Change of Reign in Egypt: Mohammed Morsi Becomes Country’s First Democratically Elected President

Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) leader Mohammed Morsi has won the presidential election runoff, defeating the independent candidate Ahmed Shafik, the last prime minister to the deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak, with 13.2 million votes out of 26 million, a share of 51.2 per cent on a turnout of just over 50 per cent.

However, the outcome of the election does not settle the standoff between the Brotherhood and the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which did not even wait for the result before taking a series of steps which some Egyptians have called a constitutional obscenity. One crucial move was made by the constitutional court, made up of judges from the time of Mubarak, which unilaterally dissolved the national parliament. That body – elected between November 2011 and March 2012 in Egypt’s first-ever free polls – was to write a constitution for the new state.

Armed Forces’ Tradition Broken

Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi will not enjoy the extent of modern, pharaonic powers exercised by Mubarak: those have been curtailed by a military establishment which will decide just how much he will be able to do in government.

Still, the US-trained engineer's victory in the country's first free presidential election breaks a tradition of domination by men from the armed forces, which have provided every Egyptian leader since overthrow of the monarchy 60 years ago, and installs in office a group that drew on 84 years of grassroots activism to catapult Morsi into presidency.

First Civilian Head of State

An engineer turned politician, Mohammed Morsi has come a long way to become the first freely elected President of Egypt that saw its strongman Hosni Mubarak being ousted in what is now famously called Arab Spring. Although, not their first choice as a presidential candidate, the powerful Muslim Brotherhood threw its weight behind Morsi, 60, the chairman of its FJP. A champion of Brotherhood's famous slogan - "Islam is the solution" - Morsi describes its policies as having "a moderate Islamic reference". A more quietly-spoken man, Morsi got the support of Brotherhood's grassroots network and what is often referred to as an highly organized campaign team.

Morsi’s win in an election widely seen as free and fair suggests that the 84-year-old Islamist group — which began as a secret outfit, often resorted to violence and was continually suppressed and driven underground — remains Egypt’s most influential party, drawing its support from all corners of society.

On the one hand he has been directly chosen by the people, but on the other there are fears that his regime may sooner than later push the country to a hard line form of Islamic rule. Since it is too early to speculate with any amount of certainty, it is better to simply use the material at hand and peep into the possibilities ahead.

To begin with, Morsi is Egypt’s first democratically elected President — and that fact needs to be heartily endorsed. He is also his country’s first civilian president, and thus his election presents a strong break from the past where men in uniform imposed themselves on the nation as its rulers. This again should not be a cause of concern for New Delhi because it will now have to deal with elected representatives rather than military generals. Of course, India never seemed to have had much of a problem with the earlier Hosni Mubarak Government, but that regime is now history and the former has to now do business with a new set of people that has a popular mandate at least.

New Prez’s Manifesto

Morsi has promised a moderate, modern Islamist agenda to steer Egypt into a new democratic era where autocracy will be replaced by transparent government that respects human rights and revives the fortunes of a powerful Arab state long in decline. He is promising an "Egyptian renaissance with an Islamic foundation."

Yet the stocky, bespectacled 60-year old, appears something of an accidental president: he was only flung into the race at the last moment by the disqualification on a technicality of Khairat al-Shater, by far the group's preferred choice.

With a stiff and formal style, Morsi, who has a doctorate from the University of Southern California, cast himself as a reluctant late comer to the race, who cited religious fear of judgment day as one of his reasons for running. He struggled to shake off his label as the Brotherhood's "spare tire."

However, questions remain over the extent to which Morsi will operate independently of other Brotherhood leaders once in office: his manifesto was drawn up by the group's policymakers. The role Shater might play has been one focus of debate in Egypt.

Undoubtedly, the historic nature of the win can hardly be underestimated. Given Egypt’s size, historical importance and cultural and political preeminence in the Arabic-speaking world, it is not unlikely that an Islamist democracy advocated by the FJP, the Brotherhood’s political wing that Morsi led to a signal victory, can potentially become a model for West Asia and North Africa.

Future Equation

The FJP has been issuing statements that it proposes to offer a liberal regime and honor past accords and agreements. Morsi is also reported to have emphasized over and over again that he would ensure that international commitments agreed on are not dismantled. This is good news, but the challenge for the new president will be to implement his promise in the face of pressures that he is certainly going to face from hard line factions within his party and others as well to chart a new and probably more confrontationist course of action.

The victory of the Islamists, whose offshoot HAMAS rules in Gaza Strip (also having got there through an election), cannot but be bad news for Israel, which has operated a peace agreement with Egypt’s military rulers since the days of Anwar Sadat, and whose political position has defined the conflict in the region for 60 years.

For the millions of Egyptians who endured savage repression for decades and then brutal violence when they rose against the erstwhile dictatorship in 2011, the democratic election of a president is a major step forward.

Indications of the past days are that Morsi will use moderate Islam as a reference in framing his policies. He can do otherwise only at the cost of alienating Egypt’s existing and potential allies across the world and destabilizing the uneasy peace that exists between the Arab world and Israel.

Obama's Call To Back to 1967 Frontier Only Solution to Middle-East Crisis

US President Barack Obama has called on Israel to go back to 1967 frontier. He made this call while delivering a speech on the Middle East situation at the US State Department in Washington on 19 May. Although Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed Obama's call, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outright turned down it. On the very next day, Israeli Prime Minister rushed to Washington to have talks with Obama on this issue. Obama told him, 'It is essential to demarcate the Palestine-Israel boundary on the basis of the 1967 frontier. In that case security of both the states would be ensured.' Laying highest importance on the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, Obama said: 'Like other independent states they have also right to have a sovereign homeland. All states should have its defense forces to protect their sovereignty.
Certainly, Israel has capability to protect its sovereignty by combating any external aggression or attacks'. President Obama observed that sustainable Palestine and secure Israel could be ensured if they can settle their territorial boundary through mutual negotiations and consensus. Obama reiterated that the US firmly believes Palestine-Israel boundary dispute could be solved through mutual discussions and negotiations. In this connection Obama straightway told Netanyahu that he (Israeli prime minister) has no capability to sign a peace accord with Palestine.
Imaginary, Emotional Approaches
Obama's apprehension that hardliner Netanyahu is not in favor of Middle-East peace had proved to be true on the very next day. Immediately after holding two-hour meeting with Obama, Netanyahu declared that Israel would not make any compromise with its territorial boundary with Palestine that Tel Aviv established through 1967 war. In addition to rejecting Obama's call, Netanyahu did not even hesitate to tell that peace in the Middle East could not be established through any fake, imaginary or emotional approaches. Netanyahu had shown the audacity to brand the very objective, realistic and acceptable approaches of Obama as something fake or emotional. We feel shame when we hear words of peace from the mouth of this racial, warmonger and extreme hardliner Zionist leader Binyamin Netanyahu. With the extreme patronization and provocation of the United States, Israel has become so much desperate and arrogant that it does not hesitate to throw away the very proposal of the US President. This peculiar and abnormal state -- Israel had come into being in 1948 under a joint UK-US conspiracy by illegally evicting Palestinian people from their homeland. This illegally born state under the evil design of British-USA that used the United Nations in their unholy mission is the most defamed racial state of the world. This illegally born state that is regarded as the apple of discord in the Middle East has been destroying world peace for the past 63 years. Still then the Palestinians who have been struggling for establishing their self-right and to have their own homeland finally had agreed on 'Two Nations' theory in the greater interest of peace.
To attain that objective the undisputed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had signed the peace treaty. On the basis of that agreement a self-ruled limited landmass was created for the Palestinian people that were the first step towards establishing independent and sovereign Palestine state. One and half decades have already elapsed since signing of that peace treaty by Arafat. But because of breach of trust by Israel and because of its obstinate attitude the dream of an independent state for the struggling Palestinians has still remained a far cry.
US Patronizations and Supports
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the HAMAS are two major organizations of the Palestinian people. Both of them have no objection to extend recognition to Israel on the basis of 1967 boundary. Relatively hardliner HAMAS also has no objection to recognize such a formula that was enunciated by the Arab League. But despite making repeated commitments, Israel has been betraying with the Palestinian people.
Tel Aviv has been repeatedly denying accepting the independent and sovereign entity of the State of Palestine. Rather, the warmongering leadership of Israel has been continuing its subversive policy like evicting the Palestinian people from their homes, constructing new settlements on Palestinian lands, military aggressions, economic blockades etc. In such evil design, Israel has been getting US patronizations and supports all thorough.
Destabilizing World Peace
Now time has come for the US President to deeply realize that Israel is an aggressive states -- it is an enemy of world peace. However, it is most encouraging that the world leaders have extended supports to the proposal made by US President Obama for resolving the Middle East crises.
Under such situation the United States must take strong measures to compel Israel to stop its military aggression and raising settlements on Palestinian lands. Stern actions should also be taken to force Israel to keep restrained in the interest of establishing permanent peace in the region. Finally, the Muslim World should take immediate steps to ensure independent, sovereign and safe state for Palestinian people

Whither Middle East Peace Process?

US President Barack Obama, during his maiden visit to the Middle East in May 2009, delivered an important speech in the Egyptian capital -- Cairo. In that address, Obama said that Israel would have to suspend the construction of its legal settlements on the Palestinian lands on the West Bank for the restart of Arab-Israel peace talks. Almost instantly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had rejected the proposal of the US President. The Israeli prime minister said that the building of the settlements was suspended for one year that means up to September 2009 during the tenure of President George W. Bush and after expiry of the timeframe Israel will again start the construction. President Osama had to withstand that insult silently. It had become clear that the Fatah party government of Palestine would not sit for peace talks unless Israel stopped building settlements.
Arab-Israel Conflicts
Since then, Israel has established a good number of new illegal settlement areas on the West Bank and the captured East Jerusalem and built several thousands of structures on the Palestinian lands. Rather arrogant and aggressive Netanyahu and his government blamed the Palestinians for the capture of lands. The argument of the Israeli government was the Palestinians are divided, among them the HAMAS is determined to eliminate the existence of Israel, so no peace talks are possible with them. As the United States and European Union (EU) have recognized HAMAS as terrorist so the plea of Israel is acceptable to them. In the internal politics Obama has earned the wrath of the US capitalist over his national health bill. And his popularity was nosedived.
In addition, Obama did not get enough opportunity to think over the Middle East as he lost majority in the Congress in the midterm polls. Moreover, he will have to seek votes in November 2012 to become the US President for the second term. Obama knows it very well that it will not be possible for him to win the election by annoying the 'most powerful' Israeli lobbies in the US. And as a result, he prefers keeping mum on the issue of Arab-Israel conflicts.
Unexpected Address
President Obama on 19 May gave a completely unexpected statement at the US Department of State. He had definitely an intention of revising to some extent the present anti-US policy in the Middle East. At the beginning of the so-called 'Arab autumn' process the US seemed to be against the trend. But as the development began going out of the control of the US policy Washington welcomed the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt one after another. But in other places the United States is still lagging behind the pace of developments. Washington was in a dilemma for a long time regarding the mass upsurge in Yemen and Syria. Huge criticisms were raised in the US over mysterious indifference of the Obama administration to sending of Saudi Arabian troops to quell rebellion in Bahrain.
In his State Department address, Obama made attempts to minimize those criticisms. He said: 'The US welcomes those changes that expand the scopes for self determination and opportunities- there should not be any doubt about it. For many decades we have been admitting the no change in situation of this region or the Middle East, but now we have gotten the chance of following the path through which the world could advance in the right direction.'
Obama in that address further said that the basis of the Arab-Israeli crisis would be a 'secured Israel' and on the basis of an independent Palestinian state, and the borders of the two states will be along the demarcation line that was before the 1967 war. But Obama said that some changes along the common borders here and there were possible on the basis of mutual understanding.
On 2 May, the US commandoes swooped on a residence at Abbottabad in Pakistan and killed Usama Bin Ladin. Since then popularity of Obama has jumped high repeatedly. The US President might have thought that he would implement his 2009 Cairo address riding on this popularity. Besides, he might have realized that Israel has been using the peace talks with the Palestinian as a technique of killing time and the crisis will no be solved this way. Now he is thinking over the 2002 Saudi proposal. In that Saudi proposal it was stipulated that the borders of Palestine and Israel will be fixed along the demarcation line of 1967 and all Arab states will recognize Israel simultaneously.
Bad Tempered Dialogue
The US foreign policy is not determined in Washington. This is determined in Israel and the Israelis secure this control by dint of the strength of the Israeli lobbies in the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was scheduled meet the US President in Washington on the following day of the speech of Obama. Prior to his departure for Washington, Netanyahu announced that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to Israel. He said that the ground realities have under gone many changes (because of illegal Israeli settlements) since 1967 and those changes cannot be ruled out. In other words, he said that the Jews (those came from Europe) had the right to build settlements in the areas where they have settlements during the Bible era that means in entire Palestine.
The Jewish people in the United States could hardly be one-thirtieth of the total population. But in pursuance of Zionist conspiracy, they have taken control of the US politics, economy, and media. Of them, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most powerful group. It being said that no bill in the US Congress could be passed without approval from the AIPAC. Obama might have thought that he will be able to create influence by addressing the AIPAC conference. The AIPAC conference silently heard the speech of Obama. But when the US President referred to the 1967 borderline they raised voice in unison to condemn him. To pacify the anger, President Obama was compelled to announce that the United States will oppose the Arab proposal in the UN General Assembly in September 2011 for giving recognition to the Palestinian state.
Netanyahu also addressed the AIPAC conference. In his address, the Israeli Prime Minister said that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to his country for security reasons. He had again referred to the Jewish settlements in the Bibal area. And it is needless to mention that the address of Netanyahu was welcome amid repeated clapping from the audience. Netanyahu has again demanded that as a condition for establishing peace Israel must have to be recognized as a Jewish state. His proposal means forfeiting the birth right of the Palestinians, expelled from Israel, in returning to their homeland, which the United Nations accepted for many times. The proposal will give Israel the liberty of expelling nearly 2 million Palestinian from that country. The Palestinian will accept the proposal.
On 24 May, Netanyahu was more cordially greeted in the joint session of the two houses of the US Congress than the AIPAC conference. During his address to the House, both the Republican and Democrat members of the Congress gave him standing ovation 18 times. By this time, Obama and Netanyahu held face to face meeting in the White House. According to available information, their discussions were exciting and bad tempered.
Split in Western Alliance
However, Obama was given rousing receptions during his visit to Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. He earned the rare distinction of addressing the joint session of the British Parliament in Westminster Hall. Before him no US President was fortunate to address the joint session of the British Parliament. In his address, Obama traditionally raised the Palestinian issue and said: 'We (US and Europe) are united for cause a secured Israel and an Independent Palestinian state.
But Obama knows it better that the Europe is now not united with the United States on the Palestinian issue. Virtually Europe is getting more intolerant with each passing. So long the Arab-Israel issue has been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It was true that a quartet was formed on the issue comprising the United Nations, EU, Russia, and the United States. But that quartet was absolutely ineffective. Former US President George W. Bush appointed his cohort in misdeeds -- Tony Blair -- as the representative of that quartet. It seemed from the statements of Tony Blair that protecting interest of Israel was his prime concern. He is going to Jerusalem off and on and Israelis are receiving him very cordially. It being heard that Tony Blair has been benefiting for her relations with Israel.
Now the EU could have realized that the US foreign policy is determined in Tel Aviv, not Washington. And as a result, no just solution of the crisis is possible by the United States. Some of the EU countries believe the Europe now will have to take responsibility from the United States the initiatives of solving the Arab-Israel crisis. Some of the EU countries, including France, have hinted that they are ready to recognize the independence of Palestine if it is unilaterally declared by the Palestinians.
The Europe has some special advantages also. The Israeli lobbies are very active in Europe particularly in France and Germany. But they are yet to become so stronger like the AIPAC in the United States. In addition, the progress of Israeli economy still largely depends on Europe. Israel is enjoying the duty free access to Europe in exporting goods like other EU members. That means Israeli Prime Minister will find no courage to show his red eyes to the Europe the way he has been demonstrating his audacity to hackle the US President. Under the above circumstances, the people, who support an independent Palestinian state inside Israel, will be encouraged.
Recent Development
Meanwhile, a significant change has taken place in the situation of the Middle East. Israel has been successful in laying a siege to Gaza for long four years with active support from the Hosni Mubarak government of Egypt. That the Egyptian Government acting on behalf of the Israeli Administration has closed down the Rafa Crossing on the southern frontier. But a post-revolution Egypt is not ready to act as a guard of Egypt. Egypt opened the Rafa Crossing on 28 May. Most countries in the Middle East are now witnessing mass upsurge. The friends of Israel in Europe believe Israel will be more friendless if 'Arab Autumn' gets perfection. Under the above circumstances, it will be better for Israel to reach a settlement without killing time.
The Arab League, at a meeting in Doha on 22 May, has decided that despite objection from the US they will move a resolution in the UN General Assembly in September for giving recognition to an independent Palestinian state with the border of 1967. That resolution will create very complex situation for the United States. Under pressure from Israel, the United States will try to oppose the resolution. However, most countries in the world are likely to give recognition to the Palestinian state. The public opposition of so many countries will surely hamper the international dignity of the United States.
Only one option has been left for Washington to adopt. The option is supporting the Arab League resolution. If the United States fails, Washington should abstain from voting against the proposal and handover initiatives of resolving the Middle East crisis to the EU.

Agreement Between HAMAS, Fateh Historic Achievement

The people who had become disheartened by the events of the past few months in the Middle East got a sense of relief and joy at the joining together of the two large groups of Palestinians -- HAMAS and Fateh. Otherwise, the everyday tensions of the Islamic world had drowned them in despair. Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Jordan--the political storms at last gave some relief. For the past four years, tensions between the two groups were good news for the enemies of Islam, especially Israel. But today, when this news was announced that in spite of the many attempts of their enemies the two groups have reached to work together, it was enough to make Israel and its guardian writhe with jealousy.
Israel bared its fangs and immediately announced its decision to withhold tax revenue from the Fateh group. This was announced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He even said that the Fateh will have to choose between Israel and the Islamic group, while its chief protector the United States without making any comment, announced that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken to Netanyahu and Fateh leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Differences and Act
Attempts at reconciliation between the HAMAS and the Fateh started two months ago and now, at last, these attempts had reached fruition. Both parties have shown their appreciation. The world history has is witness that whenever Muslims put their differences on the back burner and put up a united front, they have always got success, while the Koran has told them to set aside their differences and act as one. And whenever, on the orders of the Almighty, they have said "Labbayk " [Arabic for 'I have come O Lord' they have tasted success]. Now that Palestinians have chosen the path of unity, definitely success will be their fate and their enemies will be wiped out.
Enemies of Islam will know the strength of Islam. They know that Muslims do not rest until they have wiped out their enemies from existence. That is why they know that whenever their community gets united, it spells trouble for them. They know that unity among Muslims means trouble for them and that is why they keep putting obstacles in their path. They keep threatening the Fateh that if they sort out their differences with the HAMAS, then its cooperation with Israel will be put in grave danger. This means that behind the scenes, the Fateh was threatened that if it makes up with the HAMAS, then its cooperation with Israel and the United States will be in jeopardy and can also end in war. But all their attempts came to naught and both the groups have signed this historic document.
Important Step Taken
From the news pouring in, the signatures are of Abu Zauq of the HAMAS and Azam Ahmad of the Fateh. HAMAS leader Khalid Mashal and Fateh leader Mahmoud Abbas did not affix their signatures on this agreement, but in the joint statement that was issued in Egypt both leaders showed agreement and called it an historic achievement. Observers of the events in Palestine and Israel agree that this has been a very important step. This will be very beneficial for the Palestinian public, and the most important aspect of the Palestinian state coming up.
Muslims and all right-thinking people of the world wishes that war in Palestinians will end and both sides will jointly be able to struggle for an independent Palestinian State. Because of this fratricidal struggle, both sides were suffering heavy losses, as they had to concentrate on two fronts which were frittering away their strength. Now they will be able to land a heavy blow on their enemy. Now that both the groups have sorted out their differences, they will concentrate on a single point--the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, and land a body blow to their enemy.
Joy for Islamic World
With this agreement not only the Palestinian factions are happy, but the entire Islamic world rejoices, because the land of Palestine is for Muslims. Regardless of which part of the world he may be living in, Palestine has a spiritual connection. This is where He turns to when Muslim recites His prayers. That is why there is a wave of joy to welcome this agreement.
All those who preach peace in the world are in darkness regarding this agreement and are trying to secretly sabotage it. This process has started. That is why the Fateh and the HAMAS and the Palestinian public should guard this agreement and protect it from their enemies, who are shamefully trying to prevent the building of an independent Palestinian State. The whole world, Muslims and all right-thinking people and good wishes are with them.

BRICS Summit

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) summit is being held at a time when there is great upheaval in several Islamic countries. The heads of the organization have assembled in China's Sanya City. Hints of a cease-fire between Israel and the HAMAS on the Palestine issue are being thrown.

India is striving to improve its relations with its neighbor, Pakistan, through the cricket diplomacy. India also appears to be desirous of holding talks with China on all major issues, including the border dispute. India also appears to be desirous of mutual cooperation between the countries.

Aim and Objective

The aim of the BRICS is to enhance cooperation among member countries and working together at the international forums. Clearly, it is an opportunity for India to improve and strengthen its relations with China and strive to get their disputes resolved.

The summit is being held on 14 and 15 April. Recently, while relations between India and China have largely improved, some issues have become intense. The report of the infiltration of the Chinese soldiers, for instance, in Arunachal Pradesh, Chinese activities in some areas in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and the issuance of stapled visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir by China. All these led to escalation of tension between them. Yet, the leadership of the two countries judiciously did not let their relations deteriorate. In fact, India-China relations are imperative not only for the two countries alone, but for the progress of the entire Asia and the world peace at large.

Importance of BRICS Countries

The importance of the BRICS countries is no less either. Some member countries in the organization are among the fast emerging economies in the world. At the same time, the world has come to realize that to bring an end to the unipolar world and to maintain the power balance, the importance of Russia cannot be ignored. Countries such as China and Brazil not only want to maintain close relations with the United States, but with Russia as well. At the same time, despite recent closeness between India and the United States, there is the need to reiterate and rejuvenate old friendship and traditional relations with Russia as well.

Ever since its independence, South Africa has made progress in several fields of human endeavors. Its trade relations with the BRICS and other countries deserved to be lauded. In short, the summit assumes greater importance in the world spectrum. If the member countries succeed in reaching some concrete decisions during the two-day deliberations, it would be of immense benefit to the region for US industrial development.

West Asia and Other Issues

The trade and economic relations and then development and discussions on the situation in West Asia and other countries are on the agenda of the BRICS. The inclusion of the situation in West Asia can be termed a positive indication that going by the fact that the United Nations, which has turned into a puppet in the US hands, cannot be expected to play any major role to play in the West Asia and check the intervention of the US and its allies in these countries.

The United Nations also cannot be expected to find an amicable and just solution to the Palestine issue. Under the circumstances, it devolves around the organizations like BRICS, that they evince keen interest in getting international issues resolved but also present the US and its allies to implement their game plan in West Asia and prevent them from fishing in troubled waters in the Arab world.

At the same time, the economic issues being faced by the United States have also cast their shadows on several Asian countries. If the BRICS succeeds in extending and strengthening economic and trade relations among them, it would help in emancipating Asia and the rest of the world for the impact of the economic crisis and help in accelerating industrial development. One should hope that the BRICS summit would be able to give a new identity to the organization at the international level.

Middle East Developments After Egyptian Revolution

Call it sheer coincidence or an act of providence that dictatorship in Egypt fell on the very same day when the Islamic Revolution had succeeded in Iran. When the Islamic Revolution knocked at the doors of Iran on 11 February 1979, it was, according to the Hijri (Islamic) calendar, the 13th day of the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal of 1399. Exactly on 11 February, people's revolution knocked at Egypt, the largest Islamic country by population in the region. Call it a coincidence or a miracle that when Egyptian people received redemption from the unholy rule of Hosni Mubarak, it was the 8th of Rabiul Awwal there.

Emergence of Significant Change
In this holy month of the birth of the Prophet Mohammad, emergence of such a significant change is an occasion for great joy indeed. Certainly, for the sake of His beloved, Allah bestowed independence on Egyptian people, who had continued to be oppressed for centuries. There is yet another coincidence. On 11 February 1949, the prominent revolutionary of Egypt, Hasan ul Bana was shot and martyred. It may be recalled that it was Hasan ul Bana who had founded the Ikhwan ul Muslimeen (Islamic Brotherhood) movement in Egypt. On the eve of his 62nd death anniversary, the celebrations and "God is great" slogans, recalling the sacrifice of that great leader, bore fruit and Islamists who had been targeted and oppressed in Egypt, they received emancipation.

Now, no government in Egypt can be formed by ignoring and sidelining the Ikhwanul Muslimeen. It is also a well known fact that should Ikhwanul Muslimeen form the government, Israel would not be in a position to carry out its oppression and tyranny against the people of Palestine, as it had been indulging in with the tacit support of the Egyptian government. In short, the sun of independence that has risen at Tahrir Square, its light would reach even in the darkest alleys and tunnels, through which food articles and other essential commodities were being supplied to the poor and oppressed people of Ghaza, that too without the knowledge of their government.

It is the first time in the history of Arabian countries when the people without resorting to any kind of arms and weapons, removed a powerful president with their sheer grit and determination. It was the same powerful president who was carved out of the stone of Israel and given a huge stature. The most significant aspect of his resignation is that the United States was under constant pressure from Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates rulers to extend support to Hosni Mubarak and to save him from being dismissed, because such a situation would have an impact on all countries in the region. Yet, one doesn't know why the United States paid no heed to its allies.

US Interests in Region
It was, perhaps, due to the reason that the United States might have realized that should it strongly oppose the people's revolution in Egypt, like it did in the case of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, its interests may suffer in the same way as they did in Iran. The United States adopted such a positive attitude in the case of Egypt that those who love justice began to ponder whether the United States has taken a decision to snap links with Arab countries and to cripple them. Or by sacrificing Hosni Mubarak, the United States is endeavoring to safeguard its own interests in the region.

There is a common feeling that the United States wants that notwithstanding the stepping down by Hosni Mubarak, his successor must by all means be a US agent. It also is certain that the army, which played an extremely positive and an impartial role during the Egyptian revolution, will never let any anti-US power to assume power in Egypt. It was because of this consideration that the United States continued to enact the drama of supporting the people in Egypt so that they may not get infused with the same kind of hatred against the United States as that in the case of the people of Iran, which continues to hurt even after thirty two years of the Islamic Revolution.

After Mubarak stepped down, Vice President Omar Suleiman has taken over the power and he has called upon people to vacate streets now, and return home. He has also appealed that people should cooperate with the interim government. At Tahrir Square, people continued to celebrate their independence throughout the night on Saturday. It appeared that entire Egypt has converged into Cairo. The people were greatly enthusiastic in merry making. It is a matter of conjecture as to what kind of a treatment would the people get during the next a few days. Will it be that after the departure of one despot, another tyrant and oppressor has taken over the reins of the government?

Undemocratic Government
Omar Suleiman is said to be very close to Israeli rulers. He also happens to be one of the most liked Egyptian by the United States. It may become clear during the next couple of days whether the path gets paved for holding independent elections in Egypt or another undemocratic government gets installed by including the army to share power. In fact, there is nothing impossible in this region. It is because the interest of Israel, the most powerful country in the region, is linked with Egypt. It would never like to see the installation of a government in its neighborhood, which may have good relations with the HAMAS, Hezbollah and Iran. Yet, all its planning cannot fructify till the time the very same enthusiasm and the very same sentiments continue to be harbored by the people with which they have crippled the most important puppet of Western imperialism.

The war of independence fought in the Tahrir Square has not only brought about a revolution in Egypt alone, but has made dictators who had turned entire Middle East into a death trap, to sit up and burn midnight oil. All of them are now pondering and contemplating as how to suppress and stifle the rising voices for democracy.

US Veto on Jewish Settlement Resolution

The United States has vetoed the resolution in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), in which the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied areas by Israel were termed unauthorized. It is pertinent to note that Israel continues to build unauthorized Jewish settlements ever since 1967 in occupied areas. It has also been constantly rejecting all appeals and international pressure in this regard.

It is also noteworthy that soon after Barack Obama took over as US President, the United States continued to pretend that it was striving to get the Middle East issue resolved but it turned out to be a mere ploy. It was under this ploy that the peace dialogue between the Palestine Authority and Israel was resumed. The entire world is aware of what progress this dialogue made, of what extent Israel was made to accept the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state, and what change Israel has made in its stance on the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied areas.

Wrath and Indignation
As far as unauthorized Jewish settlement is concerned, Israel had held up the work for some time just prior to resumption of peace talks. But just before the commencement of talks, it announced that it would go ahead with construction work. At this, the United States has expressed great wrath and indignation. It had given the impression that the construction of these unauthorized colonies may also adversely affect US-Israel relations. During the same time, the US vice president, who was on a visit to the Middle East, adopted a hard attitude against Israel and astonished it. Later, however, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, by way of appeasing Israel as usual, said that relations between the United States and Israel would in no way be affected. Both the United States and Europe chide Israel just for the sake of it.

The United States had also adopted the stance on justification of these colonies that their construction is wrong and also illegal. Yet, one can easily comprehend the duality in the US stand that while the US leadership talks about Palestinians' rights, endorses and supports peace talks, pretends to prevent Israel from construction of illegal colonies, and enacts the drama of exerting pressure in this regard, when the resolution to declare Jewish colonies as illegal was moved in the UNSC, the very same United States vetoed it.

Suspension of Peace Talks
The resolution declares that Jewish settlements constructed after 1967 are illegal. Of the 15 members on the UNSC, 14 voted in its favor and demanded that Israel should forthwith stop construction of these colonies, but vetoing the proposal, the United States came out with a ridiculous argument that it would be adversely affect the peace talks.

The US argument is untenable and has no justification, as it is the issue of these unauthorized colonies that is actually hampering the peace talks the most. The Palestine Authority has suspended peace talks on the plea that Israel continues to construct new colonies in occupied areas. The Palestine Authority is considered to be pro-United States, and both the United States and Israel have intentionally kept the representative organization of Palestine, HAMAS, out of the peace process. Despite it, not only has Palestine suspended the peace talks with Israel, but has also expressed great frustration that the United States has vetoed the resolution in the UNSC. It has categorically asserted that this would damage the cause of peace.

Pro-Israel US Stance
It is clear from the attitude that Palestine has adopted on the argument put up by the United States that the US stand indirectly favors Israel's stand in respect of these colonies, and that it goes to prove the pro-Israel US stance. It is a different issue that to hoodwink the world, the United States even now maintains that it is strongly against construction of Jewish settlements in occupied areas.

Undoubtedly, the fresh US initiative has proved yet again that the United Nations has turned into an institution kept hostage by the United States, and the United Nations has failed to fulfill its responsibilities.

Peace Process, Power Balance in Middle East

The action taken by the President of the United States Barack Obama to open the door of discussion between Washington and Damsyik can be deemed as a manifestation of his open attitude toward the Islamic world. This is what Obama promised when he spoke in Cairo on 4 June 2008. His Cairo speech is historical because it is considered as the starting point from which Washington opened up the room for negotiation to all Islamic countries, regardless they are friends of foes.

Restoration of Ties
The diplomatic ties between these two countries have broken since the assassination of the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri in 2005, which was allegedly masterminded by Syria. The restoration of the ties will culminate at the appointment of the new US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. The appointment is only pending approval from the US Senate.

It is noteworthy that since the incident in 2005, Washington had recalled its ambassador in Damsyik, until today. Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations only visited to Syria last week and had an opportunity to discuss with President Bashar al-Assad about bilateral relations and peace process in Middle East. It is so evident that the relations between the US and Syria is moving toward a better path.

Objections Raised
Washington's implicit agenda to befriend Damsyik is used as a catalyst for stability in Middle East, especially in relation to issues involving Iran. The US hopes to isolate Teheran and in turn weaken Hamas fighters in Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Obama's strategy to be friendly to Damsyik received objections especially from the Republican Party and Israel. They object for the reason that Damsyik still provides assistance to Hezbollah group, which is defined by Washington as a terrorist group.

Groups doubtful of Damsyik got an opportunity they were waiting for when the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, accused Syria of having provided Scud missiles to Hezbollah. Peres made the accusation when he visited to Paris last week, though it could not be proved with solid evidence.

It is no longer a secret that Damsyik indeed sympathizes Hezbollah by providing weapons, but it has never provided Hezbollah long-range missiles. If the accusation is true, then the fact that Hezbollah possesses Scud missiles could alter the power balance, especially between Lebanon, Iran, Palestine and Israel.

Considering Hezbollah was capable to defeat the troops of the Israeli regime in 2006 without Scud, with the more accurate long-range missiles, Hezbollah would definitely be capable of giving an impact as terrific as the scenario wherein Iran presumably possesses nuclear arms.

Syria indeed has the North Korean-made missiles, Scud D, which can strike a target 700 km away. If it is launched from Lebanon, Scud D can strike Jerusalem as well as Tel Aviv. In addition to its accuracy in hitting the target, Scud D also has good precision. Therefore important targets such as Dimona nuclear plant which is said to be the pulse of Israel's nuclear arsenal can be easily destroyed. Similarly, other targets such as Ben-Gurion airport can also be struck easily with Scud D.

Insincere Israeli Attitude
Although Peres's allegation cannot be verified yet, the implication is already felt and the first will probably be that the Senate would not approve the appointment of new ambassador to Damsyik. If the accusation is true, then they obviously have violated the Resolution 1701 of the United Nations Security Council intended to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah.

However, if we examine carefully, to deliver Scud to Lebanon is a rather difficult task. The southern part of the country is a Hezbollah-influenced area monitored by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) also participates in the peacekeeping team through the Malaysian battalion (Malbatt).

Many analysts are of the view that the actual motive behind Tel Aviv's wild allegation was to fail the endeavor undertaken by Obama administration to start a new peace process in Middle East. It is not exaggerating if we say White House has started to get bored with Benjamin Netanyahu's insincere attitude in the efforts of seeking solution.

Netanyahu's recent announcement of constructing new illegal Jewish settlements in Jerusalem was akin to a slap to Obama's ongoing effort to assure the Islamic world that there would not be new illegal settlement during his tenure as the president.

There are rumors saying that White House has prepared a new plan for peace in Middle East, which clearly outlines the concept of two sovereign countries -- Palestine and Israel. To fail the latest effort, Tel Aviv has resorted to the factor of Hezbollah as a shortcut to undermine the authority of Obama administration when facing the issues of Middle East.

Tel Aviv dared to take such an approach as Washington itself refuses to acknowledge Hezbollah as a legitimate representative of the Lebanese people.

Presence of Hezbollah Parliamentarians
We should note that the presence of Hezbollah parliamentarians formed a main factor for the establishment of a Unity Government under Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Similar situation happens in Gaza Strip where Hamas is defined as a terrorist group while it is also a legitimate government.

But if Peres's allegation is true, for sure it would not only alter the political landscape in Middle East, it would also bring impacts to the region of Middle East. Hezbollah equiped with Scud would definitely countervail the arrogance of the Israeli regime.

Tel Aviv will be more careful in issuing threat to destroy Iran's nuclear plant like what it did on Syria in 2007. Likewise, it will be more restrained with its arbitrary actions against the Palestinians. It is not overboard to assume that Hezbollah equipped with Scud will actually speed up the peace process in Middle East, instead of retarding it as alleged by some quarters.

Israeli Premier's Stand Challenge to US Administration

The disagreements between the administration of US President Barack Obama and the Israeli Government, led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the settlement activity in occupied Jerusalem have increased. According to US dailies, these disagreements were clearly evident at the latter's meetings and tense talks with US officials.

Internal and External Interests
Netanyahu considers himself more powerful than the US President and his administration's officials because he enjoys great support from the two largest establishments in the United States, the Congress and the Jewish lobby, AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee). Therefore, he appeared uninterested in the calls on him to halt the settlement activity and go back to the table of indirect negotiations with the Palestinian side.

This arrogant stand on the part of the Israeli prime minister constitutes the greatest challenge, not only to President Obama, but also to the entire governing US establishment. This challenge makes it incumbent on the governing US establishment to confront the Israeli prime minister forcefully and effectively in a way that will serve the United States' internal and, particularly, external interests.

Successive Israeli Governments rebelled against the White House in the past, but the disagreements and crises that resulted from their action were not so serious that they were difficult to contain or overcome. The current crisis, however, is completely different in terms of its timing and the magnitude of dangers that it entails.

Wars in Region
The United States is currently fighting two ferocious wars in the region, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. At least about a quarter of a million US soldiers are taking part in these two wars, and the Israeli settlement activities and acts of aggression began to have a negative effect on the US soldiers in these two wars, as was admitted by Commander of the US Central Command David Petraeus.

What we mean to say is that the United States cannot contain the current crisis through the same means that it used to contain previous crises. In addition, Israel currently suffers a quasi international isolation and increasing campaigns of hatred in the circles of the peoples of its allies in the Western states, namely in Europe.

Aggression Against Gaza Strip
Israel is no longer the only democratic state in the Middle East that represents the Western culture and abides by the law. Rather, it has become a terrorist rogue state in the eyes of many people following the war crimes that it committed during its latest aggression against the Gaza Strip and after it used the passports of more than six Western states (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Australia, and Italy) in assassinating martyr Mahmud al-Mabhuh. Al-Mabhuh, one of the founders of the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement, HAMAS, was assassinated in an allied and peaceful state, the United Arab Emirates.

We do not know who will emerge as a winner in the current conflict between Obama and Netanyahu, between the president of a superpower and the prime minister of a small state that cannot live or rather survive without the former's support and backing. What we do know, however, is that the United States is the loser so far, only because this crisis broke out the way we saw, which was humiliating to the United States and to its international and regional standing.

Freezing Settlement Activity
What is certain is that the United States will not give up its Israeli ally because of the current crisis. On the other hand, Netanyahu will not make it easy for the United States to back down on its current stand on the need to halt or freeze the settlement activity to save what has remained of the peace process, which is truly collapsed. Netanyahu announced that occupied Jerusalem is not a settlement, but an eternal capital for the State of Israel.

What is noticeable is the fact that the Arab states are standing as spectators and not trying to help their US ally in such a confrontation with Israel. But this is not a strange stand because these states have no weight and value and are accustomed to living on the sidelines and to receiving insults and slaps.

New British Approach to Middle East Peace Plan

The British Parliamentary Committee (BPC) has demanded that the European Union (EU) should link its relations with Israel with efforts for establishment of peace in the Middle East. Even more significant is that the said committee has also called on the British Government to establish contact with HAMAS that controls the Gaza Strip. The committee is rightly of the opinion that without large-scale cooperation from the Palestinian organization HAMAAS, no durable peace is possible.

Israel's Conditions
The demand by the BPC has come at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while reiterating his five conditions for restoration of peace in the region, maintains that the future Palestinian state would not be allowed to keep any arms and weapons.

However, Israeli Housing Minister Ariel Atias maintains that no country in the world has any right to force Israel not to allow its population to live in the Palestine territory. He has categorically asserted that the process of construction of the Jewish habitats would continue in occupied Baitul Muqaddas and the West Bank.

Israel's current aggressive attitude is no different from its earlier stand. In fact, it is this attitude that has spoilt peace in Middle East, and has created new issues by terming HAMAS's armed struggle terrorism. Statements made by Netanyahu and Ariel Atias are, in fact, a part of the conspiracy that aims at sabotaging peace efforts in the region. The conspirators are active even at a time when the rein of the US, Israel's master and mentor, is in the hands of Barack Obama, who is striving to improve US relations with the Islamic world, and who has already held Israel responsible for the inhuman conditions prevailing in the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu-Obama Meeting
During his recent meeting with Netanyahu at the White House, Obama had categorically said that Israel must stop all construction work, particularly those of new Jewish hamlets in the occupied areas. Obama has exerted further pressure on Israel that it should recognize the two-nation theory, and allow the establishment of a Palestine state.

Yet, despite pressure from Obama, what the Israeli leadership is doing is no secret. Adding conditions to the establishment of a Palestine state and demanding that it should be prohibited from maintaining any kind of army tantamount to a slap on Palestinians' self-respect. Under such circumstances, talking about establishment of peace in the region is entirely meaningless.

That is why the BPC has demanded linking of relations with Israel to put efforts toward establishment of peace. Although the attitude and inclination of European countries and the US has usually been sympathetic, and that the Palestine issue continues to hang fire, is largely because of the patronage that Israel enjoys from the European countries and the US. Else a handful of Judaists could not dare to play with the dignity of the Arabs.

Significance of Plan
However, it is commendable that going by Israel's arrogance, the BPC has called on the European countries to link relations with Israel with efforts for establishment of peace. There are scant chances that it will have any impact on Israel until the US also adopts a hard attitude in this regard.

The other significant aspect is the BPC's attitude toward HAMAS. In fact, both the US and the EU have described the armed struggle by HAMAS as terrorism and have been delinking it from the peace efforts in the Middle East. Yet, the truth is that HAMAS continues to enjoy the majority support of the Palestinians and Mahmoud Abbas is taken to be a sympathizer of the Zionist forces.

In such a scenario, HAMAS's role in efforts for establishment of peace becomes more significant. By admitting it, the BPC has displayed its wisdom. The BPC is quite correct when it said that by refusing to talk to HAMAS, the UK is gaining nothing. The BPC has also termed the Israeli action in the Gaza Strip inappropriate.

Whatever stand the EU or the British Government may adopt on the demand, the report is evident that a tendency to criticize the Israeli aggression openly is developing in the UK, Europe, and the US.