Arab Spring now a Christian nightmare

In the 1990s, western democracies stepped forward to stop ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia by dispatching NATO forces in support of UN peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia precipitated ethnic strife, and like all such struggles anywhere in the world, the Balkan conflict was complex and layered with history of grievances, identity politics, and religious bigotry. If one reaches back to the early years of the last century, this region was a cauldron of ethno-nationalism that ignited the First World War.

Some 16 years later, the so-called Arab Spring mirrors the conflict that ripped through the Balkans.

The rotten structures of Arab states were primed to crash once the people set aside their fear of despots. But not unlike the Balkans, the death knell of Arab dictatorships has been accompanied by predictable conflicts among people divided by religion, sect and ethnicity.

There is one stark difference, however, between the Balkans and the situation in the Arab-Muslim world. In the Balkans, the minority most seriously hurt by the conflict were Bosnian Muslims.

It was in part to protect Bosnian Muslims that the West intervened with force and, eventually overseen by President Clinton’s administration, the parties agreed to abide by the Dayton Agreement of November 1995 reached in Dayton, Ohio and formally signed in Paris a few weeks later.

In the Arab-Muslim world, the so–called Arab Spring has hurt most seriously the dwindling Christian minorities of the Middle East. While Arab despots in the name of secularism paradoxically provided some protection to Christians, the situation has worsened with Islamists taking power.

William Dalrymple, the well-respected historian and author of From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium (1998), recently wrote, “Wherever you go in the Middle East today, you see the Arab Spring rapidly turning into the Christian winter … The past few years have been catastrophic for the region’s beleaguered 14 million strong Christian minority.”

The decline, probably disappearance, of Christians from the Middle East is an ominous sign of a tragic future for the region.

And such an eventuality has precedence.

Jews of the Arab-Muslim world from the pre-Christian era, with their rich heritage and long historical presence in ancient cities across the region — Alexandria, Algiers, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Constantine, Damascus, Fez, Oran, Sana’a, Tripoli, Tunis and more — were compelled to leave lands conquered by Arabs in the name of Islam following the establishment of Israel in 1948.

There have been numerous anti-Coptic riots with attacks on Christian churches in Egypt. From Gaza reports have come of forced conversions among Christians reduced to a miniscule presence.

Iraqi Christians fled in large numbers following post-Saddam sectarian strife, and they found refuge in Syria.

This safe-haven for Iraqi Christians is in jeopardy as the sectarian conflict in Syria has intensified, and Syrian Christians are endangered.

While Christians flee from their ancient homes in the Arab-Muslim world, the West’s failure to respond effectively, unlike its response in the Balkans, is more than an immense moral failure.

It is another sign of the West scandalously appeasing Islamist totalitarianism that might well be as catastrophic as when Europe’s major democracies appeased Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s.

View from Algeria of North Africa tumult

ORAN, ALGERIA – A cool evening breeze brings relief over the faded glory of the city I am visiting. This was once the prized French metropolitan on the Mediterranean that Albert Camus made the setting of his novel, The Plague.

The crowd is gone and the street is about empty. But inside the cafe where I am sitting, there is smoke, loud arguments and anticipation as people await the games of Euro 2012 to begin.

Algeria is a soccer-crazy country, as is all of North Africa. In the cafe the noise is friendly while individuals share with each other the game’s history, relish arguments over previous tournaments, recall earlier matches, and talk about their favourite players from the past, comparing them with performances of the current stars, such as Spain’s Fernando Torres or Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo.

The scene around me is not unusual, for soccer is a main topic of conversation wherever people gather. But the passion for it is also a measure of the general disdain for politics.

Algeria is close to Tunisia — the ground zero of the so-called Arab Spring — and it is instructive to draw upon its recent history to understand why the expectations of a year ago for democratic change across the region peaked and then headed for a crash.

In July, Algeria will mark the 50th anniversary of its blood-soaked independence from France in 1962, but there is little public evidence of preparation to celebrate the occasion. Algerian memory of the past half-century is painful. Authoritarianism and one-party rule following independence suffocated the promise of freedom.

Some 20 years ago, the country’s ruling elite and the National Liberation Front (FLN), its political arm, decided to arrange a transition to some sort of democratic order and called an election. But to the consternation of the army generals, the opposition parties headed by the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won big.

Islamist leadership of the FIS enjoyed Saudi support, and the prospect of FIS turning Algeria into a Shariah-based Islamic order was as likely then as has been in recent months the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for doing the same in Egypt. The result of the Algerian election, not unlike the current situation in Egypt, was a crisis for the old order. The military elite, unwilling to accept the idea of the FIS forming a government, nullified the election and precipitated a civil war. Two decades later, and some quarter-million of Algerians dead as a result of Islamist terror and the army’s counter-terror, Algeria’s self-inflicted wound has barely healed.

In May this year, the ruling authority held parliamentary elections in which the public turnout was merely 40% of the eligible voters. The authorities announced a modest FLN victory with a plurality of elected members, instead of fixing results by giving it a majority.

It has taken time and violence for a consensus to emerge regarding the military having a dominant role in any political arrangement, and that is the political reality given the nature of Arab-Muslim culture.

A majority of Algerians now reluctantly concede the alternative of FIS in power might have been worse, and is positively relieved of being spared the illusions of Arab Spring.

 

Military key to a balanced Egypt

As Egyptians voted in the first round of their presidential election, there is anticipation that a new era of popularly elected government for the country is in the making.

But the odds are stacked against Egypt and, ironically, this is for the better.

Sixty years of authoritarian rule inaugurated in the July 1952 military coup headed by Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser institutionalized the role of the military in Egypt, and it is not about to be dismantled. The military is deeply embedded in Egyptian society, controlling reputedly a third of the country’s economy. It is the dominant player holding the balance between liberals — vastly outnumbered in a traditional religious society — and Islamists pushing their Shariah-based agenda for making Egypt a Sunni version of Iran.

Liberals in Egypt, and in the rest of the Arab world, are a hopelessly beleaguered minority with their wishes for freedom, a rule of law protective of individual rights and gender equality. However much they might detest the military, their survival depends on armed protection. The so-called Arab Spring has shown that for the vast majority of Arabs, freedom means a call for justice, or the imposition of Shariah.

The huge electoral victory for religious parties — the Freedom and Justice party (the parliamentary face of the Muslim Brotherhood) and the Salafi Al-Nour party — was indicative of what the people want. Democracy simply as majority rule can be highly oppressive for those who are in minority.

If democracy is to be saved from turning into fascist rule under a popularly elected leader, there must be safeguards for minorities and limits set to what the majority can do. But history and culture of the Arab world under Islam makes little allowance for individual freedom, or provision of equality for minority groups.

There is no escaping from the fact — apologetics aside — that Shariah-based political order is fundamentally at odds with the values of modern liberal democracy. It is under such circumstance, or choice between bad and worse, that Egypt’s military, despite its past record, holds paradoxically the slender promise of safeguarding individual freedom and minority rights.

In removing Hosni Mubarak from power, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) under Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi demonstrated to the Egyptian people the military is on their side and protective of their interests. Tantawi and members of SCAF might well have decided to step back in standing behind an elected civilian president, and the events of the past year very likely have unfolded according to their plan. The military will rule with its iron fist in a velvet glove, and given the dire straits of the Egyptian economy such an arrangement could turn out to be the only sane outcome.

This will mean most importantly the military will not relinquish its hold over the key policy issues relating to foreign affairs and defence — in other words, maintaining the strategic relationship with the United States and Israel.

It will be a tough balancing act for SCAF, but the alternatives are terribly bleak for the Arab world’s largest country at the edge of an economic meltdown and in the grip of Islamist fantasies.

Arab convulsion grips Syria

The unfolding violence in Syria should finally put an end to the illusion fostered in the West that ‘Arab Spring’ was ringing in freedom and democracy into the Middle East.

Few in the West comprehend the extent to which the Arab-Muslim world is in the midst of a historical convulsion. It is somewhat similar to the sort of upheaval that gripped Europe as a Christian continent in the eventual making of the modern world.

Fewer still comprehend that this current phase of Arab convulsion, beginning in January last year in Tunisia and presently taking hold of Syria, was ironically uncorked by the much maligned George W. Bush when he took the gambit of bringing regime change in Iraq.

A half-century ago in the aftermath of the Suez War of 1956, the Middle East was shaken by the tumult of Pan-Arab nationalism. It undermined the old order and brought a generation of men in military uniforms to rule as despots across the Middle East. That earlier tumult was stifled and contained. It was not allowed to run its course and exhaust the fury of an oppressive culture that retarded the progress of Arab politics from dictatorship to democracy.

In a commencement address at the U.S. Air Force Academy in June 2004, President Bush candidly explained why Arab politics remained stuck in authoritarianism.

“For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy,” he said.

Regime change did not work out smoothly or satisfactorily for the Iraqis. The reason in part was Iraqis received their freedom, as Fouad Ajami chronicled in his book on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as a “foreigner’s gift.”

Yet the idea of regime change was contagious, and in time it took hold of the Arab masses. And once the “Bush Doctrine” was swallowed by Bush’s successor in the White House — though Obama and his minions will never admit this — it meant the end for those Arab despots, such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, tied to the West.

The Syrian despot is tied to Iran, Russia, China and has the support of anti-American regimes such as Hugo Chavez’s in Venezuela. Consequently, Bashar al-Assad and his henchmen are prepared to crush their opposition regardless of the denunciations of human rights groups and governments in the West.

Even if the Syrian despot survives in power, the historic convulsion seizing the Middle East will not be contained or stifled this time around. It is through experiencing the full havoc of this convulsion that people of the Middle East will eventually learn they need to move out of their closed circle of tribal politics, and shed the collectivist ideology of Islamism if they want freedom and democracy for themselves.

Freedom cannot be a foreigner’s gift. When it is, it then breeds resentment and ingratitude as it has among Iraqis.

Islamism can provide no answer for Arabs in meeting the demands of the modern world.

Iranians opposed to their regime have learned this bitter truth. Arabs will have to discover it as they exchange tribal politics for totalitarian rule behind the veil of false religious piety.

World teeters as past mistakes repeated

As 2011 ends it might well be remembered as “annus horribilis” or the horrible year.

The March tsunami that overwhelmed Japan demonstrated nature’s immense power to dwarf or drown all human efforts to build stronger, better and safer methods of a high-tech civilization. The swelling of the ocean tides around Japan’s 40-year-old Fukushima nuclear plant was a reminder yet again man remains nature’s child, even as he might decode the chemistry of distant stars.

But a tsunami or a volcanic eruption or an earthquake, despite the ruins and tears it brings to those in its path, bears as much or little fault in itself as snowflakes in winter. On the contrary, effects of human folly, greed, envy, resentment, bigotry, misogyny, pride and the incapacity or unwillingness to reason and learn from the accumulated record of mischief rest entirely on our shoulders.

Twenty years ago this week, the collapse of the communist gulag called the Soviet Union raised expectations peace in a better world was within reach.

The story of the past two decades, however, increasingly appear similar in terms of the promise of peace and failed politics during those scoundrel years of 1919-39 between two world wars.  There is the united Europe with its members arranged as so many domino pieces on an unstable economic board folding over due to gross expenditures outstripping savings and productivity. Europe’s economic crisis of 2010 in Greece, Portugal and Ireland spread in 2011 into Spain and Italy. Hence economic uncertainties and political unrest make Europe less of a bulwark for peace and stability in a restless world.

The so-called Arab Spring was a false dawn as the Arab world quakes at the edge of another periodic violent civil war. The collapse of tyrants ruling Arab states meant old certainties of tribal politics in the name of Arab nationalism were overrun by new uncertainties of the same under the slogans of Islamism.

In the 40 years since Egypt’s Col. Nasser died, or 30 years since Ayatollah Khomeini’s fanatical followers seized power in Iran, the population of the Arab-Muslim world has tripled while the economy — minus oil production of the Gulf producers — has remained stagnant. This is the predictable recipe for populist uprisings, violent repressions and wars to come.

The West’s irresponsibility has been to sell arms to these deranged political entities of the Arab-Muslim world instead of nipping in the bud, with force if necessary, their drive for sophisticated armaments including nuclear weapons. And while the Iranian theocrats emboldened by the West’s pusillanimity threaten to disrupt shipping in the Gulf, the U.S. under the Obama administration is set upon disengaging from the region with American troops departing from Iraq and preparing to do the same from Afghanistan.

The rise of fascism in Italy and Germany during the period 1919-39 made war certain despite every effort in appeasement by Europe’s democratic leaders. Islamism or political Islam is the Arab-Muslim world’s version of fascism and will bring, as did the European version, intense agony and ruin for people within its reach.

Thus this “annus horribilis” rings out while we ignore past failures at our peril even as we drift towards repeating them.

Women continue to pay the price

A year ago on Dec. 17, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire in despair with poverty and absence of any hope.

He saw himself caged, as did so many others, in his native country turned into a prison of daily abuse from where there seemed to be no exit.

Bouazizi died of his burns some three weeks later, yet his final act of desperation shook the despondent populace of Tunisia into the making of what has come to be known as the Arab Spring.

The idea of Arab Spring — a beginning in the transition of Arab states from authoritarian rule to democracy — was an expression filled with desperate longings that somehow democracy based on freedom and individual rights might take root in the historically arid political landscape of the Arab world.

If voting is the sole measure of democracy, then the periodic elections arranged by the fallen regimes of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or Saddam Hussein in Iraq should have qualified as Arab versions of the same.

It is worth recalling Edmund Burke’s aphorism, as he watched the French Revolution unfold, that it is relatively easier to bring down tyranny than establish a government respectful of freedom and individual rights.

The first round of voting, just concluded in Egypt, gives an indication of where this ancient land is headed in the making of a new political order.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its even more rigidly orthodox ally, the Party al-Nour (Party of Light), are assured of gaining a super-majority in the parliament following a second round of voting in the new year.

Hence the Arab version of democracy taking shape on the Nile will be similar to the one established in Iran following the revolution of 1979.

The Shariah-based order that the Muslim Brotherhood and its ally are committed to hoist on Egypt as a result of the popular vote will mirror the religious-political order in Saudi Arabia.

Anticipating another cruel political system unfolding in Egypt and elsewhere in the region shaken by the Arab Spring, religious minorities such as the Coptic Christians and others are seeking an early exit.

Yet the most vulnerable to the Shariah-based authoritarianism are women, and their voices remain muzzled.

In an act symbolically similar to that of Bouazizi, an Egyptian woman took to her blog despairing of an emerging Islamist order that will suffocate what little freedom remains for females in society.

Aliaa Elmahdy, a 20-year-old student in Cairo University, posted on her blog nude pictures of herself as a statement of her freedom in a society where public nudity could lead to a capital punishment.

Elmahdy’s act was one of defiance, to underscore how shrunken and oppressive is the Shariah-based status of women.

Only individuals living inside the belly of a beast or escaping from one — as I have written before — understand the full horror of such existence and their desperate acts as warnings for others often go unheard.

If Bouazizi had survived, he might have drawn satisfaction with what he ignited.

But only Aliaa Elmahdy and her vulnerable sisters know from inside, how this Arab Spring, in facilitating under democratic facade a Shariah-based political system, will terrorize them.

“Ruthless men hide behind veil of religion”

Revolutions are known to devour their children, and popular uprisings driven by the promise of change for the better have been notorious for turning into nightmares.

The so-called Arab Spring is another dark night unfolding across the Middle East. This was predictable, and inevitable.

The Tunisian fruit-seller who sparked this Arab Spring by self-immolating was a man driven to despair by the very culture into which he was born, and from which he knew there was no escape. The act of self-immolation was a terrible display of despair of a desperate man.

And so is the political drama in Arab streets — from Tripoli to Cairo to Damascus — an uncoiling of desperation among people trapped in a tribal culture stamped by authoritarianism. But the culture is unforgiving, for it has been made by hard men and handed down from fathers to sons. The history of this region, from the earliest years of Islam to the present time, is one relatively unbroken record of authoritarian rulers. This is the closed circle where politics move from bad to worse, not good to better. And this is what we are witnessing in the streets of Cairo — in Tahrir Square that caught the imagination of people afar watching on their television screens what they naively imagined to be the blossoming of freedom in the land of the great pyramids.

I mentioned in my column last week that Arab Spring has been the springtime for Islamists. Mshari Al-Zaydi, an editor of Al Arabiya News in Dubai, echoed my observation when he wrote, “what we are seeing is a political Islamist tsunami” and that this has turned out to be “the Muslim Brotherhood Spring.” Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood has become more or less de facto rulers from Tunisia to Egypt, and likely will take control of Syria once the regime of Bashar al-Assad crumbles.

In the long sweep of Arab history, the authoritarian rule of military men and so-called republican parties — such as Gamal Abdel Nasser and his successors in Egypt, and the Ba’ath party in Iraq and Syria — have held power only for brief intervals. The political reality has been Arab resignation, as the culture demands, for authoritarian rule under the banner of Islam.

The prophet of Islam had not even passed away when the struggle for power broke out in Medina, and this struggle for power within a few decades turned into a bloody massacre of the prophet’s family at the hands of ruthless men. Arabs and Muslims have lived for 14 centuries in denial of their own blood-soaked history that became the template of their political culture.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the hard, ruthless, power-hungry face of men who disguise their politics behind the veil of a religion.

The Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the cold and calculating terrorists of al-Qaida, the bearded thugs of the fundamentalist Muslim parties in Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere are the siblings of the Muslim Brotherhood with their faces unmasked.

Arab Spring, without any surprise, turns out to be the desert wind blowing away false hopes and hollow promises for democracy and peace that a naive West, riddled with its own contradictions, wished for the Middle East.

Sectarian tensions reveal Arab fault line

As the regime of the Syrian strongman falters and Bashar al-Assad is probably haunted by images of the terrifying end of Libya’s tyrant, Moammar Gadhafi, the Arab Spring is turning into an inter-Arab and sectarian Sunni-Shiite regional conflict.

The recent decision of the 22-member Arab League to suspend Syria for the violent repression of the opposition has come on the heels of its earlier decision in March to vote for a no-fly zone over Libya. It was the March decision that turned fatal for the long-standing tyranny of the Gadhafi regime.

The League’s demands that the Syrian regime immediately halt the use of force against civilian demonstrators or face sanctions, coupled with King Abdullah II of Jordan publicly calling for Bashar al-Assad to step down, signal the deep sectarian and political divisions among Arab and Middle Eastern states.

But the situation with Syria — regardless of if, or how, the internal strife escalates into a likely civil war — is much different than Libya, and the stakes for regional security much greater.

The Arab world has been divided politically between republican-type tyrannies and traditionalist monarchies, and religiously between majority Sunni and minority Shiite sects within Islam.

Syria sits on this fault line of the Arab world, as does Iraq. In Syria, the Alawites, a sub-sect of the minority Shiite Islam, has held power since Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez al-Assad, emerged as the military dictator in 1970. The majority of Syrians are Sunni and resentful of being ruled by a minority Shiite clan.

In Iraq, on the contrary, the Sunni Muslims are in minority but under Saddam Hussein ruled brutally over the Shiite majority. Only with the U.S.-led regime change in Baghdad the Iraqi Shiite majority has risen to power.

The League’s decision against Bashar al-Assad’s regime barely masks the reality of the sectarian divide in Arab ranks. Iraq’s abstention on the vote to suspend Syria is revealing of this divide, since the government in Baghdad reflects the concerns of the Shiite majority in the country.

The Arab Spring has witnessed the toppling of the republican-type tyrannies in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, while Yemen’s strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh, in power since 1978, remains embattled.

These recent changes resulting from populist uprisings have benefited most the Islamist movements associated with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, even as the party of Hasan al-Banna edges closer to power in Cairo.

From the perspective of the Brotherhood, bloodily repressed in Syria under the Alawite clan, the Syrian regime is twice an enemy as it has been the stalking horse for the Shiite Iranian clerical dictatorship in the Sunni Arab world.

Behind the Arab League’s warning to Damascus lies an even bigger conflict in the making. This is the struggle for influence in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia — the bastion of Arab Sunni power, the leading petrodollar monarchy and financial backer of the Muslim Brotherhood — and Iran. It is this struggle edging close to a flashpoint as Iran lurches forward defiantly to become a nuclear power. The Arab Spring has been most fortuitously spring time for Islamists. And this heralds an intense sectarian conflict in the region with Syria in the eye of the storm.

“Arab Spring a mask for ruthless men”

The Biblical story of Jonah in the belly of a whale is a fascinating allegory of moral instruction taught by God to man, or of man’s struggle for redemption in a sinful world.

It might also be read as a metaphor indicating only those individuals, or people, know best the nature of any beast if they have lived inside its belly, and survived to speak of the evil encountered.

The people who knew best the sheer evil nature of the former Soviet Union, for instance, were the ones who experienced it from within, and warned the world.

Similarly, only those with experience of politics in the Arab-Muslim world from the inside know well the true nature of its repressive culture riddled with violence.

Khaled Abu Toameh is a journalist writing for the Jerusalem Post. He describes himself often as a Palestinian-Israeli, an Arab, a Muslim and a resident of Jerusalem.

In other words Khaled — I will address him by his first name — is a man of multiple identities, and residing in the ground zero of the most intractable conflict of our time.

I draw attention to Khaled because his writings are warnings from within the belly of the Arab world. And his writings are required reading for anyone in the West seriously interested in understanding the interior nature of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the emergent shape of Arab politics as one set of despots fall and another tyranny looms large.

I first met Khaled here in Canada, and later visited him with his family at his home in Jerusalem.

Khaled’s personality is radiant, his courage is indomitable and his knowledge indispensable for outsiders struggling to understand the labyrinthine nature of tribal politics of the Arab world.

In a recent article, Khaled told the world why the so-called Arab Spring is inevitably turning into an Arab Winter.

He asks sardonically: “Will Libya take example from Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia where adulterers are stoned to death and convicted thieves have their hands cut off and beheaded in public squares?”

He then writes: “Those who thought the Arab Spring would bring moderation and secularism to the Arab world are in for a big disappointment.”

And why, we may incredulously ask.

Khaled answers: “What many Western observers have failed to notice is that most of the anti-government demonstrations that have been sweeping the Arab world over the past 10 months were often launched from mosques following Friday prayer.”

There you have the inside view from the belly of the beast. In our politically correct world of multicultural utopia, the reality of what occurs inside the mosque cannot be discussed.

To the mayor of New York, the Ground Zero Mosque can only be a place of worship where pious men — and mostly men — gather.

Khaled has no reason to be politically correct when he knows the inside story of how a mosque serves as the recruiting base for jihad against infidels and lapsed Muslims.

This jihad is turning whatever little promise there was initially invested in the Facebook revolution called Arab Spring into an Arab Winter, and rule by ruthless men obsessed by their Islamist version of a cruel faith and a vengeful deity.

Democratic Egypt to Ban Bikinis, Beer and King Tut

Remember when every Ron Burgundy out there was giddy as a schoolgirl telling us that Egyptian “freedom fighters” were getting rid of that old meanie Mubarak and were headed for a “democracy” in the land of Pharaoh? I sure do.

I particularly remember the reporters selling us that smack during the outset of the Arab Spring: “Revolutionaries,” they called the Egyptian dissidents—veritable “mutineers from Mubarak’s mayhem, sick of servitude and longing for liberty, just like Paul Revere!” They flung that noise, or something to that effect, at us with goggle-eyed glee each day for weeks on end.

Personally, I never bought this “freedom fighter” bull shiitake we were all being sold, and I said so from day one of this uprising on my amazing show, ClashRadio.com. Indeed, this “democratic” thang reeked of nutty radicals to me, and I believed it had zilch to do with “Egyptian young folk just wanting to live la Vida Loca.”

That said, however, I must confess that I did question myself as to whether or not I was being too harsh on the newscasters’ spiel and the motivations of the “freedom fighters.” Perhaps I had become too much of a jaded skeptic when it came to the jacked-up scat in Cairo.

That personal inventory regarding the wrongness of my perturbation with the “democratic revolt” lasted about two days. I believe I second-guessed my naughty heart right up until two hundred “democracy seekers” gang raped CBS’s foreign correspondent Lara Logan. I thought that was a strange thing for lovers of democracy to do.

Oh, another thing that made me think that maybe I was dialed into what was truly going down was the Muslim Brotherhood started popping up all over the place, gaining control over the “secular” Egyptian military.

And one more thing that ended my brutal introspection was that after Mubarak got deposed, the “new democracy” reestablished relations with Iran and Hamas and officially told Israel to blank off.

It was at that point in time that I ceased my second-guessing and formally realized that I am a genius. Radicals hijacked Egypt, and the Egyptians who truly long for freedom—at least as defined by sane standards—are now more SOL than they were under Hosni’s boot.

And lastly, this past week the “freedom folks” in Egypt have put forth their liberty legislation that includes bans on bikinis, mixed bathing on beaches, and drinking beer in public—and they’re even yapping about getting rid of the Sphinx, the pyramids, and other ancient Egyptian archaeological wonders.

Call me weird, but that doesn’t sound like liberty to me.