirely organic. Additionally, a narrative sometimes found in alternative media is that these uprisings were initially organic, but were subsequently hijacked or diverted by the West and Gulf state monarchies. The latter narrative is given credence through the West’s direct military intervention to topple Muammar Qaddafi’s government in Libya. Both of these notions are specious. The idea that romantic Arab youth activists alone initiated the attempt to topple their autocratic regimes is a myth. The objective of Fall of the Arab Spring is to shatter this prevailing mythology.



In truth, the so-called “Arab Spring”which swept through the MENA region was a wave of destabilizations sponsored by Washington and launched through ‘civilian-based power’ techniques. It was American imperialism of the most modern form. With the onset of multipolarity—with many of Washington’s vassals looking to resurgent power centers such as Moscow and Beijing—the US moved pre-emptively for ‘regime change’ against the independence of ‘enemy’ states and erstwhile clients. Additionally, the ‘Arab Spring’ offensive was given impetus by the imperative to accelerate the regional process of what Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most influential British Arabist, termed “Lebanonization” as a self- fulfilling prophecy. [3] This refers to the far-reaching balkanization, societal breakdown, and explosion of sectarian conflicts following the attenuation or collapse of the state—the model of Somalia.


You can buy the book from Amazon. 

I've ordered it and I'll probably write some blog posts regarding it inshaAllah.

The Different Types of Salafi's

A new article recently published on WarOnTheRocks raised some interesting points regarding the two types of Salafi's the West need to deal with.

I've collated some of the main points here:

If we want to stop the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s recruitment to violence, a better question is how does the group transform centuries-old theological concepts into real and present threats?

Answering that question requires that we begin by stipulating that the Islamic State is a Salafi organization. Salafism is based on an exclusive adherence to this early Islamic Sunni theology. Next, we must recognize the historical division of Salafism between violent and non-violent strains in the 20th century under specific political conditions. Finally, and perhaps most urgently, we might consider the lessons of this history for our own strategic planning today.

Because of its emphasis on redefining Islamic faith and practice, Salafis — both violent and non-violent ones — prioritize their attention on fellow Muslims (Sufis, Shi‘is, even non-Salafi Sunnis) for promoting what they regard as “deviant” interpretations of the faith.

So why do some use this to attack others violently, while others only do so rhetorically? There is only one conceptual factor that drives this decision: the reason why others, in the eyes of different Salafis, fail to adopt their worldview. To non-violent Salafis, the reason they give is misinformation and misunderstanding — not having been exposed to their theological views. Innocence by omission. For violent ones, the reason is because of a deliberate resistance to it — an expression of the internal “unbelief” in God’s monotheism (kufr). Guilt by commission, and commission of the religion’s gravest sin, violating God’s “oneness.”

This divide is nearly as old as the religion itself, and was a core question underlying the evolution of early Islamic theology. On the one hand there stood Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855CE) and his circle (the so-called People of Hadith), who held that one’s faith is expressed in one’s “heart, tongue and limbs.” On the other, the more rationalist schools argued that this faith is only in the heart and tongue and need not be confirmed by actions of the limbs.

This debate surfaced in the 20th century as a fault line between violent and non-violent Salafis, who — unlike other Sunnis — ostensibly all identified with the People of Hadith in their theology, but who, in practice, came to different conclusions about the practical implications of this theology. The watershed moment came in 1986, when one Safar al-Hawali (b. 1950) put the finishing touches on his dissertation for the Saudi Umm al-Qura University. In it, Hawali — who, although not a jihadist, would be later regarded as something of their intellectual ally — attacked one Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999) for the latter’s view that one’s failure to pray was not a sign of “unbelief,” but rather could have been caused by laziness, oversleeping, or some other non-doctrinal factor. For Hawali, a Muslim’s neglect of proper Islamic conduct was evidence of ceasing to be Muslim. For Albani, who would later become the doyen of the so-called “quietist” strain of Salafism, a Muslim’s neglect of prayer was a sin but did not change one’s Muslim status.

In the 1990s, these positions became the core kernel of a new and broader debate on the issue of takfir (excommunication of other Muslims). Specifically, under what circumstances may Muslims excommunicate other Muslims, and thereby justify engaging in violence against them? On the one hand there were those who believed, as Hawali did, that failure to act in an Islamic way nullified one’s Islamic identity — these formed the intellectual nucleus of jihadism. On the other stood the quietists, Albani’s progeny, who resisted drawing the link between the need to behave in an Islamic way and the reasons for not doing so.

This became the debate between violent Salafis (or jihadists) and the non-violent ones (quietists), and the labels they used to attack one another are revealing of the sensitivities of each. Quietist Salafis almost universally refrain from referring to jihadists by their proper ideological designation as “Salafi-jihadists,” but rather use the term “takfiri” or “extremist,” referring to their singular focus on using takfir as a justification for wanton bloodletting. Quietist Salafis further argue that they too have principles of takfir and jihad, but that these are enshrined in a “methodology” — i.e. there is a time and a place for them. The names of early Islamic sects are also commonly invoked as labels for each group, but these are used strategically in a derogatory way and do not, as we saw earlier, reflect the actual theological positions on which each relies (examples include “Kharijites” for jihadists, and “Murji’ites” for quietists). In other words, their use is akin to how Westerners would freely use the “Fascist” label to describe any form of bigotry, despite its frequently ahistorical use.

It goes on to interestingly state that the Salafi's are not different to those who compromise their deen and enter into the political framework. The author recognises himself that this is in itself unislamic yet the Salafi's do not?

In Egypt, perhaps noting Sisi’s wide-ranging crackdown on journalists, Salafis continue to lament the “media campaigns” against them as their primary concern. Salafis have even competed in elections — a violation of one of their cardinal principles of rejecting modern institutions — since that, for them, was a mechanism of survival within the specific context of Egyptian politics under Sisi. Indeed, over the last year, Egypt’s Salafi Nour Party was able to navigate the country’s political turbulence by branding itself an ally of the state in combatting terrorism, rather than siding with their pro-Morsi Salafi counterparts in demanding Sisi’s ouster. In short, these examples demonstrate that the survival of Salafi groups within local political circumstances are just as much expressions of their pragmatic skills as they are of their ideological commitments. However, since their ideology is often used as justification for the decisions they make, one might also conclude that, just as with the divide between non-violent and violent Salafism at the end of the last century, the practical implications of Salafi ideology in the present century is equally conditioned by local contexts as it is by long-established theological concepts.

Where are the Muslim Brotherhood Taking the Ummah of Mohammed (saw)? - By Abu Usaid

The Muslim Brotherhood have sold Syria for a trifling worldly gain after they had forsaken Islam in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan. For a Muslim to sacrifice his wealth and his life to establish a state in which he is commanded to disbelieve is beyond comprehension. "They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray." [4-60]
The deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, Mohammad Farouk Tayfour, who attended the Riyadh meeting yesterday, said in an exclusive interview with al-Arabiya.net: "The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria  have never viewed the revolution as a secular or religious issue." He added: "The revolution is a nationalist issue that excludes no one." He also confirmed the openness of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to dealing with the West and the US by saying: "We have our special method and we have a similar vision to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and the Congregation for Reform in Yemen." In respect of the notion of Khilafah and the group's opinion on it in Syria, he explained that "the specifics and the conclusive evidences on the issue of ruling in Islam are limited." And on the Muslim Brotherhood's relationship with al-Nusrah Front, he said: "We have made great strides in terms of deepening the principle of centrism and moderation but we are yet to reach an agreement on their willingness to sever their ties with al-Qaeda." 

No one disputes the fact that the notion of "nationalism", from which Dr Tayfour is departing, is built upon the doctrine of separating religion from life and it removes the barriers and boundaries between Islam and Kufr; otherwise how could one reconcile between the exigencies of nationalism which legitimises the accession of a citizen to power irrespective of his religion and the prohibition of a non-Muslim assuming power? Allah (swt) says:"And never will Allah give the unbelievers a way over the believers." [4-141] Ibnul-Arabi said: "Indeed Allah (swt) does not allow the Kuffar a way over the believers in Shari'ah; and if it were to materialise, it would be contrary to Shari'ah." Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you." [4-59] This proves in a conclusive manner that authority belongs to the Muslims because the address in the ayah is to the Muslims and Allah's (swt) saying "from among you" denotes that the supreme authority belongs exclusively to the Muslims; Allah (swt) has also forbidden us from obeying the Kuffar by saying:"O you who believe if you pay heed to those who are bent on denying the truth, they will cause you to turn back on your heels and you will be the losers." [3-149]

Another ayah denoting the prohibition of the Kafir's authority over the Muslim is Allah's (swt) saying: "O you who believe do not take the Kuffar as allies in preference to the believers". [4-144] Al-Qurtubi said about this: "This means do not take as your confidential and close staff from among them." It is also reported on the authority of Ubadah Ibnul-Samit that he said: "The Prophet (ﷺ) called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam..... to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah." Qadi Ayyadh said: "If he were to commit Kufr or to change the Shari'ah or concoct an innovation, he would deviate from the authority and his obedience would be nullified; and the Muslims would have to stand up to him and remove him, and establish a fair Imam if they could; and if this were to only occur to a group, they ought to undertake the removal of the Kafir."

Hence, how does the concept of nationalism and the criterion of citizenship that Tayfour is calling for tally with the Islamic system he has been commanded to establish?

These evidences are sufficient to demolish the foundation upon which the thought of Dr Tayfour is built and they are binding on every member and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood movement to return to the Book of Allah (swt) and act according to it before calling the masses to it. The movement should refrain from deceiving people with the slogan of "Allah is our aspiration and the Qur'an is our constitution" because they stand the farthest from it; and Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe why do you say one thing and do another? Most loathsome in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do." [61-2,3] 

If the decision maker in the Syrian file has assigned to the Muslim Brotherhood the task of dissuading al-Nusrah Front from pursuing armed struggle and of luring them into the camp of "moderation and centrism" instead, they should then refrain from trumpeting the slogan of "Jihad is our way" and tinkering with the Ummah's objective. 

Dr Tayfour says the Muslim Brotherhood has never viewed the revolution as either a "secular or a religious" issue; so what is their issue then? Does he want to justify his acceptance of the state's secularity or does he want us to understand that dealing with the issue through religion would cast a shadow over the victory that descends from the White House? If the plane of the struggle against the regime were not an issue of Islam and Kufr, how would we then describe the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the revolution?  Was it a cheap functional reaction to the American exigencies to shape the Middle East? Or was it an exploitation of Islam to solidify secularism and secure its embracing among the masses? Or was it meant to deviate the direction of the Muslims and curtail their aspiration to achieve liberation and revival?

The statements of Dr Tayfour about the conclusive evidences on the legitimate Khilafah being limited indicates very clearly that the Muslim Brotherhood have washed their hands of the Ummah's central issue and submitted to the volition of the colonialist Kafir West regarding the regime they intend to establish on the ruins of Bashar Assad's regime. Tayfour is attempting to belittle the issue of the Khilafah and propagate the secularist state to the masses in Syria under the pretext that the "conclusive" evidences for al-Khilafah are limited. By disowning the Khilafah system, Tayfour is also attempting to provide support for the outcome of the Riyadh meeting and to dissipate the Western fears of the Islamic trait sported by the "opposition" movements, thus aping the American viewpoint towards Islam. He is also attempting to nullify the Russian arguments and justifications for rejecting the "Islamic" movements and present his group to the West as being a match to their foster child Erdoğan as a guardian of secularism.  

Hence, the call of the Muslim Brotherhood through Dr Tayfour contradicts the conclusive texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, violates the volition of the Muslims, squanders their dignity and their sacrifices and gives a way to the Kuffar over the Muslims. No sincere Muslim should accept or support such a call.

"O you who believe do not betray Allah and the Messenger and do not knowingly betray the trust that has been reposed in you." [8-27]

13 December 2015  

by Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/549926258499111

Hossam Bahgat - The US-funded journalist to push for Human Rights and Democracy in Egypt

Hossam Bahgat, a name that has been mentioned quite a few times over the past month or so. The Egyptian journalist who has been detained by Egyptian authorities and claimed to have suffered detention and torture. Although it is horrendous for anyone to have suffered such, we need to look deeper into why the media is focusing on a single journalist in Egypt that has suffered when hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members have not only been tortured but murdered.

It doesn't take long to find that Hossam Bahgat is funded by the terrorist sponsor George Soros Foundation, Open Society. He sits neatly on the advisory board under the Open Society Justice Initiative. Soros has built a global empire of networked nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly promoting "human rights," "freedom," "democracy," and "transparency." His Open Society Institute funds amongst many others, Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch. In reality these NGOs constitute a modern day network of imperial administrators, undermining national governments around the world and replacing them with a homogeneous "civil society" that interlocks with "international institutions" run from and on behalf of Wall Street and London. And contrary to popular belief, Soros has built this empire, not against "conservative" ambitions, but with their full cooperation.

It is difficult to find a cause Soros' Open Society Institute supports that is not also funded, directed, and backed by the US State Department-funded, Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

It would be almost four months after the beginning of the so-called "Arab Spring" before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated:

"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "

George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations.

In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported:


"It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month.

These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED fundedEgyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground."

So why all this commotion regarding Hossam Bahgat's detention? It would seem as though the Americans are trying to gain Hossam some credibility amongst the public. Preparing him for a key role in further democratising Egypt in the future? He's certainly gaining credibility amongst the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'll let you join the dots... 

Sources:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/22217-what-happened-during-my-detention
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/surpise-soros-is-convicted-criminal.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/egyptian-journalist-hossam-bahgat-charged-military-prosecutor
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/people/hossam-bahgat

Only the Islamic Shield can Withstand the Onslaught by the Kuffar

It is patent to every observer that the Islamic Ummah is enduring her darkest days and her most awkward conditions. All and sundry have ganged up on her. Plots and conspiracies have been concocted to keep the Ummah incapable of reversing her situation and assuming her own affairs. After they had engrossed her for decades with the issue of Palestine, they embroiled her again for decades with the issue of Iraq, the "war on terror" and the Greater Middle East Initiative. All these engrossments, or rather all these conspiracies, have been designed to alienate the Ummah from her central issue and keep her a hostage to the vicious circle of a struggle with the Kafir West. Yet, this struggle is unbalanced since the West looks upon us as one single Ummah but deals with us as divided segments and endeavours to corroborate the separation and the fragmentation by entrenching the animosity among us whenever the opportunity arises.

Our main issue is neither Palestine nor Iraq or Syria or Egypt. These are vital issues that emanate from the central issue, namely establishing Islam in the realm of life. Any other effort exhausted towards other than this issue would sidetrack the Muslims and perpetuate the dominion of the Kuffar over their lands.  

As for the vital issues that stem from the central issue, such as the issues of Syria, Iraq and Palestine, the only fruitful effort towards settling these issues is to work in a country in control of its own security and free from the military presence of the Kuffar. This country should possess the faculties of a state so that it may be the nucleus of the Islamic state, through assiduous and effective work to fuse the masses with Islam in its quality as a rational Aqeedah from which a system emanates to regulate all life's affairs. Work should be concentrated in this country to prepare its people and their forces to support Islam and establish the Islamic State which will in turn work towards bringing the rest of the Islamic lands under its wing and towards liberating the occupied lands from the occupiers by expelling their forces.

As for the stance of the Muslim in Syria in particular, they should perceive that the criminal regime is conducting a war in which the Muslims are killing each other, their country is being destroyed and their faculties depleted; this dirty war is overseen by a malicious enemy, namely the Kafir West aided by Russia. They keep plotting and planning against the Muslims to perpetuate the crisis and weaken the regime and its opponents further in order to impose their own agenda on them and initiate a roadmap for a secular state to replace the secular Baath regime that oppresses the Muslims in Syria. If the Muslim perceived this reality, he would perceive his stance vis-à-vis this war: he should neither lean towards a secular Kafir Baath regime that kills the Muslims and sows the seeds of strife amongst them, nor should he side with an opposition that blatantly admits its relationship with the devious enemies of this Ummah and urges them to intervene militarily and supply it with sophisticated weapons. This does not mean the Muslim should remain confused about what course of action to pursue; he should rather work towards ending the bloodshed to the best of his ability. He should defend himself, his family and his property should anyone or any group transgresses his inviolabilities. If he cannot defend them, he should seek a safe haven if he could. His raison d'être should remain Islam. He should work towards its return by establishing the Islamic State. This is what is required from a Shari'ah perspective.   

Sawt-ul-Ummah - Issue 16

Suruc Suicide Attack - Another example of ISIS's lack of political awareness?

Is this another example of ISIS's lack of political awareness or is it the same tactic used by the West to drag in other nations into the coalition?

This is similar to the situation with the Jordanian pilot whereby ISIS carried out a horrific public stunt with high level video editing for full effect of Moaz al-Kasesbeh burnt inside a metal cage and then crushed under a vehicle.

The UAE were pulling out of the joint coalition to fight ISIS and with Jordan's public opinion being more inclined to non-involvement with ISIS, a convenient public stunt changed UAE's stance as well as aiding in tipping the public opinion to the other side in Jordan - not to mention it just so happened to be the son of a very influential tribal figure in Jordan.

Why is it that ISIS carry out actions that are only detrimental to themselves. Is it not better to establish themselves and secure their own people before calling on the air strikes from yet another bordering nation? Rather it is an agenda to aid the West in its plans to further separate the Muslims, not only on nationalism but by physical borders.

Turkey has not until now carried out any air-strikes against ISIS under the banner of the coalition formed by the Americans. The Suruc massacre has conveniently given an excuse for more destruction in Syria and Iraq. It is important to note that these strikes will be launched from Incirlik Air Base which was constructed by the Americans during the Cold War after Turkey had joined the Allies. Although it is called the Incirlik Air Base it would be more relevant to be called the 'Adana Air Base' which was the original name given by the Americans who still have more personnel (Approx 5000) present at the airbase as well as the UK's Royal Air Force.

This is just one of many examples of how ISIS are playing into the hands of the West, arguably on purpose. We have not even mentioned the Saudi border attacks the pulled the Saudi's into action, the Egyptian massacre on the border of Libya that conveniently gave Sisi financial support in fighting ISIS and the recent Tunisian resort attack that has given the government in Tunis the permission to build a physical wall separating themselves from Libya.

It is important also to note that the border under construction between Tunisia and Libya has a completion date of December 2015 (6 months) which spans approximately 300 miles, only 200 miles shorter than the Turkish Syrian border, setting the precedence for Turkey to also create a physical border to separate the Muslims further. It is argued over 80% of those fighting in Syria have crossed from the Turkish border due to its lack of security and ease of access. The Turkish politicians vehemently deny this saying it is too hard to control such a long border, although this excuse no longer works due to the short time in which Tunisia will create a divide.

Is this a re-marking of the faded lines drawn by Sykes and Picot?

  

Sheikh of Al-Azhar meets far right-wing French National Front leader in Cairo

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/18968-meeting-between-sheikh-al-azhar-and-marine-le-pen-fulfilled-different-objectives

Marine Le Pen and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib have both defended their recent meeting in the Egyptian capital. The leader of the extreme right-wing French National Front met the Sheikh of Al-Azhar on Thursday in his Cairo establishment. Their defence came in the face of a storm of criticism due to Le Pen's well-known hostility towards Muslims. Al-Azhar has come under pressure from coup leader Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who met with Al-Tayyib last Wednesday. The meeting was followed by a statement issued by the Egyptian presidency alluding to an agreement to make changes in the curricula of Al-Azhar University.

Observers claim that the French extremist intends to use the visit to rid her party of the stigma of extremism, not least because she will be standing in the French presidential election in 2017. Local sources in Cairo said that Al-Tayyib tried through this meeting to divert the anger of Al-Sisi, who is displeased with him for not responding sufficiently to his demand to "renew" religious discourse, which to the coup leader means manipulating what is taught at the historic university.

In an exclusive interview with Sky Arabic TV on Saturday, Marine Le Pen said, without a touch of irony, that it was important for her to visit Egypt for the first time because of its vital role in the context of the influence of "extremists and terrorists" who now constitute a real global problem.

"President Sisi's speeches, which I consider to be very brave, have motivated me [to visit Egypt]," said Le Pen. "I wanted through this visit to clarify the misunderstanding we have about our vision of the Arab world and the events there and to discuss the efforts to combat extremism."

The right-winger stuck to her position of objecting to Muslim women wearing the headscarf and what she described as "the Muslims praying in the roads". She stressed that France is a secular country and that Muslims in France should respect the law of the land.

The Deputy Dean of Al-Azhar, Dr Abbas Shuman, said that receiving the National Front leader, who is known for her extremist and anti-Islam opinions, does not mean she was welcomed by Sheikh Al-Azhar. It simply means, he insisted, that Al-Azhar is opening up to the Other and that it is implementing the true Islamic teachings, proving that Sunni Islam is well advanced compared to political trends across the entire world, especially in the West.

In a statement made on Saturday, Shuman denied that the Azharis were furious because Sheikh Al-Azhar received Le Pen. "Whoever spoke about the anger of the Azharites because the Grand Imam received the leader of the French party only exposed their identity after they claimed that Al-Tayyib remains indifferent while seeing blood being spilled." He pointed out that the stances of Sheikh Al-Azhar towards bloodshed is known to all. However, he did not explain what he meant by that.

Within the same context, a source at the French embassy in Cairo disclosed that Le Pen's visit was unofficial, with no coordination by the embassy to organise it; the meetings took place away from any official protocol and the embassy had no idea why she was visiting Egypt.

In the meantime, the Washington Post published a detailed report about the visit and said that some observers abroad criticised Le Pen, stating that the timing was inappropriate. The deputy director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa department, Nadim Houri, said: "Perhaps Le Pen's visit will be interpreted as a means of support for President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi."

This would be embarrassing for the Egyptian regime, given that Le Pen's party wants to stop issuing licences to build mosques in France and she has likened Muslim prayers in the street to the Nazis. This is problematical because the head of the French Council for the Islamic Religion, Dalil Abu Bakr, has called for doubling the number of mosques in France in order to solve the issue of the lack of places for millions of French Muslims to hold their acts of worship. There are only 2,200 mosques in France; this number needs to be doubled, he said, in order to fulfil the needs of the increasing number of Muslims.

In a long statement issued after her visit to Cairo, Le Pen expressed her extreme views openly as she mentioned what she believed are issues of mutual agreement between her and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib: "The vital importance of ten million Coptic Christians, the descendants of Ancient Egyptians, who pay a heavy price for Islamic intolerance and the balancing role that France and Egypt should play in the conflicts raging across the Arab world; the stabilising role that Egypt should play in Libya; and the importance of convincing the citizens of North Africa and the Middle East not to relinquish the lands of their ancestors in pursuit of an unknown future in Europe."

Observers have concluded from this that the meeting between Sheikh Al-Azhar and Marine Le Pen had a political agenda for each of them. While the latter sought to make political gains within the French political arena as a result of the meeting, the former sought to appease Al-Sisi. That he needed to do this is evident from the repeated calls within the pro-Sisi media outlets for Al-Tayyib to be sacked from his prestigious position.

Sisi shoots his foot again, but don't worry it's still metal plated and 'Made in America'

It was not long ago when Sisi carried out a coup d'état in Egypt and took to the throne. He carried out certain actions that didn't help his image, such as the closure of tunnels that served as a lifeline for the Palestinians in Gaza with recently around 521 tunnels having been discovered and closed. He ordered the demolishment of all facilities and housing within the buffer zone (500m or 0.3 miles, west of the Gaza Strip) and vowed that he would compensate those who have lost their homes and businesses - yet he has not delivered his promise and left thousands homeless not unlike 'Israel' (Occupied Palestine) who extend their settlement boundaries and do the same.

The recent death sentence to many handed down en-masse as well as to ousted Muslim Brotherhood leader, Morsi, means that not only does it make it difficult to engage with Sisi locally but also internationally he is having issues with making friends. President of Germany, Norbert Lammert,  has expressed no interest in meeting the Egyptian leader stating that his human rights record nor the democratic evolution of Egypt shows any progress.

It begs the question to why Sisi was put in there in the first place. US's hollow rhetoric regarding his coup expressed implicit blessings and why not? He has managed to achieve those things that other Presidents failed to deliver for the U.S. in such a short space of time. It seems as if he is the man of action for the West and not to mention the cooperation in the war on Muslims in Libya, his public abhorrence of the Islamic texts (Including the Quran) which he thinks have been wrongly sacralized by the masses etc.






Sources:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/18792-president-of-german-parliament-explains-refusal-to-meet-al-sisi

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/egypt-sinai-gaza-tunnels-sanctions-sisi-terrorist.html

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/egypt-says-it-has-discovered-521-tunnels-gaza-strip-1874990106

What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War?

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/

A CounterPunch Exclusive: Collusion and Betrayal on the Suez Canal

What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War?

by ISRAEL SHAMIR

Moscow

Here in Moscow I recently received a dark-blue folder dated 1975. It contains one of the most well-buried secrets of Middle Eastern and of US diplomacy. The secret file, written by the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo, Vladimir M. Vinogradov, apparently a draft for a memorandum addressed to the Soviet politbureau, describes the 1973 October War as a collusive enterprise between US, Egyptian and Israeli leaders, orchestrated by Henry Kissinger. If you are an Egyptian reader this revelation is likely to upset you. I, an Israeli who fought the Egyptians in the 1973 war, was equally upset and distressed, – yet still excited by the discovery. For an American it is likely to come as a shock.

According to the Vinogradov memo (to be published by us in full in the Russian weekly Expert next Monday), Anwar al-Sadat, holder of the titles of President, Prime Minister, ASU Chairman, Chief Commander, Supreme Military Ruler, entered into conspiracy with the Israelis, betrayed his ally Syria, condemned the Syrian army to destruction and Damascus to bombardment, allowed General Sharon’s tanks to cross without hindrance to the western bank of the Suez Canal, and actually planned a defeat of the Egyptian troops in the October War. Egyptian soldiers and officers bravely and successfully fought the Israeli enemy – too successfully for Sadat’s liking as he began the war in order to allow for the US comeback to the Middle East.

He was not the only conspirator: according to Vinogradov, the grandmotherly Golda Meir knowingly sacrificed two thousand of Israel’s best fighters – she possibly thought fewer would be killed — in order to give Sadat his moment of glory and to let the US  secure its positions in the Middle East. The memo allows for a completely new interpretation of the Camp David Treaty, as one achieved by deceit and treachery.

Vladimir Vinogradov was a prominent and brilliant Soviet diplomat; he served as  ambassador to Tokyo in the 1960s, to Cairo from 1970 to 1974, co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference,  ambassador to Teheran during the Islamic revolution, the USSR Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. He was a gifted painter and a prolific writer; his archive has hundreds of pages of unique observations and notes covering international affairs, but the place of honor goes to his Cairo diaries, and among others, descriptions of his hundreds of meetings with Sadat and the full sequence of the war as he observed it unfold at  Sadat’s hq as the big decisions were made. When published, these notes will allow to re-evaluate the post-Nasser period of Egyptian history.

Vinogradov arrived to Cairo for Nasser’s funeral and remained there as the Ambassador. He recorded the creeping coup of Sadat,  least bright of Nasser’s men, who became Egypt’s president by chance, as he was the vice-president at Nasser’s death. Soon he dismissed, purged and imprisoned practically all important Egyptian politicians, the comrades-in-arms of Gamal Abd el Nasser, and dismantled the edifice of Nasser’s socialism. Vinogradov was an astute observer; not a conspiracy cuckoo. Far from being headstrong and  doctrinaire, he was a friend of Arabs and a consistent supporter and promoter of a lasting and just peace between the Arabs and Israel, a peace that would meet  Palestinian needs and ensure Jewish prosperity.

The pearl of his archive is the file called The Middle Eastern Games. It contains some 20 typewritten pages edited by hand in blue ink, apparently a draft for a memo to the Politburo and to the government, dated January 1975, soon after his return from Cairo. The file contains the deadly secret of the collusion he observed. It is written in lively and highly readable Russian, not in the bureaucratese we’d expect. Two pages are added to the file in May 1975; they describe Vinogradov’s visit to Amman and his informal talks with Abu Zeid Rifai, the Prime Minister, and his exchange of views with the Soviet Ambassador in Damascus. Vinogradov did not voice his opinions until 1998, and even then he did not speak as openly as in this draft. Actually, when the suggestion of collusion was presented to him by the Jordanian prime minister, being a prudent diplomat, he refused to discuss it.

The official version of the October war holds that on  October  6, 1973, in conjunction with Hafez al-Assad of Syria, Anwar as-Sadat launched a surprise attack against Israeli forces. They crossed the Canal and advanced a few miles into the occupied Sinai. As the war progressed, tanks of General Ariel Sharon  crossed the Suez Canal and encircled the Egyptian Third Army. The ceasefire negotiations eventually led to the handshake at the White House.

For me, the Yom Kippur War (as we called it) was an important part of my autobiography. A young paratrooper, I fought that war, crossed the canal, seized Gabal Ataka heights, survived shelling and face-to-face battles, buried my buddies, shot the man-eating red dogs of the desert and the enemy tanks. My unit was ferried by helicopters into the desert where we severed the main communication line between the Egyptian armies and its home base, the Suez-Cairo highway. Our location at 101 km to Cairo was used for the first cease fire talks; so I know that war not by  word of mouth, and it hurts to learn that I and my comrades-at-arms were just disposable tokens in the ruthless game we – ordinary people – lost. Obviously I did not know it then,  for me the war was a surprise, but then,  I was not a general.

Vinogradov dispels the idea of  surprise: in his view, both the canal crossing by the Egyptians and the inroads by Sharon were planned and agreed upon in advance by Kissinger, Sadat and Meir. The plan included the destruction of the Syrian army as well.

At first, he asks some questions: how the crossing could be a surprise if the Russians evacuated their families a few days before the war? The concentration of the forces was observable and could not escape Israeli attention. Why did the Egyptian forces  not proceed after the crossing but stood still? Why did they have no plans for advancing? Why there was a forty km-wide unguarded gap between the 2d and the 3d armies, the gap that invited Sharon’s raid? How could Israeli tanks sneak to the western bank of the Canal? Why did Sadat refuse to stop them? Why were  there no reserve forces on the western bank of the Canal?

Vinogradov takes a leaf from Sherlock Holmes who said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. He writes: These questions can’t be answered if Sadat is to be considered a true patriot of Egypt. But they can be answered in full, if we consider a possibility of collusion between Sadat, the US and Israeli leadership – a conspiracy in which each participant pursued his own goals. A conspiracy in which each participant did not know the full details of other participants’ game.  A conspiracy in which each participant tried to gain more ground despite the overall agreement between them.

Sadat’s Plans

Before the war Sadat was at the nadir of his power: in Egypt and abroad he had lost  prestige. The least educated and least charismatic of Nasser’s followers, Sadat was isolated. He needed a war, a limited war with Israel that would not end with defeat. Such a war would release the pressure in the army and he would regain his authority. The US agreed to give him a green light for the war, something the Russians never did. The Russians protected Egypt’s skies, but they were against wars. For that, Sadat had to rely upon the US and part with the USSR. He was ready to do so as he loathed socialism. He did not need victory, just no defeat; he wanted to explain his failure to win by deficient Soviet equipment. That is why the army was given the minimal task: crossing the Canal and hold the bridgehead until the Americans  entered the game.

Plans of the US

During decolonisation the US lost strategic ground in the Middle East with its oil, its Suez Canal, its vast population. Its ally Israel had to be supported, but the Arabs were growing stronger all the time. Israel had to be made more flexible, for its brutal policies interfered with the US plans. So the US had to keep Israel as its ally but at the same time Israel’s arrogance had to be broken. The US needed a chance to “save” Israel after allowing the Arabs to beat the Israelis for a while. So the US allowed Sadat to begin a limited war.

Israel        

Israel’s leaders had to help the US, its main provider and supporter. The US needed to improve its positions in the Middle East, as in 1973 they  had only one friend and ally, King Feisal. (Kissinger told Vinogradov that Feisal tried to educate him about the evilness of Jews and Communists.) If and when the US was to recover its position in the Middle East, the Israeli position would improve drastically. Egypt was a weak link, as Sadat disliked the USSR and the progressive forces in the country, so it could be turned. Syria could be dealt with militarily, and broken.

The Israelis and Americans decided to let Sadat take the Canal while holding the mountain passes of Mittla and Giddi, a better defensive line anyway. This was actually Rogers’ plan of 1971, acceptable to Israel. But this should be done in fighting, not given up for free.

As for Syria, it was to be militarily defeated, thoroughly. That is why the Israeli Staff did sent all its available troops to the Syrian border, while denuding the Canal though the Egyptian army was much bigger than the Syrian one. Israeli troops at the Canal were to be sacrificed in this game; they were to die in order to bring the US back into the Middle East.

However, the plans of the three partners were somewhat derailed by the factors on the ground: it is the usual problem with conspiracies; nothing works as it should, Vinogradov writes in his memo to be published in full next week in Moscow’s Expert.

Sadat’s crooked game was spoiled to start with. His presumptions did not work out. Contrary to his expectations, the USSR supported the Arab side and began a massive airlift of its most modern military equipment right away. The USSR took the risk of confrontation with the US; Sadat had not  believed they would because the Soviets were adamant against the war, before it started. His second problem, according to Vinogradov, was the superior quality of Russian weapons in the hands of Egyptian soldiers  — better than the western weapons in the Israelis’ hands.

As an Israeli soldier of the time I must confirm the Ambassador’s words. The Egyptians had the legendary Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles, the best gun in the world, while we had FN battle rifles that hated sand and water. We dropped our FNs and picked up their AKs at the first opportunity. They used anti-tank Sagger missiles, light, portable, precise, carried by one soldier. Saggers killed between 800 and 1200 Israeli tanks. We had old 105 mm recoilless jeep-mounted rifles, four men at a rifle (actually, a small cannon) to fight tanks. Only new American weapons redressed the imbalance.

Sadat did not expect the Egyptian troops taught by the Soviet specialists to better their Israeli enemy – but they did. They crossed the Canal much faster than planned and with much smaller losses. Arabs beating the Israelis – it was bad news for Sadat. He overplayed his hand. That is why the Egyptian troops stood still, like the sun upon Gibeon, and did not move. They waited for the Israelis, but at that time the Israeli army was fighting the Syrians. The Israelis felt somewhat safe from Sadat’s side and they sent all their army north. The Syrian army took the entire punch of Israeli forces and began its retreat. They asked Sadat to move forward, to take some of the heat off them, but Sadat refused. His army stood and did not move, though there were no Israelis between the Canal and the mountain passes. Syrian leader al Assad was convinced at that time that Sadat betrayed him, and he said so frankly to the Soviet ambassador in Damascus, Mr Muhitdinov, who passed this to Vinogradov. Vinogradov saw Sadat daily and asked him in real time why he was not advancing. He received no reasonable answer: Sadat muttered that he does not want to run all over Sinai looking for Israelis, that sooner or later they would come to him.

The Israeli leadership was worried: the war was not going as expected. There were big losses on the Syrian front, the Syrians retreated but each yard was hard fought; only Sadat’s passivity saved the Israelis from a reverse. The plan to for total Syrian defeat failed, but the Syrians could not effectively counterattack.

This was the time to punish Sadat: his army was too efficient, his advance too fast, and worse, his reliance upon the Soviets only grew due to the air bridge. The Israelis arrested their advance on Damascus and turned their troops southwards to Sinai. The Jordanians could at this time have cut off the North-to-South route and king Hussein proposed this to Sadat and Assad. Assad agreed immediately, but Sadat refused to accept the offer. He explained it to Vinogradov that he did not believe in the fighting abilities of the Jordanians. If they entered the war, Egypt would have to save them. At other times he said that it is better to lose the whole of Sinai than to lose a square yard on the Jordan: an insincere and foolish remark, in Vinogradov’s view. So the Israeli troops rolled southwards without hindrance.

During the war, we (the Israelis) also knew that if Sadat  advanced, he would gain the whole of Sinai in no time; we entertained many hypotheses why he was standing still, none satisfactory. Vinogradov explains it well: Sadat ran off his script and was waited for  US involvement. What he got was the deep raid of Sharon.

This breakthrough of the Israeli troops to the western bank of the Canal was the murkiest part of the war, Vinogradov writes. He asked Sadat’s military commanders at the beginning of the war why there is the forty km wide gap between the Second and the Third armies and was told that this was Sadat’s directive. The gap was not even guarded; it was left wide open like a Trojan backdoor in a computer program.

Sadat paid no attention to Sharon’s raid; he was indifferent to this dramatic development. Vinogradov asked him to deal with it when only the first five Israeli tanks crossed the Canal westwards; Sadat refused, saying it was of no military importance, just a “political move”, whatever that meant. He repeated this to Vinogradov later, when the Israeli foothold on the Western bank of became a sizeable bridgehead. Sadat did not listen to advice from Moscow, he opened the door for the Israelis into Africa.

This allows for two explanations, says Vinogradov: an impossible one, of the Egyptians’ total military ignorance and  an improbable one, of Sadat’s intentions. The improbable wins, as Sherlock Holmes observed.

The Americans did not stop the Israeli advance right away, says Vinogradov, for they wanted to have a lever to push Sadat so he would not change his mind about the whole setup. Apparently the gap was build into the deployments for this purpose. So Vinogradov’s idea of “conspiracy” is that of dynamic collusion, similar to the collusion on Jordan between the Jewish Yishuv and Transjordan as described by Avi Shlaim: there were some guidelines and agreements, but they were liable to change, depending on the strength of the sides.

Bottom line

The US “saved” Egypt by stopping the advancing Israeli troops. With the passive support of Sadat, the US allowed Israel to hit Syria really  hard.

The US-negotiated disengagement agreements with the UN troops in-between made Israel safe for years to come.

(In a different and important document, “Notes on Heikal’s bookRoad to Ramadan”, Vinogradov rejects the thesis of the unavoidability of Israeli-Arab wars: he says that as long as Egypt remains in the US thrall, such a war is unlikely. Indeed there have been no big wars since 1974, unless one counts Israeli “operations” in Lebanon and Gaza.)

The US “saved” Israel with military supplies.

Thanks to Sadat, the US came back to the Middle East and positioned itself as the only mediator and “honest broker” in the area.

Sadat began a violent anti-Soviet and antisocialist campaign, Vinogradov writes, trying to discredit the USSR. In the Notes, Vinogradov charges that Sadat spread many lies and disinformation to discredit the USSR in the Arab eyes. His main line was: the USSR could not and would not  liberate  Arab soil while the US could, would and did. Vinogradov explained elsewhere that the Soviet Union was and is against offensive wars, among other reasons because their end is never certain. However, the USSR was ready to go a long way to defend Arab states. As for liberation, the years since 1973 have proved that the US can’t or won’t deliver that, either – while the return of Sinai to Egypt in exchange for separate peace was always possible, without a war as well.

After the war, Sadat’s positions improved drastically. He was hailed as hero, Egypt took a place of honor among the Arab states. But in a year, Sadat’s reputation was in tatters again, and that of Egypt went to an all time low, Vinogradov writes.

The Syrians understood Sadat’s game very early: on October 12, 1973 when the Egyptian troops stood still and ceased fighting, President Hafez el Assad said to the Soviet ambassador that he is certain Sadat was intentionally betraying Syria. Sadat deliberately allowed the Israeli breakthrough to the Western bank of Suez, in order to give Kissinger a chance to intervene and realise his disengagement plan, said Assad to Jordanian Prime Minister Abu Zeid Rifai who told it to Vinogradov during a private breakfast they had in his house in Amman. The Jordanians also suspect Sadat played a crooked game, Vinogradov writes. However, the prudent Vinogradov refused to be drawn into this discussion though he felt that the Jordanians “read his thoughts.”

When Vinogradov was appointed  co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference, he encountered a united Egyptian-American position aiming to disrupt the conference, while Assad refused even to take part in it. Vinogradov delivered him a position paper for the conference and asked whether it is acceptable for Syria. Assad replied: yes but for one line. Which one line, asked  a hopeful Vinogradov, and Assad retorted: the line saying “Syria agrees to participate in the conference.” Indeed the conference came to nought, as did all other conferences and arrangements.

Though the suspicions voiced by Vinogradov in his secret document have been made by various military experts and historians, never until now they were made by a participant in the events, a person of such exalted position, knowledge, presence at key moments. Vinogradov’s notes allow us to decipher and trace the history of Egypt with its de-industrialisation, poverty, internal conflicts, military rule tightly connected with the phony war of 1973.

A few years after the war, Sadat was assassinated, and his hand-picked follower Hosni Mubarak began his long rule, followed by another participant of the October War, Gen Tantawi. Achieved by lies and treason, the Camp David Peace treaty still guards Israeli and American interests. Only now, as the post-Camp David regime in Egypt is on the verge of collapse, one may hope for change. Sadat’s name in the pantheon of Egyptian heroes was safe until now. In  the end, all that is hidden will be made transparent.

Postscript. In 1975, Vinogradov could not predict that the 1973 war and subsequent treaties would change the world. They sealed the fate of the Soviet presence and eminence in the Arab world, though the last vestiges were destroyed by  American might much later: in Iraq in 2003 and in Syria they are being undermined now. They undermined the cause of socialism in the world,  which began its long fall. The USSR, the most successful state of 1972, an almost-winner of the Cold war, eventually lost it. Thanks to the American takeover of Egypt, petrodollar schemes were formed, and the dollar that began its decline in 1971 by losing its gold standard – recovered and became again a full-fledged world reserve currency. The oil of the Saudis and of sheikdoms being sold for dollars became the new lifeline for the American empire. Looking back, armed now  with  the Vinogradov Papers, we can confidently mark 1973-74 as a decisive turning point in our history.

ISRAEL SHAMIR has been sending dispatches to CounterPunch from Moscow.