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.

Hillary’s message likely will be unheeded

The news from Egypt that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on visiting Alexandria recently, was greeted by a crowd chanting “Monica” while throwing tomatoes and shoes at her motorcade did not come as a surprise.

There is nothing outrageous, atrocious, vulgar and violent done on a regular basis in the name of Islam across the Arab-Muslim world that comes as a surprise anymore.

It is neither the infidels, nor the so-called malicious Jews, fork-tongued “white” folks of former colonial-imperial powers and detestable Hindus, who have conspired together in trampling upon and pulverizing the good name of Islam. They could not have done this and succeeded to the extent Muslims have in successfully wrecking their own faith-tradition and culture.

I write this on the eve of Ramadan, the month of fasting and repentance in the Islamic calendar, knowing well from experience that violence and mayhem in the Arab-Muslim world will likely increase during this period.

The reason for this sad situation is simple, and I have been pointing this out in my columns for sometime now. Instead of striving to disentangle their religion from their politics, Muslims have worked hard to fuse the two even more, to believe even more fanatically in the slogan coined by Ayatollah Khomeini that “Islam is politics.”

The result has been predictable, and the situation across the Arab-Muslim world predictably will get worse.

Those most responsible for this worsening situation are the men of learning among Muslims, primarily the imams or religious leaders in Muslim communities, as was Khomeini.

The Qur’an counsels, “Cultivate tolerance, enjoin justice, and avoid the fools,” or instructs, “Do not revile those who invoke others apart from Allah, lest they begin to revile Allah out of malice and ignorance.”

The religious leaders among Muslims have been at the head of mobs across the Arab-Muslim world doing precisely the opposite of what the Qur’an states.

In other words, contrary to Khomeini’s slogan, Islam is about right conduct since the best of people — as the Qur’an mentions, and this is true in any other faith-tradition — are those who behave rightfully.

What is right conduct? It is following the golden rule, and though it might be differently expressed in different traditions its meaning is true and same everywhere.

This brings me back to Hillary Clinton, and reading her words delivered in Alexandria on the occasion of re-opening a U.S. Consulate in that ancient city.

Clinton spoke about Arab Spring, the American experience, and observed that principles of democracy have “to be enshrined not only in the constitution, not only in the institutions of government, but in the hearts and minds of the people.”

Then she stated, “Democracy is not just about reflecting the will of the majority; it is also about protecting the rights of the minority.”

These were brave and truthful words spoken on the eve of Ramadan to people caught in the delirium of their own fanaticism, as they have turned Islam into a religion of bigots and rendered their culture inhospitable to minorities.

Clinton’s words were also a timely reminder for Muslims who need reminding repeatedly that the Qur’an warns God will do away with people who persist in misconduct towards others.

 

The military’s shrewd gambit in Egypt

JIZEL, Algeria — The landscape around Jizel, east of Algeria’s capital Algiers on the Barbary Coast, appears like an artist’s hidden paradise in some remote corner of the world. The view of the Mediterranean framed by the mountains is spectacular, and it tells me why the French fought so long and hard to remain here.

From here the tumult in Egypt is both near and distant.

It is near since Egypt played an eventful role in Algeria’s struggle for independence, and as the most populous Arab state Egypt’s political culture carries an appeal across the region despite its bankrupt economy. But the distance of Egypt from here also provides a critical perspective.

Algeria is an oil-rich economy with about a third of Egypt’s population. This relative wealth made the difference between Algeria turning into an Afghanistan or Somalia as Islamists bid for power in the 1990s, and the country remaining under control of a somewhat secularized military-civil elite that has ruled since France departed.

The result of Egypt’s presidential election discloses how greatly divided is the country. A mere 51% of the electorate voted and Ahmed Shafiq, as the candidate of the allegedly discredited previous military regime of Hosni Mubarak, received more than 48% of support.

In winning the presidency Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, has made history, yet the uncertainties of Egypt’s economy looms ominously.

Another round of elections, for the parliament was disqualified by the constitutional court, will have to occur.

The military’s role, given its stakes in society, will also need to be worked out in the midst of a failing economy, and in an international context wherein the margin of error is just about non-existent.

Moreover, the sort of Islamist terror and military counter-terror played out in Algeria is not unlikely. The past is the prologue for the future in a society as divided as is Egypt.

Most outside observers fail to understand or avoid discussing the fundamental nature of Arab society, which has failed to modernize or reform Islam sufficiently by discarding its tribal culture. Behind the public discourse of democracy, the real contest for power in Egypt, as it was in Algeria, is one among competing tribes to take control of the state and distribute its spoils. In Arab culture, the military has proven to be the most powerful of tribes.

But the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 1945 has posed a serious challenge to the military’s hold on power. Seen from this perspective, the primary internal conflict in Egyptian politics remains the tribal contest between the military and the MB.

The post-Cold War developments and the post-9/11 rise of Islamism affected the political equation inside Egypt. What we are witnessing is a new round of power struggle with stakes much higher for both Egypt and the region.

My sense is Egypt’s commanding generals shrewdly made their gambit as they sacrificed Hosni Mubarak, one of their own, to the mob. In stepping back, the military has permitted the MB with Morsi to assume the presidency with the narrowest margin of public support, and then hold them entirely responsible for the predictable economic collapse ahead.

A year from now the mob that cheered Mubarak’s fall may likely demand the return of the military.

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.

Women stand to lose most in Arab Spring

The monthly journal Foreign Policy recently published an essay by Mona Eltahawy titled “Why Do They Hate Us?”

Eltahawy is an American of Egyptian origin, a graduate from the American University in Cairo with a master’s degree in journalism, who publishes views on politics and culture inside the Arab world.

In the large amount of reporting from and about the Middle East, Eltahawy’s writings convey the perspectives, and hurt, of Arab and Muslim women trapped in the web of a patriarchal culture with its endemic misogyny and violence. Her recent essay was written after her own traumatic experience last November in Cairo.

There she was assaulted, groped and beaten by goons linked to security forces in Tahrir Square where the so-called “Arab Spring” gathered pace and toppled Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship.

There is, however, the denial and the apologetics of those made uncomfortable by light shed on the disgusting reality of how in the name of Islam a pre-modern culture continues to degrade women in our day and age.

Once upon a time — and a long, long time ago — Islam brought improvement for women in a world characterized by patriarchy. This improvement in the relative sense allows for many Muslims to engage in polemical defence of Islam for advancing women’s rights long before the subject took hold in the West.

The making of the modern world left the Arab-Muslim region behind in every aspect of human progress and, as Eltahawy indicates, the latest Global Gender Gap Report of the World Economic Forum on the status of women ranks the Arab countries at the bottom of the list.

“Name me an Arab country,” writes Eltahawy, “and I’ll recite a litany of abuses fuelled by a toxic mix of culture and religion that few seem willing or able to disentangle lest they blaspheme or offend.”

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is moving full steam ahead to establish an Islamist order. This is a leap backwards in time and, without mincing words, an Islamic variant of fascism.

But when it comes to the status of women, Saudi Arabia stands as the model for Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world.

Eltahawy does not mince words to describe the Saudi kingdom which, she writes, is “unabashed in its worship of a misogynistic God and never suffers any consequences for it, thanks to its double-whammy advantage of having oil and being home to Islam’s two holiest places, Mecca and Medina.”

Muslim women have known from the earliest days the promise of Islam and its oppressive reality as practised by Muslim men. The promise indicts Muslim men for their misogyny — apologetics aside — and in our age the Shariah-based sanction for the abuse of women is a crime against humanity.

Eltahawy is one courageous voice of Arab women. There are others. And they remind all that the genuinely revolutionary force for change in the Arab-Muslim world is women.

Yet the situation of women in the Arab-Muslim world of patriarchy and misogyny, if this can be imagined, has worsened. The reason is, as Eltahawy observes, the “Islamist hatred of women burns brightly across the region — now more than ever.”

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.

Mimicking the Middle Ages

A daily watch of someone stricken with a severe malady will more or less confirm with every twitching observed that the patient’s situation is critical.

Such is the case in observing the daily painfully grievous twitching in the Middle East and across the Arab-Muslim world, and every spike in violence observed merely confirms the Islamic lands — Arab and non-Arab — are sinking ever deeper into the death throes of a dysfunctional culture.

We are watching Syria sliding precipitately into a civil war, Pakistan maddeningly sinking into a cauldron of violence fuelled by religious bigots, Coptic Christians of Egypt desperately looking for an exit out of a land they no longer can count as their ancient home, and Iran torn between the fanaticism of the clergy with its thuggish militia let loose and a people exhausted by the din of empty slogans.

If we take a wider view of the lands between the River Indus flowing through Pakistan and the Atlas Mountains in Morocco on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, we might find the events we are witnessing in this part of the world when taken together form a pattern and may be explained historically.

The Arab-Muslim world is at some point close to the bottom of an immense civilizational breakdown, and the ever-present violence that we are witnessing is the symptom of this historic convulsion.

The closest analogy to this situation in the Arab-Muslim world is the massive convulsions that shook Europe over several centuries from the beginning of the Middle Ages around the 14th century and the birth of the modern age toward the end of the 19th century.

If we may imagine the history of Europe caught in the grips of great and massive changes, we might be reminded that very little sense could be made of the many revolutionary events as they unfolded — religious strife, dynastic violence, peasant movements, the birth of new science and new technology, making of gun powder and cannons, political revolutions, rise of nationalism and emergence of nation-states.

There were plagues, black deaths, famines and diseases, inquisition, fanaticism of all sorts, cruel monarchs, saintly individuals put to death, misogyny, child labour, serfdom, anti-Semitism and seemingly unending wars.

Yet a new Europe — and a new world of science and individual freedom, democracy and unimaginable wealth that no Midas of the ancient world could ever imagine — came out of that cauldron of dark night spread over several centuries.

Analogy has limits, and the analogy of Europe to understand the situation in the Arab-Muslim world is also limited.

In other words, none of us can say with any optimism or certainty how the massive convulsions of the Arab-Muslim world might eventually cease with the emergence of a newer and better arrangement for the people there as occurred in Europe.

The future only seems determined when it becomes the past, and is considered retrospectively.

It is safe to assume the dark night into which the Arab-Muslim world is descending will get even darker and more violent than at present.

And the world outside, as is the West, remains confused and at a loss on how to protect itself from the convulsions of the Arab-Muslim world.

“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.

Libya poised for return of tribal savagery

As I noted in my column last week, the end of Moammar Gadhafi is the opening act of a new cycle of vendetta, power play and authoritarian rule in Libya, just like those Arab countries where other despots have been removed.

The bestial treatment meted out to Gadhafi in the last moments of his life illustrated the brutal nature of tribal ways.  It was even more grotesquely underscored by the public display of the slain despot’s body.

There is no Arab version of Thomas Jefferson or Mahatma Gandhi waiting off-stage during this so-called Arab Spring to step into the covered Muslim womenring and usher in a new dawn of freedom and democracy in the Arab world.  The rebel leaders — men such as Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, head of Libya’s National Transitional Council — only a few months ago served diligently in executing Gadhafi’s whims.  It is delusional to think these men will break the cycle of tribal rule and Arab despotism.

The new order, announced by the NTC leaders in Tripoli and accompanied by popular celebration with chanting of “Allahu Akbar” (God is great), will be the full implementation of Shariah rule.  So there is no mistaking what this new order means. Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, minister of justice under Gadhafi’s rule, dutifully explained Libyan men may practice polygamy openly in accordance with Shariah.

But the midwives of the Libyan new order are the heads of Britain, France, the U.S., and Canada, the ever-loyal ally of the West’s three great powers.  This bit of midwifery should end — though it won’t — the endless carping by the left about how western imperialism has regularly undermined Arab culture and politics.

In Tunisia, Libya’s neighbour and where the Arab Spring movement got started, the people have voted in sufficient numbers to give Ennahda the main role in devising the country’s Shariah-based rule.  Ennahda is an Islamist party in the orbit of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi-backed Saudi rulers.

In Egypt, the military oligarchy will either wear the Shariah robe itself, or find a sufficiently credible front man with the blessings of Cairo’s al-Azhar — the chief religious institution of the majority Sunni Islam — to declare the establishment of a new order.

We need to step back and take a longer view to understand the emergent shape of Arab politics. Arab despotism riding the tide of secular nationalism since the 1950s had been long discredited, and it is being washed away by popular unrest seeking a return to a more authentic and, hence, more legitimate political order.

This can only be, in the lexicon of Arab and Muslim politics, a Shariah-based political order. Democracy, in this system of political thinking, is merely a mechanism to establish this order.

Will the Arab system of Shariah-based rule be any different from what exists in Iran? The difference will be only in the margin, and not in substance.

For more than three centuries Arabs, as people of the Mediterranean basin, watched and felt the effects of Europe’s invention of the modern world of science and politics. But as the Arab Spring unfolds, Arabs are displaying how well they have assimilated principally Europe’s ideology of totalitarianism into their tribal ways legitimated by Shariah as Allah’s mandate.

Peace eludes Mideast 30 years after Anwar Sadat’s murder

Thirty years ago on Oct. 6, 1981, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt was gunned down on the reviewing stand of a military parade by Islamist infiltrators in the Egyptian army.

The parade commemorated the Ramadan war Sadat and his Syrian counterpart, Hafez al-Asaad, launched eight years earlier against Israel. The October 1973 war was, for Sadat, an effort to redress the humiliating defeat Israel delivered to Egypt and her Arab allies in the June 1967 war.

The Ramadan war ended in a stalemate. Sadat succeeded in catching Israelis by surprise, and then gaining a military foothold on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal.

The initial surprise – despite the Israeli counter-attack which encircled the Egyptian army as a prelude to the knockout punch that would have left Cairo hopelessly exposed and vulnerable – was deemed sufficient for Sadat to claim a victory.

It was a victory behind the fig leaf of intense diplomacy initiated by Henry Kissinger, then the U.S. secretary of state, to negotiate between Cairo and Jerusalem a series of agreements that eventually set Sadat on the course to a peace treaty with the Jewish state.

We need to recall the murder of Sadat, especially this year, given the enormity of lies levelled against Israel at the UN for obstructing the rights of Palestinians to statehood by Palestinians, their Arab-Muslim backers and their apologists in the West.

There could be nothing further from truth if history is to bear testimony to the depravity of those – Palestinians and their friends – who celebrated news of Sadat’s murder as they would the Islamist attacks on America 20 years later on 9/11.

The men who killed Sadat emerged from the same entrails of Islamist politics of violence that launched al-Qaida.

The current leader of al-Qaida and successor to Osama bin Laden is Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian indicted and imprisoned in 1981 as a leader of Islamic Jihad for collaborating in the murder of Sadat.

Sadat’s crime in the eyes of his enemies was his journey to Jerusalem in November 1977. In the Israeli capital Sadat embraced Prime Minister Menachem Begin and other Jewish leaders, addressed Israelis by speaking in the Knesset, and prepared the ground for the landmark Egypt-Israel peace treaty of 1979.

This agreement was precedent setting for what could be expected between Israel and other Arab states and, most importantly, between Israelis and Palestinians: Mutual recognition, an end to violence with an acceptance by Palestinians of Israel and its right to be secure, and the establishment of a Palestinian state which Palestinians had refused in 1947.

In the preparation of the eventual Egypt-Israel peace treaty, Sadat repeatedly asked Yasser Arafat and other Palestinians leaders to join him in negotiating with the Israelis.

Palestinians could have made peace with Israel as Sadat did back in the 1970s when there were no Jewish settlements to speak of in the West Bank.

But Sadat was rebuffed. Egypt’s membership in the Arab League was suspended, and the League’s headquarters moved from Cairo to Tunis.

Arafat and Palestinians supported Arab rejectionists, and cheered Islamist terrorists for killing the only Arab leader who knowingly placed his life on the line for peace between Arabs and Jews.