هل عزل مرسي شرعي أم لا ؟ وهل هناك حرب اهلية تلوح في سماء مصر ؟

هل عزل مرسي شرعي أم لا ؟ وهل هناك حرب اهلية تلوح في سماء مصر ؟

 



‏

الثلاثاء‏، 09‏ تموز‏، 2013

خاص أوقات الشام

سمير حجازي

مما لا شك فيه ان الرئيس مرسي هو اول رئيس منتخب ديمقراطيا و بطريقة شفافة و برقابة قضائية في مصر, وهذا يعطيه شرعية ديمقراطية لا شك فيها وهذا لا خلاف عليه, ولكن عزله هو ليس انقلاب على الشرعية و الديمقراطية بل هو انقلاب على استخدام الديمقراطية كوسيلة لتكريس الديكتاتورية أي انه في حقيقته انقلاب على الديكتاتورية وليس على الديمقراطية.
فالرئيس المنتخب ديمقراطيا عليه ان يحكم ديمقراطيا والا فقد الشرعية الديمقراطية التي أوصلته للحكم أصلا.
والرئيس مرسي هو من انقلب على الديمقراطية و الشرعية حين أصدر اعلانا دستوريا يجعل منه الحاكم بأمر الله, عدا عن محاولته ترويض السلطة القضائية و سلبها استقلالها.
من هنا.. فان المنقلب على الديمقراطية هو الرئيس مرسي و ما قام به الجيش هو ليس عزل رئيس شرعي منتخب وانما هو عزل رئيس منتخب انقلب على الديمقراطية التي يستمد منها شرعيته.
وهذا يظهر مدى عدم فهم الاخوان المسلمين لمعنى الديمقراطية, فانتخابك بطريقة ديمقراطية لا يعطيك الحق ان تحكم بطريقة ديكتاتورية, و السؤال: ماذا كان سيحدث في الولايات المتحدة لو ان الرئيس اوباما و المنتخب ديمقراطيا أصدر اعلانا دستوريا مشابها للاعلان الدستوري الذي أصدره مرسي ؟
ألم يكن الشعب الشعب الامريكي سيطيح به لانه انقلب على الديمقراطية التي أوصلته للحكم ؟
ما يحاجج به الاخوان اليوم هو ان مرسي منتخب ديمقراطيا, لكنهم يتناسون ما قام به مرسي من ممارسات ديكتاتورية أفقدته شرعيته الديمقراطية.

اما التخوف من اندلاع الحرب الاهلية في مصر كما حدث في سوريا, فهذا الامر وحسب رأينا مستبعد جدا لعدة أسباب:
1- ما حدث في سوريا مخطط له بشكل مسبق لتدمير الدولة السورية وتفتيتها بحيث يتم بعدها عزل ايران و الانقضاض على حزب الله لتصفيته ومن ثم تصفية القضية الفلسطينية تماما, اما ما يحدث في مصر فهو انهاء للمشروع الاخونجي في المنطقة وبضوء أخضر أمريكي, نعم.. بضوء أخضر أمريكي بعد تخلي الولايات المتحدة عن الاخوان بعد فشل مشروعهم الاستراتيجي, ورغم ان تحرك الشارع المصري كان عفويا الا انه ترافق مع موافقة امريكية لقوى مصرية مؤثرة ترتبط بالولايات المتحدة ارتباطا بشكل قوي كالجيش المصري و قوى مدنية كالبرادعي و عمر موسى و غيرهم, جميع هؤلاء تحركوا بضوء اخضر امريكي وما يؤكد ذلك هو حدوث أمران مهمان في نفس الاسبوع وسابقين لاسقاط مرسي يؤكدان تخلي واشنطن عن مشروع الاخوان المسلمين في المنطقة او الاسلام السياسي, وهما: عزل أمير قطر – و انهاء ظاهرة الاسير بهدوء ومن ثم اسقاط مرسي, هذه الاحداث لم تكن لتحدث بشكل متلازم وخلال اسبوع واحد لولا اليد الامريكية و الضوء الاخضر الامريكي.2- الحروب تحتاج الى تمويل وقد قامت كل من قطر و السعودية بضخ مليارات الدولارات لتمويل الحرب الاهلية في سوريا, ولولا هذا التمويل لما حدث ما نراه اليوم من حرب ودمار في سوريا, وفي الحالة المصرية هذا التمويل غير موجود.. فالسعودية ضد الاخوان و قطر هنأت الرئيس المصري الجديد لأنها تعلم جيدا توجه واشنطن غير المعلن.

وهنا يبقى لدينا احتمال من احتمالين:
1- دفع الولايات المتحدة للاخوان للتصعيد حتى يتم القضاء عليهم تماما بموافقتها.
2- تمرد الاخوان المسلمون على الادارة الامريكية و هذا سيؤدي الى النتيجة السابقة نفسها.
3- ليس من مصلحة اسرائيل حصول فوضى في مصر كما هو الحال في سوريا, لان هذا سيؤدي الى فلتان أمني و فتح الحدود بشكل كامل مع قطاع غزة وبالتالي احتمالية دخول اسلحة متطورة الى القطاع وربما مقاتلون أيضا الا اذا قامت اسرائيل باحتلال قطاع غزة مجددا وهذا أمر دونه الكثير من العقبات.

وعليه.. فإن ما يحدث حاليا في مصر و بغض النظر عن السيناريوهات و التحليلات ما هو الا انهاء تام لمشروع الاخوان المسلمين الاستراتيجي في المنطقة مع محاولة لتقليل الخسائر الامريكي عبر محاولة إيصال رئيس أمريكي الهوى كالبرادعي الى سدة الرئاسة في مصر.

• بنود الاتفاق السري بين التنظيم العالمي للاخوان والولايات المتحدة

 

Obama Backing ElBaradei?

Franklin Lamb

Beirut Al-Manar According to well-connected Washington sources, including a Congressional staffer whose job description includes following political events in Egypt, once it became evident that Egyptian President Mohammad Mursi might well be ousted by Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed  Forces (SCAF), it did not take Mohammad Mustafa ElBaradei, the Sharia legal  scholar, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and for 12 years (1997-2009) the Director  General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) very long to  contact the Washington, DC law firm of Patton Boggs. That was this past Tuesday. The very next day, ElBaradei’s representatives  reportedly also made contact with the Conference of Presidents of Major  American Jewish Organizations which claims to represent the 52 largest  American Jewish groups. ElBaradei, perhaps the current front-runner to  replace his long-time nemesis, Mohammad Mursi, moved fast to organize some key allies in Cairo and Washington to pick-up where his earlier failed  Presidential campaign left off in January 2011. Patton Boggs, the K Street, NW Washington DC law firm, which last year had  550 lawyers and 120 lobbyists and is arguably the firm closest to the White House and most likely to secure for its clients what they want from the approximately 5000 key dcision makers in the US Capitol. The other nearly  11,800 federally registered lobbyists in Washington (there were only 300 as recently as when Lyndon Johnson was US President) lag far behind Patton Boggs in terms of political influence. Patton Boggs new client wants the Pentagon and the White House to squeeze Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) who deposed President Mursi and arrange for himself to be appointed the interim President of Egypt pending early elections. What ElBaradei’s representatives are reportedly offering the White House in exchange for Obama’s discrete assistance, is that the 1979 Camp David Accord, including all its elements, will be observed. In addition, Egypt under ElBaradei can be expected to toughen its stance on Iran’s nuclear program including publicly adjusting some of his pre-2012 comments on Iran that the White House and Israel criticized as being “soft on the Islamic Republic.” Also being promised by ElBaradei’s agents is that security cooperation between Egypt and Israel will grow stronger. ElBaradei’s objective is to secure Barack Obama’s personal support during his jockeying for the expected forthcoming Egyptian presidential election. Once again the Obama administration was caught by surprise as the “Arab spring,” still in its infancy, increasingly portends ill for Western-installed potentates in all the Sykes-Picot artificially created “countries.” According to Congressional insiders, Obama reportedly has some doubts. Those following events in Egypt will likely recall his praise of Mursi after the two former University Professors had a chance to sit together and get to know one another. “I like this man,” Obama reportedly told some staff members, “he thinks like me.” When Mursi was deposed, Obama lamented: "We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian armed forces to remove President Mursi and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Mursi and his supporters." Meanwhile, the SCAF, at the urging of ElBaradei’s team, is paying sweet lip service regarding Obama’s expressed concerns. Shortly before the words were uttered by Minister of defense, Brig. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the State Department received a copy of the speech with the first paragraph highlighted to assuage Obama: “The armed forces will not interfere in the realm of politics or governance and will not overstep the role that it is assigned in a democracy, which stems from the desire of the people.” Those words sound good also in Foggy Bottom. Patton Boggs talking points to the Congress and Obama Administration are that President Mursi had more than a year to show progress to the Egyptian people, with both institutional political legitimacy derived from their election victories, and that he enjoyed strong popular support when he assumed full power from the armed forces in June 2012 but that he failed badly and the new government -- hopefully led by ElBaradei -- will now act more efficiently to move the country towards credible and legitimate institutions of governance. ElBaradei’s campaign, as reported in the July 4th edition of the New York Times also worked hard to convince the White House of what he called the necessity of forcibly ousting President Mursi, presenting several arguments that included documentation that Mursi had bungled the country’s transition to an inclusive democracy and wasted a year without following thru on any of his pledges. Some Congressional analysts believe that one of Mursi's biggest mistakes resulted from a deliberate policy of accommodation and not, as is commonly believed, confrontation. He allowed the military to retain its corporate autonomy and remain beyond civilian control. Furthermore, he included in his cabinet a large number of non-Muslim Brotherhood figures who abandoned him within months when the going got tough, thus presenting to the public an image that the government was on the verge of collapse. Some have suggested that Mursi should have brought the military to heel soon after he assumed power and was at the height of his popularity, just as the military was at its lowest point in public perception. Monday morning quarterbacking is now rampant to explain Mursi’s failures. What the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohammad Mursi’s supporters do in the coming days at Tahir Square and across Egypt will likely determine the route and the ultimate success of ElBaradei growing juggernaut. Meanwhile, as of today, it appears that President Barack Obama may well help usher Mohammad ElBaredei into Egypt’s Presidential Palace. If the Obama administration has success there will be joy in Tel Aviv, and at Patton Boggs' victory party, where a good number of the invited guests will almost certainly be carefully vetted by AIPAC.

Source: Al-Manar Website 06-07-2013 - 17:32 Last updated 06-07-2013 - 17:32 |

Mohammad El Baradei

WAKE UP EGYPT

The Arabs And Their Spring

How Morsi, Brotherhood Lost Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Deadly Mistakes

A Warning Against Exaggerated Hopes in Egypt

Confusion in Gaza: Hamas Anxious Over Egypt Drama

Egypt: What if the President Is Toppled?

Egyptian Islamist groups led by the ruling Muslim Brotherhood take part in a demonstration to mark the upcoming one year anniversary since President Mohamed Morsi was elected, on 21 June 2013 in Cairo. (Photo: AFP -Gianluigi Guercia)

 

By: Muhammad al-Khouli
Published Wednesday, June 26, 2013
 

What if the “revolution” planned for June 30 succeeds? Does the opposition have an alternative to the current ruling system? The opposition-aligned political factions have devised several proposals to avoid a repeat of the pitfalls of the January 25 Revolution.

Cairo – Who will be chosen as a replacement? The ruling Muslim Brotherhood is posing this question to Egyptians calling for the overthrow of President Mohamed Mursi on June 30.



“Either me or chaos.”

Deposed President Hosni Mubarak asked the same question. Before stepping down, he famously said, “Either me or chaos.” Oddly, the Brotherhood finds itself uttering these same words as it deploys its supporters throughout every street, village, and province in Egypt.

 Yet it seems that opposition political forces have learned their lesson from February 11, when Mubarak stepped down and ordered the armed forces to run the country, after which Egypt went through a transitional period that many politicians described as the worst in the country’s history.

On Saturday, June 22, the opposition forces launched an initiative dubbed “After the [President’s] Departure.” During a two-day conference, experts in all fields deliberated economic affairs, national security, the Sinai, and even the future of the Nile, following the Ethiopian bid to go ahead with the construction of the Grand Renaissance Dam. Their goal: to manage the post-Mursi transition.

The opening session was attended by Dustur Party head Mohamed el-Baradei, Popular Movement founder Hamdeen Sabahi, and a plethora of other opposition leaders. In a speech, Baradei called on Mursi to resign “for the sake of Egypt and a new era.”

Baradei said that the Muslim Brotherhood regime has divided Egypt and taken the country back to the Middle Ages, while Sabahi declared that the Egyptian people would not return to their homes on June 30 until Mursi steps down.

Sabahi stressed that everyone taking part in the June 30 protests will report to the leadership of the “Tamarrud,” or Rebellion, campaign, which must be credited with calling for the ouster of Mursi and his regime.

The conference organizers sought to deliver a clear message to the Egyptian people: “There is a real alternative to the current Brotherhood regime.” More importantly, according to Egyptian opposition party leaders who spoke to Al-Akhbar, the political forces must have a plan for the potential transitional phase.

Hossam Mounis, spokesperson for the Popular Movement, said that an agreement must first be reached among the political and popular forces over a unified vision for the transitional phase. For his part, Mahmoud Alayli, leader in the Free Egyptians Party and the opposition National Salvation Front, said that agreement on the vision is crucial.

Ahmad Eid, a Dustur Party official, said that the majority of opposition forces agreed that the chairperson of the Constitutional Court would take over presidential powers during any transitional period, provided that the post would be “honorary.” Full powers would be given to a government consisting of technocrats led by a figure that has popular approval and the respect of all political forces.

This government’s task would be to supervise security and the economy during the transition, while a committee would be formed to draft a new constitution and prepare laws for presidential and legislative elections.

This scenario proposed by Ahmad Eid is almost identical to the one put forward by the coordination committee for the June 30 protests, and called on all political factions to agree over it.
“After the Departure” also has a legal aspect. One demand is that the president should call early elections. According to legal experts, this would give the president the right to choose his successor, as Mubarak had done by transferring his powers to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

“After the Departure” also has a legal aspect. One demand is that the president should call early elections.

In this regard, Counselor Mahmoud Zaki, vice president of the State Council, told Al-Akhbar that there are several legal scenarios in the event the post of president becomes vacant.

If the president steps down, Zaki said, according to Article 153 of the current constitution, the speaker of the parliament takes over presidential powers. As this is not possible since the parliament was dissolved, the powers go to the head of the Shura Council. Currently, that post is occupied by Ahmed Fahmi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader.

Although the Constitutional Court ruled that the Shura Council was invalid, its opinion was the council can continue to function until a new parliament is elected. This would continue to be the case even if the president steps down, and consequently, his powers would be transferred to the head of the Shura Council.

The second scenario, meanwhile, would come into effect if the State Council deems the Constituent Assembly and the referendum on the constitution invalid. This would invalidate the article of the constitution that deals with the powers of the president should he step down, according to Zaki.

Dawoud al-Baz, professor of constitutional law at the University of al-Azhar, gave Al-Akhbar another legal opinion. He said that if the president steps down, his powers would be transferred to the prime minister. Baz noted that if the head of the Shura Council assumes presidential powers then this would be a matter of protocol but not necessarily one that is constitutional.

Otherwise, Baz said, if the president resigns under popular pressure, then a presidential council can be formed, or the head of the Constitutional Court or any other person chosen by the rebels can become president.

In that case, the constitution would go along with the president, and would thus not be a reliable authority.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Fatwa in Egypt Permits Killing Morsi Opponents

 

Saad al-Katatni, head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party, talks during a news conference next to former Egyptian foreign minister Amr Moussa (L) and Egyptian liberal politician Mohamed ElBaradei (R) after a meeting in Cairo, Jan. 31, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Asmaa Waguih)

By: Mohammad Hisham Abeih Translated from As-Safir (Lebanon).

اقرا المقال الأصلي باللغة العربية

The assassination of prominent Tunisian opposition leader Chokri Belaid sent ripples across Egypt. That owes partly to the similar political circumstances in both countries, where Islamists are the ruling majority, but also because the assassination coincided with the issuance of a fatwa by an Al-Azhar cleric sanctioning the killing of National Salvation Front members who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood regime. Prominent among these are Constitution Party leader Mohamed ElBaradei, Popular Current Party head Hamdeen Sabahi and National Congress Party head Amr Moussa.

The cleric who issued the fatwa was Mahmoud Shaaban, who received a doctorate degree from the Faculty of Arabic and Islamic Studies. One of the most famous and controversial television preachers, he appears on the Salafist Al-Hafez satellite channel, which has become very popular over the past year. Shaaban uses frequent obscenities when he speaks about opponents of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi.

Shaaban said in his fatwa that “what many do not know is that the National Salvation Front and its leadership, which is obviously only seeking power, must be killed according to the law of God.” He cited a hadith which says, “If a man takes an oath of allegiance to a leader, and puts his hand on his hand and does it with the sincerity of his heart, he should obey him as much as possible. If another man comes and contests him, then behead the other one.” He asked the opinion of senior scholars in Al-Azhar about Morsi’s opponents. This appeared to incite killing opponents of the regime.

All parties dissociated themselves from Shaaban’s fatwa. The presidency issued a statement saying that “the promotion and instigation of political violence by some is foreign to Egypt, as is sanctioning killing because of political differences by others who claim to speak in the name of religion. This is terrorism.” The statement added that the presidency “stresses its absolute rejection of hate speech falsely cloaked by religion.”

Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil said that he is examining ways to bring legal action against anyone who issues or promotes calls for fatwas that incite violence. He condemned “extremist” fatwas.

Members of the Islamic Studies Academy met yesterday [Feb. 7] with Al-Azhar Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, who issued a statement rejecting the fatwa. He stressed his rejection of what he described as the false and incorrect understanding and use of religious texts. The academy warned that such views open the doors to sedition, chaos, killing and bloodshed. He stated that both killers and those who incite them are accomplices in sin and punishment, in this world and the afterworld. The Islamic Studies Academy urged Egyptians not to listen to such aberrant views, which are rejected by reason.
The al-Nour Party also denounced the fatwa. The party’s spokesperson, Nader Bakkar, demanded that Al-Azhar take a decisive stand against the issuer of the fatwa.

The interior ministry deemed the fatwa a public threat. Its spokesman said yesterday that Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim had ordered security chiefs to intensify patrols and provide 24-hour surveillance around the houses of opposition political figures ElBaradei and Sabahi.

ElBaradei tweeted, “When clerics issue a fatwa sanctioning killing in the name of religion and are not arrested, then bid farewell to the regime and its state.” He added, “How many crimes are being committed in the name of Islam?”

Sabahi chose to respond to the fatwa by participating in demonstrations scheduled to start today against the Brotherhood's rule, dubbed by the organizers as the “Friday of Dignity.”

For her part, Samar Foda — the daughter of prominent thinker Faraj Foda, who was assassinated in 1992 by Islamic groups at the height of takfiri activity — warned ElBaradei and Sabahi of assassination after the fatwa was issued. She wrote on Facebook: “ElBaradei and Hamdeen: They killed my father after sanctioning his blood through a fatwa. Do not underestimate what is happening and what they are saying. They are sick. They believe that they are protecting Islam.”

Ironically, Abboud al-Zumar — the leader in the Gamaa Islamiya and a former army officer implicated in the murder of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat — rejected the fatwa, saying that “it is not acceptable to deal with political opponents with arms. This is unacceptable. Whoever resorts to assassination is using weak pretense.”

Shaaban, the issuer of the “deadly fatwa,” did not deny his statements. However, he added that he did not declare the National Salvation Front as infidels, but only called on the judiciary and ruler to apply the Prophet’s hadith. He expressed his willingness to appear before the public prosecutor for investigation. The public prosecutor quickly issued a decision referring a notice submitted by a lawyer to the Supreme State Security Prosecution that accused Shaaban of inciting the killing of opposition figures, which is a routine procedure usually taken by the Attorney General for all notices.
It is the second time a cleric from the Al-Hafez satellite channel has been referred to court. Abdullah Badr was sentenced to one year in prison and a 20,000 pound [$3,000] fine on charges of slandering the artist Elham Shahin. In the same case, a court ordered the suspension of the channel for 30 days. However, the TV owners appealed the decision and were able to continue broadcasting.

Read more:

Egyptians React Angrily To Morsi’s New Powers

 

Thousands of protesters carried banners emblazoned with photos of the January 2011 uprising victims and protested President Mohammed Morsi's constitutional declaration granting him sweeping powers in Cairo, Friday Nov. 23. (photo by Mohannad Sabry)

By: Mohannad Sabry Posted onFri, Nov 23.

CAIRO — In reaction to President Mohammed Morsi's stunning constitutional declaration on Thursday night, Nov. 22, thousands of angry demonstrators marched to Cairo’s iconic Tahrir Square in protest of what they described as “a coup on legitimacy.” Thousands were led by Muslim Brotherhood officers to show support at the walls of the presidential palace.

Presidential spokesman Yasser Ali announced on Thursday night that President Morsi had passed a constitutional declaration granting full immunity to the disputed 100-member assembly charged with writing the constitution as well as the remaining Upper House of Egypt’s dissolved parliament, in addition to retiring the general prosecutor and ordering the retrial of Mubarak-era officials, including those acquitted through several trials held in the aftermath of the January 2011 uprising.

The second constitutional declaration passed by Morsi in less than four months in power included the “revolution protection law,” which grants him the power to single-handedly take all “necessary measures to confront any dangers threatening the January 25 revolution, the life and safety of the nation, national unity or standing in the way of state institutions in performing their duties.” Such decisions could not be revised, appealed or revoked by any other authority, including the country’s Supreme Constitutional Court.

A statement signed and published by liberal, democratic and secular parties as well as Egypt’s Popular Current, a coalition of leftist and Nasserite parties, condemned the decision it described as “a complete crime committed by President Mohammed Morsi in the name of a new constitutional declaration.”

“It represents a full coup on the legitimacy that brought him to power and a tyrannical usurping of the state’s authorities. It creates a dictator Egypt has never known, even in the era of Mubarak,” said the statement.

Hamdin Sabahi, Egypt’s popular Nasserite and a 2012 presidential candidate, led a massive march to Tahrir Square on Friday, Nov. 23 along with Mohamed El-Baradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and founder of the Constitution Party. They signed the statement of condemnation published after an emergency meeting of liberal and secular political powers held immediately after Morsi’s declaration on Thursday night.

“Morsi’s declaration is preparing Egypt for a new era of dictatorship,” said Amira Hafez, a producer at Egypt’s state-owned television channel who joined the anti-Morsi protest on Friday. “But his political ignorance actually united the secular powers against those who are controlled and regularly mobilized to serve the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists.”

Morsi’s assistant for Democratic Transformation Affairs, Samir Morcos, resigned his post in reaction to the declaration.

“I resigned in protest of the constitutional declaration, which I was surprised to hear on television on Thursday night,” Morcos told local press.

Meanwhile, Islamist figures and top Muslim Brotherhood officers cheered the president’s decisions.
“History will remember that such decisions were Allah’s salvation to the revolution and its noble men and the people of Egypt,” said Essam El-Erian, Deputy Chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party. “This will be the end to the dictator, the unjust, the hypocrite and whoever follows them.”

At 3:45 p.m., Morsi addressed the public from a stage erected overnight by members of the Freedom and Justice Party at the walls of the presidential palace in eastern Cairo, the same stage from which Islamist clerics and leading figures of the Muslim Brotherhood cheered the president, called for the application of Islamic Shariah law, and led an all-day attack on those who oppose the declaration.
“I will never be biased against any son of Egypt; I am with all Egyptians, supporters and opposition,” said Morsi, addressing thousands of supporters at the presidential palace while central security forces fired tear gas and birdshot at protesters right off Tahrir Square.

“I am working to accomplish the political and economic stability of Egypt,” said Morsi in defense of his decisions. “The powers of evil and the remnants of the former regime are trying to block our procession. But I will never allow anyone to stand in the way of the revolution's goals.”

Morsi’s confirmation that “he does not intend sole control over the country,” and that he is physically standing on a Muslim Brotherhood stage but his “heart and brain are all over Egypt,” failed to absorb the rising anger of tear gas-breathing protesters in Tahrir Square.

“The president has divided Egypt into seculars and religious and will lead us to bloody confrontations,” said Maged Atef, a bookstore manager who joined thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square.

“It is shocking to see the president passing a constitutional declaration and putting it above the law by granting it full immunity,” said Atef. “I fear he will be making more tyrannical decisions since he is immune.”

“The public and especially the judicial authorities have to immediately start civil disobedience or else the revolution will be over,” said Atef.
Mohannad Sabry is an Egyptian journalist based in Cairo. Follow him on twitter@mmsabry.

Egypt and the myth of ‘Arab Spring’

Posted on July 11, 2012 |

Egyptian court freezes Mursi decree

“The Zionist entity is the only country which has benefited from the ‘Arab Spring’,” Maj. Gen. Marwan Charbel, Lebanese interior minister on Russian Television, June 7, 2012.

Last week, the newly elected President of Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi issued a decree announcing the return of Egyptian parliament pending the completion of the Constitution. Morsi’s decision was slammed by the leaders of all secular parties and the Chancellor Maher El Beheiry, president of the Supreme Constitutional Court. However, to people’s surprise, the USrael-supported military junta (SCAF) avoided to criticize Morsi’s decision.

Israel-Firster Barack Obama was the first western leader to congratulate Morsi. Obama told Morsi that Washington “will continue to support Egypt’s transition to democracy“. The White House announced that the two presidents pledged to develop US-Egypt partnerships, staying in close contact in the coming months. In plain words, the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and Egypt’s supply of cheap gas to the Zionist entity will remain in force in return for America’s annual bribe of $1.3 billion.

Obama’s support for Egyptian democracy comes with a price.

Morsi has no executive authority under the SCAF-passed constitution. He is not the commander-in-chief of Egyptian Armed Forces. He cannot even appoint senior military commanders.

Morsi’s function is reduced to an administrator whose job will be to carry out the orders of USrael-supported military without any say in day-to-day decision-making. Thus, Morsi will be held accountable for failing to show results if country’s policies do not work but he will have no input in formulating those policies.

Abu Dharr, a senior Islamic scholar, in an article, entitled ‘The day democracy died‘ has exposed the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ and the ‘democracy charade’ in Egypt. He claims that Mulim Brotherhood leadership showed their lack of Allah and Holy Qur’an-driven conscience by extending their hands in friendship to Washington and the military junta.
Abu Dharr also warned Morsi against western-puppet Saudi and Salafis who are the greatest stumbling block in the unity of Muslim world.
“A future consolidation of the three Islamic trends in Iran, Turkey and Egypt will call America’s terrorism bluff. An finally the Zionists will come to realize what an “existential threat” really means,” wrote Abu Dharr.

• Egyptian president in Saudi to discuss "Arab solidarity"
• Will Egypt's new president really be in control?
• Egypt parliament sits in act of defiance

Egypt: US-funded Agitators on Trial

US "Democracy promotion" = foreign-funded sedition

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

AP reported that US General Martin Dempsey has met directly with the military leaders of Egypt to discuss an Egyptian "crackdown on Western-funded pro-democracy groups." Threatened with a cut-off from US aid, the Egyptian military is expected to abandon their campaign against US "NGOs."

As usual, AP attempts to diminish the veracity of Egypt's concerns with deceptive language and innuendos such as, "Egypt, which regularly blames anti-military protests on foreign meddling," and "in an indication that authorities will continue to push the line that foreigners are stirring up trouble." Of course it is not a "line" that the Egyptian government is pushing, it is a well documented fact.


Images: From Tunis and Tahrir Square to the Oval Office shaking hands with the US President and receiving the NED 2011 "Democracy Award," the forces behind the "Arab Spring" not only weren't spontaneous nor indigenous, but they most certainly were orchestrated, funded, directed, and finally celebrated and well-rewarded by the US State Department through their National Endowment for Democracy. Egypt's crackdown on these disingenuous NGOs is long overdue and an example for all nations to follow.

....

AP goes on to explain the plight of the International Republican Institute (IRI) Egypt office-head, Sam LaHood, son of US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who is now on trail amongst 16 American "civil society employees." They are charged with using US State Department funds to fuel unrest throughout Egypt.

Despite the feigned skepticism of AP, there is conclusive evidence that from 2008, the US State Department had begun a concerted effort to recruit, train, equip, fund, and in some cases arm, dissidents not only from Egypt, but from Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Myanmar, Malaysia, Thailand, and even North Korea. This was accomplished not only through the US State Department, but through a myriad of subsidiaries starting with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and including LaHood's IRI.

Far from Egyptian Paranoia - Documented US Meddling in Egypt

In January of 2011, we were told that "spontaneous," "indigenous"uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, in what was hailed as the "Arab Spring." It would be almost four months 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 (emphasis added):

"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. "

It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, LaHood's IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the "Arab Spring" began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first "fist" was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM's various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared Cohen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO "Otpor" who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a "well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States." After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.

The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, a full year before the "Arab Spring," along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while waiting for ElBaradei's arrival at Cairo's airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his "National Front for Change" and began preparing for the coming "Arab Spring."

Quite clearly, it is not a "line" that the Egyptian government is "pushing" in regards to so-called "civil society employees," rather it is a verified, documented fact that these "employees" are conducting espionage and political destabilization under the increasingly tenuous guise of "democracy promotion."

An April 2011 AFP report would confirm that the US government had trained armies of "activists" to return to their respective countries and enact political "change," when US State Department's Michael Posner stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."

That ripple effect of course, was the "Arab Spring" and the subsequent destabilization, violence, and even US armed and backed warfare that followed. While nations like Libya and Tunisia are now run by a BP, Shell, and Total-funded Petroleum Institute chairman and a US NED-funded "activist" respectively, Egypt has managed to ward off and expose the US proxy of choice, Mohammed ElBaradei, who's own movement was forced to denounce him as a Western agent.

By striking at the meddling, seditious NGOs, Egypt seeks to undermine the source of destabilization, the conduit through which US money and support is funneled through to "activists," and expose the true foreign-funded nature of the political division that has gripped the nation for now over a year.

The AP article reports that Egypt's generals have stated, "we face conspiracies hatched against the homeland, whose goal is to undermine the institutions of the Egyptian state and whose aim is to topple the state itself so that chaos reigns and destruction spreads." Clearly, this an accurate observation, not a political ploy, with similar US-hatched conspiracies documented and exposed from Tunisia all the way to Thailand.

Stepping Back from the Brink

Egyptians must step back and examine the obvious fraud behind their "Arab Spring" revolution, as well as ensure that this nationalist streak by the Egyptian military is genuine. All sides presuming ownership over Egypt's destiny must exhibit through policy, programs, and action that they will be serving the Egyptian people, not opening doors to US free trade, bending to the will of Wall Street and London's military ambitions throughout the region, or lending credibility to the West's contrived international institutions.

Egypt's military has made a promising first step by exposing and prosecuting foreign-funded sedition in their country, helping strip the deceitful veneer off of Western NGOs that have long operated with impunity under the cloak of humanitarian concern. Another step could be by showing support for Syria's besieged government, facing similar foreign-funded destabilization and now foreign-funded terrorists vying to overthrow yet another Arab nation and installing a Western proxy regime.

For those in the streets of Egypt who genuinely seek better lives, they would be best served by exposing the foreign-funded frauds amongst them seeking to exploit the well-intentioned, and then developing a program of pragmatism rather than one of politics. Those merely calling for first Mubarak, and now the military to step down and make way for clearly US-backed proxies like ElBaradei and the MI6-creation, the Muslim Brotherhood, are only paving the way for another oppressive regime to lord over them well into the foreseeable future. However, unlike with Mubarak, there will be no foreign aid flowing in to overthrow this new foreign-funded proxy regime, only aid to ensure its endless perpetuation.

Tony Cartalucci is a syndicated investigative journalist. Please visit his blog at LandDestroyer.blogspot.com

IAEA: “Iran is a ‘peace-seeking’ state”

Posted on February 12, 2012 |

It seems, the secretary-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear ‘Watchdog’ has turned into an Israel-hater. On Friday, Yukiya Amano accompanied by his deputy director-general Herman Nackaerts attended the 33rd birthday party of 1979 victory of Islamic Revolution at Iran’s embassy in Vienna (Austria). At the event, Amano hailed Islamic Iran as a “peace-seeking” state.

Some US-Iran observers consider participation of two top IAEA officials in the party and Amano’s praise of Iran as a slap on USrael face for lying about Tehran’s nuclear program. A welknown Jewish columnist, M.J. Rosenberg, a former director of policy at Israel Policy Forum, wrote that powerful Israel Lobby (AIPAC) is pushing Barack Obama to attack Iran immediately or let the Zionist regime do it. The later scenario is bound to pull America into war on Israel’s side within a few days once Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas retaliate.

Yukiya Amano is no friend of Islamic Republic or any Muslim state which is not ‘friendly’ to Israel for that matter. The 2009 US diplomatic cable released by the Wikileaks, says that though Yukiya Amano works for all world nations, he serves only the US imperialist agenda especially in case of the Islamic Republic.

Last year, Former IAEA director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient who spent 12 years at the IAEA, told the US Jewish investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, “I have not seen a shred of evidence that Iran is building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials“.
On June 9, 2011 – six former ambassadors to Iran, Richard Dalton (US), Paul von Maltzahn (Germany), Steen Hohwü-Christensen (Sweden), Guillaume Metten (Belgium), François Nicoullaud (France) and Roberto Toscano (Italy) wrote in daily Guardian – confirming that there is no evidence Islamic Republic is building a nuclear bomb and that Tehran is complying with international law.
On January 9, 2012 the IAEA Watchdog agency’s spokesperson, Gill Tudor confirmed that Iran’s underground enrichment facility near Qom remains under the Agency’s containment and surveillance.
If one follows Washington’s past record in the so-called “rapprochement” with Tehran – he will find that Washington always deceived Tehran. For example, in 1989, George Bush Sr. sought then Iranian President Ayatullah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s help to secure the release of western hostages in Lebanon. Washington agreed to unfreeze and return over $14 billion that were held in the US since the fall of its puppet King Reza Shah in Tehran. Tehran also demanded that Washington get some of Lebanese hostages released from Israeli jails. Even against Rahbar Ayatullah Ali Khamenie’s advice – Rafsanjani decided to trust Bush. However, once western hostages in Lebanon were released – Washington neither released Iranian assets nor faciliated release of Lebanese hostages.

After September 11, 2001 – Tehran helped the US to set-up military alliance with the Afghan Northern Alliance to oust Taliban from Kabul, Kandhar and Mazar-e-Sharif. During 2002-2005 period, Tehran cooperated with IAEA – even some of later demands which were against Iran’s rights as a signatory of NPT. However, every time Tehran fulfilled Western demands concerning its nuclear program – under USraeli pressure the IAEA, US and EU countries simply fabricated new set of demands for the benefit of the Zionist entity.

Iran’s ‘moderate’ President Ayatullah Mohammad Khatami made several political and religious overtures to the West, but received no fair response from the US or the EU. Iran also used its influence over Muqtada Sadr and other Shia leaders to cooperate with US occupation authorities in Iraq.
Iranian leadership has reached to the conclusion that as long as the country maintains its policy of supporting resistance groups (both Muslims and Christians) in the Muslim East, Washington cannot afford to have peace with Tehran due to powerful domestic Israel Lobby.

Iran’s Spiritual Leader Ayatullah Ali Khameini has warned successive US governments that Iran will never follow Washington’s dictation being the sole superpower. In his words the only way to resolve US-Iran differences, is to discuss the issues as equal parners. He told George Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that bullying and sanctions will never force Iranian people to submit to USraeli domination of the Muslim East.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya who is in Tehran to attend the 33rd anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution – reaffirmed on February 11 that “Palestinian nation will confront and stand against the US and Zionist regime’s threats against Iran“.

"The US is headed toward another strategic disaster in the Middle East!"

Via FLC

"Ever since Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei stepped down as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late 2009, the United States and some of its allies have pushed Baradei’s successor, Yukiya Amano, to ratify Western arguments that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Today, Amano authorized the release of an IAEA report, see here, purporting to do just that.
Predictably, the report is being treated in some quarters as an effective casus belli. As the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy commented after the document’s release, ... the report “should serve to shift the public debate from whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, to how to stop it”. It is not difficult to imagine how Republican presidential candidates will strive to “out-hawk” one another—and, especially, President Obama—during their next debate this coming Saturday as to their willingness to go to war to stop the Islamic Republic from building a nuclear bomb.    

But the report—arguably the most anticipated document of its kind since the NPT was first advanced in 1968—does not in any way demonstrate that Iran is “developing a nuclear weapon”. Rather, it once again affirms, as the IAEA has for decades, Iran’s “non-diversion” of nuclear material. In other words, even if the Islamic Republic wanted to build nuclear weapons (and Tehran continues to deny, at the highest levels of authority, that it wishes to do so) it does not have the weapons-grade material essential to the task.    

Nevertheless, Amano chose to focus the report on unsubstantiated intelligence reports, provided almost entirely by the United States, Israel, and other Western governments, alleging that the Islamic Republic is working on a nuclear weapons program. Most of this information has been available to the IAEA for years. But Baradei refused to publicize it during his tenure as the Agency’s chief—because he could neither corroborate it nor be confident about its provenance and quality. Remember, Baradei had been right about the state of Iraq’s nuclear program in 2002, when all of the intelligence services and national governments that would later try getting him spun up about Iran had been spectacularly wrong. And he was not going to let the United States or anyone else steamroller him on Iran.      

Amano, unfortunately, does not bring the same kind of intellectual and political integrity to his job as his predecessor. The United States, Israel, and other Western governments had to work hard to get the IAEA’s Board of Governors to elect Amano in 2009, by the narrowest possible margin, barely overcoming a challenge from South Africa’s distinguished ambassador to the Agency, Abdul Minty. But Washington and its allies got what they wanted. An October 2009 cable from the U.S. mission to the IAEA, published last year by Wikileaks, see here, reported that Amano had “reminded [the U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA] on several occasions that he would need to make concessions” at times to developing countries, “but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision”, including “the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”  

And so the latest IAEA report treats its readers to sensational stories of Iranian nuclear weapons designs and experiments on things that can supposedly only be applied to the fabrication of nuclear weapons. None of these stories is corroborated by hard evidence, but the Amano-led IAEA passes them on anyway, with its effective imprimatur. ... ... ... ... 

Iranian efforts to develop a “nuclear weapons capability”, as described by Baradei, may make American and Israeli elites uncomfortable. But it is not a violation of the NPT or any other legal obligation that the Islamic Republic has undertaken. While the NPT prohibits non-nuclear-weapon states from building atomic bombs, developing a nuclear weapons capability is, in Baradei’s words, “kosher” under the NPT, see here. It is certainly not a justification—strategically, legally, or morally—for armed aggression against Iran.     

In the end, the United States and its allies have a choice to make. They can continue down a path that will ultimately prompt them to launch yet another illegal and ill-considered war for hegemonic domination in the Middle East. But the consequences of attacking Iran are likely to be far more damaging for America’s strategic position in the Middle East than the reverses it suffered as a result of its 2003 invasion of Iraq. (We would ask anyone who questions whether the Iraq war was profoundly counter-productive for the United States simply to compare Washington’s standing and influence in the Middle East 10 years ago to its standing and influence there today; viewed through this prism, the measure of self-inflicted damage to America’s strategic position in this critical region is truly extraordinary.)
Alternatively, the United States and its allies can accept the Islamic Republic as an enduring political order with legitimate interests and sovereign rights, and come to terms with it—much as the United States came to terms with the People’s Republic of China in the 1970s. In the nuclear arena, specifically, this means accepting, in principle and in reality, the continued development of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium, while working with Tehran to put in place multilateral arrangements to ensure that the proliferation risks associated with uranium enrichment in Iran (as in any other country) are controlled. 

Based on our conversations with senior Iranian officials, we are convinced that this is precisely the sort of conversation Tehran wants to have with Western and other international interlocutors about their nuclear program. But the United States—under the Obama Administration every bit as much as under the George W. Bush Administration—refuses to pursue this sort of dialogue.
Until that changes, the United States is headed toward another strategic disaster in the Middle East. And, by succumbing to American pressure, the IAEA has raised the odds that this is precisely what will occur. "

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 5:39 PM

'Failing yet again to absorb the lessons of Iraq & WMD'

"... Fast-forward to 2011 and we're left wondering if these same newspapers have really taken on board the lessons of Iraq. Here, for example, is David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times, writing in its Sunday Review last weekend:

At the White House and the CIA, officials say the recently disclosed Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States – by blowing up a tony Georgetown restaurant frequented by senators, lobbyists and journalists – was just the tip of the iceberg.

Note how the allegation of an "Iranian plot" in the US – which was greeted with a good deal of scepticism when it first surfaced last month – now appears to have become an established fact (even though it has yet to be tested in court). Not only that. Sanger's anonymous officials are now asking us to believe it is part of a bigger and even more menacing Iranian plot which stretches across continents from the Yemen to Latin America.

At the Washington Post, meanwhile, Joby Warrick has been briefed by David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security. Citing Albright, Warrick describes Iranian work on a detonation device known as the R265 generator:

"According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas [design and testing] was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran's Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country's nuclear programme."

The way this is presented in the Washington Post, it points very clearly to the idea that Iran was working on a trigger for a nuclear bomb. But look elsewhere and that interpretation becomes less certain: possibly it wasn't nuclear at all, but (See MoonOfAlabama) a project to manufacture nanodiamonds.

Of course, these are extremely murky waters and I'm not at all sure who to believe. There is probably a lot of deception taking place on both sides. But what seems to me extraordinary is the reluctance of journalists – especially in the US mainstream – to acknowledge the uncertainties and their willingness to accept what, as far as Iran is concerned, are the most incriminating interpretations.

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 5:47 PM

DEBBIE MENON : Visions; Failed Endeavors, and Wishful Optimism

MCS

- 13. Feb, 2011

“The will of the people is bound to prevail.”

Yes, a fine sentiment.   But when has it ever and, when it has, how long did it last? 

Freedom, Liberty and the dignity of man, must be built on more than slogans!
Yes, hopefully.  And there have been days when it looked like we might be making some headway  but then, when we step back a few paces,  let the smoke clear a bit, it is apparent that we still have a long, long and difficult task ahead of us.
Yes, the people have “Power,” at the moment, but it is apparent power, latent power.

Only kinetic power, properly applied and maintained will carry the day.

They will probably prevail in the end… I certainly hope and pray that they do…. but I think they should wait until they have caught the chicken before they start setting the table for a Victory Banquet and inviting the world to join them.

Premature celebration can quickly turn into a wake!

Where is the popular leadership who will muster and guide this power? 

Suleiman?  The Army?  ElBaradei?  The US Embassy?  The Israeli Embassy?

These seem to be the only power points in view, the only spearheads on the table.
Lets be realistic.  Where is a leader?

Freedom is more than just the absence of a despot or a tyrant.  It must be built, nourished and defended.  This requires strong leadership with a moral understanding and singular objective of bringing liberty and freedom to a people and their land.

They still have a long way to go, and many pitfalls and unseen traps between where they are now and their idealistic goals.

For starters, Omar Suleiman does not have a good track record when it comes to principles of freedom, liberty, human rights and the dignity of man. He will perhaps also be replaced by more of the same. There seems to be many more from where Mubarak hailed!

Prof. Richard Falk succinctly points out in his recent blog post, titled: Egypt’s Transformative Moment : Revolution, Counterrevolution, or Reform –“It is rather obscure about what is meant and even more so, what will happen, in the course of an ‘orderly transition’ under the auspices of temporary leaders closely tied to the old regime, and likely enjoying enthusiastic backing in Washington. Will a cosmetic agenda of reform hide the actuality of a politics of counterrevolution? Or will revolutionary expectations come to the fore from an aroused populace to overwhelm the pacifying efforts of ‘the reformers’? Or might there be a genuine mandate of reform, supported by elites and bureaucrats, enacting sufficiently ambitious changes in the direction of democracy and social justice to satisfy the publics? Of course, there is no assurance, or likelihood, that the outcomes will be the same, or even similar, in the various countries undergoing these dynamics of change, and some will see ‘revolution’ where ‘reform’ has taken place, and few will acknowledge the extent to which ‘counterrevolution’ can lead to the breaking of even modest promises of reform.“

Keep Albert Einstein in mind:

“Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.”
– Albert Einstein

The definition of insanity is when someone keeps doing the same thing while expecting different results.
–Albert Einstein

The Hon. Former Congressman Paul Findley, author of the book ‘They Dare To Speak Out,’ believes the best prospect for new leadership, in Egypt, is Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, who is deeply committed to democracy and has long demonstrated political skill and statesmanship as head of the International Atomic Energy Authority, based in Vienna. He could be the silver lining in the dark cloud over Cairo affirms Findley.

I agree.  In the interim, ElBaradei,  along with  The Brotherhood seems to be the popular and “best” choices which would reflect the will and promote the welfare of the people and “democracy,” or as much of it as Egypt is prepared to deal with.  But, both contenders are unpalatable to Israel and the US as being too popular or “democratic,” which makes ElBaradei an extremely unlikely candidate to be selected, or permitted to be selected by the US and Israeli interests.

No one wants a popular or “democratic” government in Egypt except the Egyptian people…and I am afraid they will be the last ones consulted in this matter.
I like Prof. Petras even though he writes like a lecturer. He does illustrate, succinctly and simply, the duplicity and self -interest upon which the US bases its foreign policies.  This is the duplicitous three-fingered US Foreign Policy in action as Petras describes it:
“…Washington responded with a three track policy:  publically criticizing the human rights violations and advocating democratic reforms; privately signaling continued support to the ruler; and thirdly, seeking an elite alternative which could substitute for the incumbent and preserve the state apparatus, the economic system and support US strategic imperial interests.”

So much for the “manifest destiny” of the Americans as “Procurers and Defenders of Liberty and Justice for All.”

Freedom and Democracy, built upon, surrounded, shored up and sustained by despotic dictatorships which it creates and defends, is not a true Democracy, nor can it exist  as one for very long.

Eric Walberg offers  a balanced, realistic view.  Yes, now is an opportunity for the US to “do the right thing.”  But, by whose definition of “right,”  So far their batting average has not been up to major league standards.

Mark Lander, Martin Indyk, Jeffery Feltman, George Mitchell and Aaron Miller all are driving nails which sound “right,” but by whose definition of “right”?  Are these the heavy hitters whose batting averages we are looking at?   I am not impressed.
Try Einstein’s second quotation on the definition of “Insanity.”  We’ve been down this road too many times before, and have always been tagged “out” at first base.
How about, instead of deciding what they really need and what is best for them to improve their lot and become valuable allies and friends of ours, why not ask them what they think they need to do just that.  And then leave them alone.

We will see and hear a lot of “informed comment” and analysis from a great many pedants, hopefuls, idealistic romantic dreamers; Been there!

One should not ignore the fact that Omar Suleiman for years has been Mubarak’s tried and trusted assassin and agent for executing, actually carrying out, most of the brutal activity which he found necessary to keep his position and “run ” Egypt according to the demands of his Israeli masters.

Omar Suleiman will most certainly have his own agenda. With the seat of Max Power within his sight and grasp, he will assert himself as best as he can as “his own man,” and the most fit to become “The New Leader” of Egypt.

But, which way and how far he will lead Egypt still remains to be seen.

He is definitely not a Simon Bolivar, a Nathan Hale or a unifier and ”Liberator.”  He is Omar Suleiman, former Egyptian political assassin, hitman, and former Second in Command of a brutal dictatorship.

He will have a lot of contenders for the throne.  He will contest them as vigorously, as violently and as mercilessly as is needed to consolidate and stabilize his position as President.  He will apply the same methods to the general populace in order to “keep the peace.”

Do not expect him to be patient, benevolent, generous or merciful.

He will “command,” and he will demand acceptance and obedience.

Anything the Egyptian people may get out of this will be only coincidental, and as little as is necessary to maintain peace in the streets.

The name and figure in the Presidential Palace mean very little. As long as he is a lackey of Israel, the Egyptians will not be free.

Kevin Barrett of the truthjihad radio avers, “Genuine democracy, for its part, is leaderless governance.   All public servants, up to and including presidents and PMs, should be just that — servants.  NOT leaders…. The only kind of leadership I’m interested in is moral and scholarly exemplars like the best ‘ulama’ and others noted for goodness, courage and piety.”

I agree with him, on the role of the statesmen in a democracy as servant and steward.  We hear too much, particularly in the mainstream press, about “who rules,” or “the rulers” of a State, even when referring to the ostensibly “democratic” or Republican States.  And, too many of those so-called “representatives” seem to regard themselves as governors, “rulers” or “Lairds of the Manor” rather than stewards, servants or representatives of the people.

“Democracy” is full of pitfalls, and weaknesses.  It is a shaky and dangerous experiment in social engineering.  Thucydides warned us of all of that a couple of thousand years ago when he wrote the words of Pericles in his chronicles of the Peloponnesian Wars.  He also warned us that we would never benefit from the lessons of history.  Plato was sure it could never work, or endure!

Any endeavor of Man will fail without a vision.

Debbie Menon is a freelance writer based in Dubai. Her commentary has been published widely in Print and Online publications.

She can be reached at: debbiemenon@gmail.com.

Her website: http://mycatbirdseat.com/