RUTHFULLY YOURS

Cairo was the political capital of the Middle East in the 1950s and 1960s. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was the most charismatic ruler in the region, and he tried to become the undisputed leader of the Arab world. In his 1954 memoir, The Philosophy of the Revolution, Nasser revealed his vision of Egypt as a unique geostrategic influence in the African, Arab, and Islamic world. He believed Egypt was destined to play a pivotal role in Arab affairs.

Initially, Nasser was concerned primarily with consolidating power and expelling the British from Egypt. After stabilizing his rule by suppressing communists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, he championed pan-Arabism as a strategic tactic to unify the Arab world under his command. Pan-Arabism was a secular ideology that advocated Arab unity, freedom from foreign control, and the liberation of Palestine – a euphemism for a Palestinian state built on Israel’s ruins.

Nasser’s political star rose after he nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 and subsequently survived a direct assault from the UK, France, and Israel. He graced international venues as a hero of the Nonaligned Movement, rubbing shoulders with established anti-imperialist leaders like Tito of Yugoslavia, Nehru of India, Nkrumah of Ghana, and Sukarno of Indonesia. No major world leader could dispute Nasser’s growing popularity and legitimacy.

Through his spokesperson Muhammad Heikal, editor of Egypt’s state-run newspaper al-Ahram, Nasser adopted a brilliant strategic communications campaign to shape and influence public opinion. Cairo became the Arab capital of influence. Nasser’s policies were cautiously observed by Israel, neighboring Arab states, and the Western powers, as well as the Soviet Union. In the era of Cold War rivalry, Nasser adroitly played off the two rival superpowers to maximize his country’s economic, political, and military stature while offering minimal concessions.

Nasser’s Egypt demonstrated how a developing country with a large population could persevere in the face of tremendous economic, political, and military challenges. Despite the expectations of Western and Soviet intelligence officials, the regime did not collapse. Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip after the 1967 War, but Nasser managed to turn that stunning military defeat into a political victory. He employed skillful diplomacy at the UN to appease Moscow and the West in order to rebuild Egypt’s military and sustain his own unique leadership status in the Arab world.

Nasser remained defiant. Egypt endured, despite losing territory and suffering from a depressed economy due to a collapse in tourism and the closure of the Suez Canal. After the war, Egypt lost $30 million a month to lost Canal revenues and an additional $1.5 million in tourism each week. (The Canal remained closed until 1975, when Israel withdrew its troops from the east bank as part of US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy and the second Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement).

After Nasser’s untimely death in 1970, other Arab leaders like Qaddafi, Assad, and Saddam tried to replicate his successes – but none had the charisma or mandate to shape public opinion and extract concessions from Washington and Moscow. Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, long suppressed under Nasser, gradually resurfaced, capitalizing on the political and ideological vacuum.

Those movements argued that Muslims had become weak because Nasser, Qaddafi, Saddam, and Assad were not true believers. They had failed to implement sharia (Islamic law), aligned with kuffar (infidel) Western or Russian powers, and abandoned the pursuit of the liberation of Palestine. They had become apostates, unfit to rule, and should be replaced with Islamic governance.

The solution to secular pan-Arabism, in their view, was Islam. They promoted Islam as the only ideology with the capacity to satisfy Muslim aspirations. Secularism, nationalism, liberalism, socialism, and communism were foreign concepts incompatible with Muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood expanded its influence through social services and redoubled its devotion to the eventual construction of an Islamic state governed by sharia. Extremist Islamist movements like al-Qaeda and ISIS continue to seek to achieve these goals by engaging in terrorism against the West and committing genocide against non-conforming Muslims and ethnic and religious minorities.

The removal of Saddam and subsequent violence and instability of the 2003 Iraq War, the 2011 uprisings in the Arab world, and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) accelerated the expansion of these non-state Islamist actors, as well as Iran. In this “new” Middle East, these players compete for influence while Egyptian and Arab leaders grapple with instability, insurgency, civil war, and failed states.

n the days before President Hassan Rouhani’s re-election victory in Iran this weekend, a video of one of his old speeches circulated on social media. Speaking at Iran’s parliament, Rouhani says dissidents against the new regime should be publicly hanged during Friday prayers as a message.

Rouhani was a younger man in this speech, in his early 40s. The revolution was also young. And many Iranian leaders of that era have taken the journey from revolution to reform. The reason Rouhani’s speech though is so relevant to Iran today is because, in public at least, the president of Iran has changed his tune.

During his campaign, he told voters that he would be a “lawyer” defending their rights. He criticized his main rival, Ebrahim Raisi, for his role in ordering the executions of political dissidents. He promised gender equality and a freer press.

All of that sounds pretty good. And for those in the west looking for an Iranian version of Mikhail Gorbachev, it makes a nice talking point. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe Rouhani will deliver, or even try to deliver, on any of these promises.

There are a few reasons for this. To start, Rouhani delivered the same line back in 2013 when he first won the presidency. We now know that human rights in Iran have further eroded during his tenure. A lot of this has been documented by the Center for Human Rights in Iran. The organization noted in October that Rouhani supported a law that would essentially place all Iranian media under government control. The center also documented a wave of arrests of journalists in November 2015, following Iran’s agreement to the nuclear bargain with the U.S and five other world powers. In the run-up to Friday’s vote, 29 members of the European Parliament wrote an open letter urging Iran to end its arrests, intimidation and harassment of journalists in the election season.

Sadegh Zibakalam, an activist and professor of political science at Tehran University, summed this up well in November: “Rouhani did not have the power to free political prisoners or end the house arrests, but he didn’t even pretend that he wanted to do something.”

President Donald Trump has apparently decided that on his visit to Israel this week, he will not announce the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem — a move that will only make him look less strong to Arab leaders. They may not like all promises that are kept, but they do deeply respect and trust those who keep them. If promises are not kept to a friend, the thinking goes, why would they be kept to us?

As Plato, Churchill and even Osama bin Laden understood, people respect only a strong horse, especially when one’s adversaries can only survive by creating conflicts to distract their citizens from unaccountable governance.

By recognizing the rights of Jerusalem’s historical occupants of 3,000 years — despite the lies of UNESCO and other UN organizations engulfed by the Arabs’ automatic majority — Trump could well demonstrate a new force that would elevate him to the same stature as Churchill.

In France, everything has been written about the new U.S president, as long as it could relay the most negative image possible. In a country sometimes bathed in an anti-Americanism inherited from Gaullism and communism, major political religions of the post-war era, exacerbated by the Bush years — it experienced a noticeable lull at the arrival of former President Barack Obama. The election of Donald Trump has the effect of an avalanche.

For many, America had foundered, would never recover and the archetypal image of the uneducated, violent cowboy, fed on hamburgers, would now finally stick to this uncouth country — too powerful, too capitalist and actually distressed by injustice and inequality.

But beyond the systematic and cleverly orchestrated detestation that the new American president engenders, it is clear that after eight years of the soft and partisan management of Obama (one will remember his hallucinatory Cairo speech, his bow of allegiance to the King of Saudi Arabia, and especially his passivity to the atrocities committed by Iran, Syria and their proxies) powerful America is back at the front of the stage.

The U.S. is no longer simply the paralyzed observer of a rise in violence, as in those terrifying scenes in movies where zombies multiply without anyone knowing how to contain, counter or stop them. Since the sheriff is back in town fighting the zombies, the zombies are fighting back.

As soon as President Trump arrived in the White House, in fact, he rolled up his sleeves to try to find solutions to the increasing threats to world peace, based on a sound principle appreciated by great leaders such as Churchill: Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.

To no one’s surprise, and possibly for many reasons, the Nobelized pacifist, Obama, asked to have a bust of Winston Churchill removed from the White House on day one; Trump asked for it back on day one.

In 1938, while Chamberlain and Daladier, with their pallid complexions and sad smiles, congratulated themselves on having abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler’s hands in exchange for a promise of peace that rapidly turned out to be just the prelude to the deadliest war in history, Churchill summed up the situation with the scathing phrase: “They had to choose between dishonor and war. They have chosen dishonor and they will have war.”

One can only wonder how Churchill would have judged Obama.

Iran was on the brink of capitulating. It had already been listed by the U.S. Department of State as the world’s leading promoter of terrorism, and one with nuclear, hegemonic and genocidal ambitions. History will undoubtedly remember that it was Obama (of the Iraqi debacle; of the cowardly abandonment of his ambassador, tortured to death in Benghazi; of threats never followed up when Assad crossed the U.S. president’s own “red line” and gassed his own people, and of lying repeatedly to his own people about matters from healthcare choices to videos supposedly having caused the Benghazi attack, to name a few) that allowed the Ayatollahs to consolidate their imperialist aggression against a backdrop of terrorism and the denial of human rights.

This soft and non-interventionist philosophy, also adopted by former President Jimmy Carter, had already enabled Muslim extremists to overthrow the Shah of Iran. President Bill Clinton was fooled by North Korea in 1994 into negotiating economic aid in exchange for a promise to respect the non-proliferation treaty signed in 1985; the North Koreans simply took the money and used it to finance the nuclear program it had been given them to stop.

This political blindness, deliberate or not, also allowed President Obama to celebrate his diplomatic “victory” of ostensibly bringing in Iran from the cold, when it was clear all along that all Iran wanted to get was colder. Iran continues its imperialist expansion, its financing of terrorists, and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and, of course its long-range missile development program.

President Trump, however, in just four months, seems to have learned the lesson of Churchill. Take, for example, three of the new president’s actions.

First there was the massive bombing of the Al-Sha’ayrate air base, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had ordered the Syrian army to massacre part of the population of Khan Sheikhoun with sarin gas.

Unlike Obama, Trump had promised — probably foolishly: the promise seems to have been interpreted as a green light to murder — not to intervene in Syria. If the new U.S. president changed his mind, it is all to his honor, for this reversal was born of a vision of horror: children and babies suffocating, gassed.

The second action was born at the same time, when 59 Tomahawk missiles sent a clear message to the rest of the world through the destruction of the air base from which the gas-carrying planes had taken off, President Trump dined in Mar-a-Lago with his Chinese counterpart. “By the way,” he announced to Xi Jinping while dessert was served, “we have just bombed Syria.” With the arrival of the “most beautiful piece of chocolate cake,” years of failed diplomacy were undone.

Finally, President Trump should be recognized for inducing China even symbolically to loosen its ties to its North Korean ally by slowdowns of “tourist” flights between Beijing and Pyongyang, and by blocking shipments of coal, and other mild promises, at least until the U.S. looks the other way.

In addition, NATO countries, protected by the American umbrella, recently seem to have felt inspired to pay America their 2%, thus honoring their agreements, and have also begun to develop a section for fighting terrorism — a program evidently long forbidden.

In addition, a new strand of American foreign policy is now opening up. Recently, Israel celebrated the 69th anniversary of its independence, and this week Israel will mark 50 years since the reunification of Jerusalem, liberated in 1967 from its illegal capture by Jordan in 1948, followed by Jordan’s ethnic cleaning of Jews and the illegal confiscation of their property. The White House announced the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, provided that it ceases to finance and incite terrorism by making its child-killers national heroes and wage-earners funded by the West

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will no longer be able to continue to pretend to prepare his people for peace while at the same time calling for murder. About 10% of the Palestinian budget is spent on the salaries of terrorists imprisoned in Israel, and the prisoners’ families.

Abbas evidently omitted this “detail” in his statements to the press during his recent visit to the White House.

Trump has apparently decided that on his visit to Israel this week, he will not announce the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem — a move that will only make him look less strong to Arab leaders. They may not like all promises that are kept, but they do deeply respect and trust those who keep them. If promises are not kept to a friend, the thinking goes, why would they be kept to us? They will therefore be less happy with any promises to counter Shiite threats — considerably more important to them than the location of an embassy. As Plato, Churchill and even Osama bin Laden understood, people respect only a strong horse, especially when one’s adversaries can only survive by creating conflicts to distract their citizens from unaccountable governance. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu observed:

“Israel has clearly stated its position to the US and to the world multiple times. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem won’t harm the peace process. The opposite is true. It will correct a historic injustice by advancing the [peace process] and shattering a Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem isn’t Israel’s capital.”

By recognizing the rights of Jerusalem’s historical occupants of 3,000 years — despite the lies of UNESCO and other UN organizations engulfed by the Arabs’ automatic majority — Trump could well demonstrate a new force that would elevate him to the same stature as Churchill, who said he regarded Islamism as the “greatest retrograde force of all time.” No wonder Obama did not want his bust.

These examples are merely a sampling of what is becoming commonplace across Europe. In the name of human rights, inclusion, diversity and equality, “enlightened” activists and judicial authorities are apologizing for and excusing Muslim criminals for behavior that would not be tolerated from anyone else — and should not be tolerated.

Do these judges work for Islamic sharia courts or for secular European courts?

These court rulings are an open call to Muslim men in Europe to rape women, children, anyone they like. Those cultures in which women and children as are viewed as property deserve no respect, and certainly not preferential treatment.

It happened again last week. Two Turkish nationals in Schwerin, Germany were arrested for raping a 13-year-old girl after forcing themselves into her home.

Schwerin, Germany (Image source: Getty Images)

Recently, a judge in Germany acquitted a Turkish drug dealer of raping one of his customers last August. He had forced himself on her for four hours and left her incapacitated for weeks. He told the judge that in the culture from where he came, what she “had experienced as rape” might be considered merely “wild sex”.

What “culture” is this?

According to the Turkish women’s rights organization “We Will Stop the Murders of Women,” which publishes monthly reports, in March of this year alone, 35 women were killed; 14 others were exposed to sexual violence, and 63 children were molested. Many children, the report said, had been sexually abused for years, and often attempted suicide.

The report also stated that the murder of women in Turkey — 63% percent of which is committed by husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers or sons — is spurred more than half the time by women; it is supposedly their fault: they actually wanted to make decisions about their lives, such as getting a divorce, before they were murdered.

Worse, nearly a third of those are classified by authorities as “suspicious murders,” perpetrated by “unknown assailants.”

Torturing women to death is also increasingly widespread, as well as killing young children along with their mothers. One case involved a man who slit the throats of his ex-wife and their five-year-old daughter.

Abraham H. Miller Emeritus Professor, University of Cincinnati

It’s been a good season for anti-Semites. Jewish students graduating CUNY will have as their last memory of the school some inspiring words from professional anti-Semite Linda Sarsour, who believes a Jewish homeland has no place in the community of nations, Sharia should be law, and Zionist women cannot be feminists.

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who has been involved in a long string of anti-Semitic controversies, finally did something even the British Labour Party could not ignore. He called Hitler a Zionist.

But Livingstone was merely suspended from party membership, not expelled. And why should he have been? After all, he was merely echoing sentiments that many in his party seem to hold.

In the Middle East, as the Palestine Authority seeks to loosen Hamas’ grip on Gaza by refusing to pay its electricity bills, the UN has stepped in to tell Israel that it is its obligation, as the occupying party, to intervene and supply its sworn existential enemy with power for free. Israel, of course, has not occupied Gaza since 2005.

In the Alice in Wonderland world of the UN, Israel is still occupying Gaza, but its presence in a united Jerusalem does not legally exist. Israel’s excavations in Jerusalem that underscore the Jewish presence there for millennia and contradict Islamic make-believe history are ordered to cease. Israel will not comply.

Whatever the anti-Semitic UN does in its pandering to Islamic nonsense, generated by the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and has been so for over three thousand years. As one Israeli official put it, our history is embedded in every stone.

And if this were not enough to lacerate Jewish sensitivities in a single week, the more than 2,000,000 New York Jews were being treated to a political campaign that simultaneously weaponized and politicized anti-Semitism.

Thomas Lopez-Pierre, a candidate for New York City Council, was running a campaign steeped in anti-Semitic tropes of the exploitive, greedy Jew. Lopez-Pierre lashed out at his rival Mark Levine for being white and Jewish, undoubtedly a double-edged sin in the leftist world where all ethnicities are to be celebrated unless you are white and Jewish.

Lopez-Pierre, without so much as a scintilla of evidence, argued that greedy Jewish developers with Israeli money were responsible for 80% of the gentrification of Harlem that was displacing blacks and Latinos. And following the pattern of all racists, all members of a group are responsible for the bad deeds (real or imaginary) of any other members of the group. This, of course, was the deranged mentality of the Southern lynch mob!

Among anti-Semitic stereotypes, the Shylock trope resonates well, but apparently cooler heads convinced Lopez-Pierre, who never had a chance of winning, to fold his smutty tent and leave the electoral field to real candidates.