Friday, June 28, 2013

Mordechai Kedar: The Muslim Brotherhood is Headed for a Blow-up


by Mordechai Kedar

Read the article in the original עברית
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

Opposition movements usually get public support and encouragement from the masses because they challenge a corrupt and oppressive regime. This public support is what brings the opposition movement to power, either by democratic means or by violence. At first, the public is content because it it sure that its preferred movement, which used to be the opposition, will behave fairly and democratically towards the public when it comes to power. But the moment the opposition movement gets to sit behind the steering wheel it becomes a controlling elite, and it is now responsible for imposing law and order on the residents. It is also expected to supply all of the public's needs - food, drinking water, employment, health services, infrastructure, and a hope that their situation in the future will be better than in the past.

The tragedy that opposition movements frequently experience is that they often lack the skills necessary to manage a state. This is because during the period while they were engaged in the struggle to wrest power from the previous regime, they were not building up the experience they would need in order to rule effectively. But once they are in power, they must provide solutions for
problems that were created, for the most part, by the previous regime. And when the new regime needs to levy taxes and impose discipline on the residents, the citizens begin to see it the same way as the previous regime that was overthrown by the opposition. Since the new regime usually does not have magic solutions for the population's problems, it finds itself, after a short time, a regime with dwindling legitimacy, especially if its leaders exploit the privilege of their position. Power, as we all know, corrupts.

This deterministic development is playing out before our eyes everywhere that Islamist movements have come into power. This is how it is in Iran, in Gaza, in Tunisia, and lately in Egypt. President Mursi and the whole Muslim Brotherhood movement along with him are confronted with ever worsening problems, and next Sunday, the 30th of June, 2013, on the anniversary of Mursi's ascendancy to the presidency, very large demonstrations are planned, to protest the Muslim Brotherhood's appropriation of the revolution, which was begun by liberal, modern, secular youths who did not want Mubarak, but wanted the Brotherhood even less.

During Mursi's year, Egypt has quickly slid into several extremely problematic swamps. One of them is the Shi'ite-Sunni conflict, which got a shot in the arm from the bloody events in the Syrian town of al-Qusayr, which the Shi'ite Hizb'Allah took from the Sunni rebels, committing acts of great cruelty and brutally trampling on the human rights of the citizens who were besieged inside of al-Qusayr. On Thursday, June 20, a large conference
of the greatest Sunni religious authorities was held in Cairo. At this conference, harsh criticism was voiced regarding acts perpetrated by Shi'ites, especially in Syria. Sunni sheikhs threaten to slaughter the Hizb'Allah fighters because they - being Shi'ite - are infidels. President Mursi publicly declared the end of diplomatic ties between Egypt and Syria, the closing of the embassy in Damascus and the return of Egyptian diplomats from the capital of Syria.

But this phenomenon is not limited to Syria; it has also spread to Egypt. On Sunday, June 23, a group of Salafists broke into the house of
Hassan Shehata, the head of the small Shi'ite community of Egypt, in the village of Zawiyat Abu Musallam near Giza, slaughtering him together with four more members of his community. Nine others were injured in the event. Egypt was shocked to its foundations for a number of reasons, primarily because of the Salafists' audacity, who think in seventh century terms and behave according to principles and modes of behavior that were common 1400 years ago. They present a challenge to the Muslim Brotherhood rule, which is based on the application of Islam in the modern, current world, not on the desire to return to square one of Islamic history.  Many Egyptians fear that their country will slide into a condition similar to the boiling swamps which are Syria and Iraq, and they view the slaughter as a horrific event and one that might happen again, next time to the Copts or anyone else who has political objections to the Salafists' ways.

things have taken on extra gravity because this week, a number of additional distressing events has occurred regarding the Sunni-Shi'a conflict. One is in the city of Sidon in Lebanon, where a Sunni Salafi Sheikh by the name of Ahmed al-Asir declared that since the army in Lebanon is an organization under Hizb'Allah Shi'ite leadership  (a true fact that everyone in Lebanon knows very well), he calls on all the soldiers in the army to desert. The Lebanese version of conscientious objection. In response, the army attacked the sheikh's stronghold, and the ensuing clash resulted in the death of 17 soldiers and tens of the sheikh's supporters. This event is another in the unending war between neighborhoods of the northern port city of Tripoli, because of the Sunni support of the rebels in Syria, and the Alawites support of Asad.

The second event occurred in London near Hyde Park, on Edgeware Road, which is the center of the Islamic scene in the capital of Britain. The Salafi preacher Anjem Choudary - whose words call to mind the speeches of bin Laden - led a demonstration of Sunnis against Asad and Hizb'Allah, which degenerated into fistfights and yelling back and forth between the Sunni demonstrators and the supporters of Asad and Shi'ite Hizb'Allah, many of whom are Iranian. This event shows how connected the expatriate communities are to the lands that they came from, and how willing they are to bring the customary Middle Eastern way of dealing with conflicts to Europe. In my opinion the government of Britain must construe the event very clearly: The Middle East is coming to the center of London, and if the authorities in Britain continue to ignore reality, then the phenomenon of mutual slaughter which is the usual way of dealing with religious and sectarian conflicts in the Middle East will spread to the United Kingdom. Have we forgotten the slaughter of the British soldier in London about a month ago?

And in Egypt the problems only get worse. Two weeks ago, Ethiopia announced that it is beginning work on the "Renaissance Dam", on the Blue Nile, the main source of the Nile  flowing from Ethiopia to South Sudan, to Sudan and then Egypt. If indeed the dam is built and Ethiopia stops the flow of water to these countries, this will be a death sentence for the residents of Egypt, because the Nile will become a stinking puddle of stagnant water, and  the dangerous diseases of the intestines and eyes that are already problematic will become a catastrophic danger. Mursi related to this matter in his recent speeches, and the tone of his voice becomes strident whenever he talks about it, an indication of how distressful this matter is for Egypt. He threatens Ethiopia with expressions like "all options are on the table" as if he has the military option to deal with the dam. He claims that every drop of the Nile's water is a matter of life and death, a real existential threat, and that Egypt will keep all options open in order to safeguard its "aquatic security". The Egyptian in the street knows the bitter truth: Mursi has no way of forcing Ethiopia to allow the waters of the Nile to flow down river, and his threats are just empty bluffs.

But Mursi is also confronted with several internal legal problems. There is a lawsuit against him for escaping legal custody in January of 2011, when members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood broke into several prisons in Egypt and freed hundreds of detainees that Mubarak had imprisoned in order to put down the demonstrations against him. If Mursi fails in his legal battle, the court might declare that his candidacy was illegal and annul the results of the elections that brought him to the president's seat. The Egyptian court can do this, since that is exactly what the legal system did when it dispersed the parliament
for procedural reasons, when the Muslim Brotherhood had won almost half of the seats.

The second problem that Mursi is confronted with is a piece of information that is spreading all throughout Egypt, which is that the candidate who really won a majority of Egyptian votes in the elections for the presidency was not Mursi, but Shafiq, the competing candidate, but because of demands made by
Barack Obama, the president of the United States, General Tantawi, then head of the Supreme Military Council, was pressured into falsifying the results of the elections in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. This information has spread throughout Egypt, and many Egyptian citizens believe that it is true, since it fits very well with the conspiracy theory claiming that foreign forces are controlling Egypt for their own gain, and that this is the source of the country's troubles. People believe this because it correlates with the belief that President Obama is energetically promoting the Muslim Brotherhood as the sort of Islam that the United States can live with. This is the reason that Obama met with the leadership of the Brotherhood during his visit in Cairo in June 2009 as a visitor of Mubarak (an event that was considered then like sticking a knife in the Egyptian president's back), and this is the reason that Obama has surrounded himself with Muslim Brotherhood people who have become part of the White House staff (see here or here).

Another problem concerning Mursi these days is the approaching month of Ramadan, which begins, apparently, on the seventh of July. This year, Ramadan in Egypt will be especially difficult. The fast will take place during very long, hot days compared to years when Ramadan occurs in the winter. In Ramadan, especially at night, people throng into the streets, prices of food and clothing go up because of the rise in demand, and security forces will find it very difficult to control the masses. Heightened religious consciousness during Ramadan might also increase the tension between the religious groups, especially between the Salafists and the various branches of government; conflict may erupt in the form of tumultuous street riots and many casualties may result.

The Emir of Qatar

Meanwhile, an event occurred
this week that is almost unprecedented in the Arab world. The ruler of a country has decided, on his own initiative, to give up power. This occurred in Qatar, the most influential country in the Arab world today, when Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani decided to pass the reigns of power to his 33-year old son, Tamim. The prince did not explain the reasons for his decision, and the Arab world is buzzing with rumors and various interpretations. One rumor is that he is not healthy, since he has already undergone two kidney operations, and there is a history of dementia in the family as well. Therefore, he decided to pass the rule on to his son while he still could, and even if he is not healthy, he will be able to accompany his son for a significant period of time. In contrast, King Hussein of Jordan appointed his son as king only a few days before he died, which negatively influenced Abdullah the Second's ability to function, at least in the beginning of his reign.

Another interpretation is that the Emir of Qatar wanted to exit the political stage at the apex of his power, after he had proved that he could take down dictators like Mubarak, Qadhaffi, bin 'Ali, Saleh and Asad, whether by means of money or by means of the al-Jazeera channel, which incited the Arab masses against their rulers. According to another opinion, he wants to spend the rest of his life engaged in charitable enterprises so that he will go down in history as the greatest Islamic philanthropist in the world. Others speak about his desire to show his colleagues, other Arab rulers, that an Arab ruler does not have to remain stuck to his seat until his death or until he is overthrown, thereby presenting a new model of Arab leadership that knows how to retire in an orderly way too.

Even if I do accept some of these hypotheses, in my opinion, the reason for the Emir of Qatar's retirement is totally different. He is the person who is most identified with the political success of the Muslim Brotherhood and the "Arab Spring", which has since become a bloodbath, costing until now, one hundred thousand lives in Syria, fifty thousand in Libya, three million Syrian refugees and the violence continues and the sword is still unsheathed. He has ultimately understood that he was the one who incited the Middle East and has caused it to deteriorate into the wars of Sunni against Shi'ite, tribal wars, and the imposition of political Islam on some of the countries. Now, since he cannot douse the flames, he does not want to be in the center of focus when Egypt collapses on the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is in power today largely owing to his influence. And so that he will not be in the picture when the disaster happens, he preferred to pass the rule on to his son a week before the demonstrations break out in Egypt on the 30th of June; demonstrations which, if they heat up enough, might bring Mursi to the same end that Mubarak had. The son, Tamim, is not identified with his father's policies, so Qatar may emerge unscathed from the criticism about the disaster that sheikh Hamed caused to the Arab world in general and to the Muslim Brotherhood in particular.

Whatever the reason for Sheikh Hamed's resignation, it is very important to watch the policies that Qatar develops in the future, under the rule of Tamim. Will it continue to shake up the Arab world with the money, weapons and ammunition that Qatar has been sending to every country where there is a chance to promote the Islamists, or will it stop doing this and leave Arab societies to their own rulers. It is important to monitor Tamim's international orientation, because Qatar has the largest military American airfield in the Gulf, and Qatar - together with Iran and Russia - is one of the three largest suppliers of natural gas in the world.

A few years ago Qatar had a "honeymoon" with the Iranian regime, and it is important to watch for the possibility that Qatar will return to the Iranian bosom. This sort of thing could occur if the White House continues its policy of appeasement toward the Iranian regime. In that case the Gulf states - and especially Qatar - might conclude that the United States is too weak to depend on, and it will bet on the winning horse in the Middle East. This matter is, of course, connected with events in Syria, because if Asad wins the war, the Iranians will come out on top, and the Sunni world, under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood will be dealt a mortal blow.

Israel must monitor the developments closely and be ready to take the necessary steps to safeguard its security vigorously and dispassionately.  The region is closer than ever to a many-layered and many-sided crisis because there are too many centers of tension that neither Israel nor the West can influence. The Arab and Islamic world is headed for an explosion, and Israel must defend itself from the shrapnel that will fly in every direction.


Dr. Kedar is available for lectures

Dr. Mordechai Kedar
( is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.

Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the author.

Smoking Gun: The IRS’s Abuse of Obama’s Pro-Israel Enemies

by Joseph Klein


Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service is targeting certain Jewish advocacy groups which disagree with Obama’s anti-Israel positions on the so-called “disputed territories.” In a document entitled “Be On the Lookout” (or BOLO for short), which the IRS disclosed publicly on June 24th,  the tax enforcement agency instructed its agents reviewing applications for tax-exempt status  to be on the lookout for applications from organizations that “deal with disputed territories in the Middle East” and “may be inflammatory.”

A pattern has emerged with respect to the IRS’s special focus on groups that were outspoken in opposing President Obama’s demands that Israel freeze its construction of settlements over the pre-June 1967 boundary line between Israel and the West Bank and West and East Jerusalem, known as the “Green Line.”

One of the targeted groups, Z Street, filed a lawsuit against the IRS in August 2010, alleging that the IRS subjected the pro-Zionist group to additional scrutiny in a discriminatory fashion because of its strong pro-Israel ideological views.

Z Street, a nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about the facts relating to the Middle East, particularly as relate to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, alleged in its complaint the following:
The case is brought because, through its corporate counsel, Z STREET was informed explicitly by an IRS Agent on July 19, 2010, that approval of Z STREET’s application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied because of  a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.” These statements by an IRS official that the IRS maintains special policies governing applications for tax-exempt status by organizations which deal with Israel, and which requires particularly intense scrutiny of such applications and an enhanced risk of denial if made by organizations which espouse or support positions inconsistent with the Obama administration’s Israel policies, constitute an explicit admission of the crudest form of viewpoint discrimination, and one which is both totally un-American and flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The IRS has now released the smoking gun document confirming Z Street’s suspicions. It demonstrates that the IRS was not administering its decisions on applications for tax-exempt charitable and educational organization status on a content neutral basis. Moreover, its judgments on what content “may be inflammatory” are inherently subjective.

On its face, there is simply no legal justification for why the IRS would use “disputed territories,” a foreign policy issue, to evaluate a group’s domestic political activity for purposes of determining eligibility for tax-exempt status. Therefore, without some other compelling content-neutral reason to justify its actions, the IRS’s limitation of the issuance of tax-exempt status to a nonprofit educational organization on the basis of the substantive views held by the persons who operate the organization — views that differ from the Obama administration’s foreign policies — constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech of such persons.

The IRS has reportedly offered alternative rationales for its position. First, it apparently tried to argue that Z Street could be ineligible for tax-exempt status if it were engaging in lobbying, or if it were what the IRS calls an “action organization,” which is the case when the only way to accomplish the purpose of the organization is through legislation. These rationales do not apply to an organization like Z Street, whose website, public awareness campaigns, and other activities are educational ones conducted in conjunction with informed advocacy of public policy positions. Z Street has stated that it is not engaged in any lobbying activities. Z Street has also stated that none of its purposes can be accomplished through legislative action. Without any evidence to the contrary, the IRS should have ended its heavy-handed probe right there. But it didn’t.

The most absurd alternative rationale put forward by the IRS involves its purported concerns about possible funding of terrorism. The IRS claimed, according to an article published on Jewish, that since Israel is a country where there is a “heightened risk of terrorism,” Z Street required special scrutiny because it might be providing funds to terrorist groups. As the Jewish Press article stated, “of course, Z STREET doesn’t fund anything, and then there is the little matter of Israel being the object of terrorism, not the source of terrorism” (emphasis original).

Moreover, when it comes to Islamist charities, some of which have been directly implicated in the funding of terrorist groups such as Hamas, President Obama himself has taken a very different stance. In his June 2009 speech that he delivered to the Muslim world in Cairo, Obama apologized that his country’s “rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.” Obama then promised to change all that: “I’m committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat [the Islamic duty of charitable contributions].”

Obama made good on his promise. After the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), an avowedly anti-Israel Islamist advocacy group, had temporarily lost its tax-exempt status because of its failure to file annual tax reports as required by federal law, its representatives visited the White House. Those visits paid off.  The IRS sent CAIR’s national office a letter in June 2012 reinstating its exemption even though gaps remained in its tax return filings.

According to information contained in an Investor’s Business Daily editorial published earlier this month, Obama administration officials “in 2012 met inside the White House with CAIR officials, according to Secret Service visitors logs. In the months leading up to the IRS decision, in fact, the Obama administration held ‘hundreds’ of closed-door meetings with CAIR — including many in the White House.”

Referring to an article in the Daily Caller posted in early June 2012, Investor’s Business Daily stated that many of the White House meetings occurred the same month the IRS reversed its decision. In other words, CAIR was given special access to high level Obama administration officials to secure its tax-exempt status although it was not in compliance with basic filing requirements, while Z Street was being given the runaround because of the views it espoused in opposition to Obama’s policies towards Israel.

Consider too that CAIR had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development terrorist funding case in which the Holy Land Foundation, set up expressly to accept zakat, was convicted in 2008 by a federal jury for giving more than $12 million to Hamas.

Thus, when it came to placating Islamists, President Obama seemed to have forgotten that all those tough rules on charitable giving exist for a good reason – to prevent front groups posing as “charities” from funneling donations to terrorists. Yet, his IRS suddenly remembered the terrorist concerns when it came to applying the rules against groups sticking up for Israel, which is in the crosshairs of the true terrorists.

This record makes a mockery of the soon-to-be National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s declaration to reporters, during her farewell news briefing as the United States’ United Nations ambassador, that the Obama administration has stood “shoulder to shoulder with Israel on principle.”

Making matters even worse, Rice’s nominated successor at the UN, Samantha Power, will be anything but standing “shoulder to shoulder with Israel.” More likely, she will be giving the cold shoulder to Israel if she becomes the next UN ambassador, since she believes that America’s foreign policy decision-makers have too often deferred “reflexively to Israeli security assessments.” One way for the Obama administration to address what she considered a “longstanding foreign policy flaw” – “the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the ‘national interest’ as a whole is defined and pursued” – is for Obama’s IRS to go after those “special interests.”

President Obama’s IRS has unconstitutionally sought to use its discretion in granting tax-exempt status, which affects the ability of donors to make tax-deductible contributions, in order to punish groups which do not hew to the Obama administration’s foreign policy position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This gross abuse of power must be stopped, and the persons responsible must be held fully accountable for their actions.

Joseph Klein


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Top Level Soviet Defector in New Book: Anti-Israel Sentiment Is the Result of a KGB Plot

by Zach Pontz

A new book written by the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc intelligence officer ever to defect to the West claims that a secret 1970s-era KGB plot is the cause for much of the Islamic anger directed towards Israel and the United States, the UK’s Daily Mail reports.

Romanian Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa writes that high ranking Soviet politician Yuri Andropov, through an initiative to seed the Muslim world with anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment, sent hundreds of agents and thousands of copies of propaganda literature to Muslim countries during the decade.

According to Pacepa: “By 1972, Andropov’s disinformation machinery was working around the clock to persuade the Islamic world that Israel and the United States intended to transform the rest of the world into a Zionist fiefdom.

“According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which the KGB community could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought.”

Pacepa headed Romania’s spy apparatus and secret police, the DIE, before he secured political asylum in the U.S. in 1978. The book, Disinformation, written with University of Mississippi law professor Ronald Rychlak, is the first time he has so thoroughly addressed the secrets he was privy to during his service.

Andropov’s program was in revenge for Israel’s humiliating defeat of Soviet allies Syria and Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War, Pacepa explains. Part of the plan included disseminating the first Arabic translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian-forged 1905 propaganda book that alleged Jews controlled the world.

As part of his role in Romania, Pacepa writes that he was ordered to disseminate the document.

“During my later years in Romania,” he recalls, “every month the DIE disseminated thousands of copies throughout its Islamic sphere of influence. In the meetings I had with my counterparts in the Hungarian and Bulgarian services, with whom I enjoyed particularly close relations at that time, I learned that they were also sending such influence agents into their own Islamic spheres of influence.”

The KGB took “secret credit” for a host of terror attacks against Israeli targets in the 1970s, Pacepa claims, listing eleven such incidents, including the May 30, 1972 attack on Ben Gurion Airport, which left 22 dead and 76 wounded.

Pacepa and Rychlak conclude that much of the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere can be traced back to the Soviet program.

According to the authors, the Kennedy-era Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev’s disinformation campaigns “widened the gap between Christianity and Judaism,” and “Andropov’s disinformation turned the Islamic world against the United States and ignited the international terrorism that threatens us today.”

Zach Pontz


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

We've Seen this Show Before

by Dr. Haim Shine

Once again we are all invited to a repeat performance of the age-old "negotiations with the Palestinians -- now and forever." 

We have seen this performance many times in the past, and it has never had a happy ending. At the end of the show, we have always regretted having paid such a high price for the ticket. The actors may change, the sets may be different, but our enemies' sea of hate continues to flow. Even Greek philosopher Heraclitus (famous for saying "no man ever steps in the same river twice") would not be able to understand how intelligent people can voluntarily jump into the same turbulent, dangerous waters time and time again.

No marketing slogan or presidential pyrotechnics can hide the fact that the Palestinian leadership, whichever leadership it may be, will never accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as the capital. It will never relinquish its demand for the right of return. Every Palestinian leader knows that every concession brings him closer to his demise. There will always be a "shahid" (martyr) glad to take to heaven anyone seen by radical Islam as an infidel. 

Every time the U.S. runs into difficulties, whether domestically or abroad, it immediately focuses all its energies focus on Israel and the Palestinian issue. It is a clearly Pavlovian response. This conditioned response rests on the assumption that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will put the entire Western world out of its misery and allow the U.S. to rehabilitate its weakened status. Russia, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, shows very little respect for the U.S. and provokes it incessantly, as though it were a tired, hibernating bear. Putin has learned to identify the limits of President Barack Obama's ability to use force, and he is grinding the U.S.'s power advantage to dust. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, instead of investing his efforts to resolving the U.S.'s real diplomatic problems, is wasting his time on futile trips between Ramallah and Jerusalem. Kerry's efforts will not help rehabilitate the U.S.'s standing, and could actually lead to unnecessary bloodshed. 

The State of Israel, the American superpower's most strong and stable ally, has no choice but to play the negotiations game. Sometimes a true and essential friendship comes with a price. But it is extremely important not to fall back into the delusional trap of repeating historic mistakes like trading land for peace, freezing settlement construction or releasing Palestinian prisoners. The Jewish people congregated in the land of Israel cannot become addicted to dreams. The Jewish people must always be prepared to defend their existence.

For decades now, we have been terrorized, mainly by leftists, with the notion that time is not on our side. That is nonsense. Time certainly is on our side. The State of Israel is growing stronger while the Palestinian Authority is collapsing. Every new home built in Judea and Samaria ensures our possession of our homeland. Intelligent Israelis have already understood that every piece of land that we hand over to a foreign regime will turn into a frontline terror base. It is frightening to think, in light of recent events, where we would be today if we had handed the Golan Heights over to the Syrians in exchange for peace with the mass murderer Bashar Assad. 

The power of Israel's leadership depends on its citizens' endurance. The citizens of Israel are determined, strong, and convinced that it would be a bad idea to buy into the same old used merchandise of a delusional peace agreement. Peace is not at our door. It will arrive only when our enemies finally understand that it is in their best interests too, and that the people of Israel will live in their historic homeland forever and ever.

Dr. Haim Shine


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Is Hamas Losing Power?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The only way to undermine Hamas is by offering the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas. Many Palestinians do not regard Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah as a better alternative to the radical Islamist movement.
Recent developments on a number of fronts in the Middle East suggest that Hamas is beginning to lose both power and popularity among Arabs and Muslims.

Of course this is good news for moderate Arabs and Muslims, as well as for stability in the region.

This change does not, however, mean that Hamas will vanish sometime in the near future. Nor does it mean that peace will prevail tomorrow between between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Israel.

The only way to undermine Hamas is by offering the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas. Many Palestinians still do not regard Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction as a better alternative to the radical Islamist movement.

In recent weeks and months, Hamas has found itself embroiled in a number of local and regional disputes that seem to have had a negative impact on its standing among Palestinians and Arabs.

After losing the backing of Iran and Syria because of its support for the rebels fighting against the regime of Bashar Assad, Hamas has now lost its key supporter and financier in the Arab world, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar.

Khalifa's decision to hand powers to his son, Sheikh Tamim, has left many Hamas leaders worried about the future relations between their movement and Qatar.

Noting that Qatar had long embraced and supported Hamas, leaders of the movement voiced hope that Sheik Tamim would follow in the footsteps of his father.

Under Hamad bin Khalifa, Qatar was the first Arab country to receive Hamas leaders after they were expelled from Jordan by the late King Hussein in the late 1990's.

Khalifa was also the first Arab ruler to visit the Gaza Strip earlier this year and offer hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Hamas government.

Hamas leaders said this week that they are now not sure whether the new ruler of Qatar will fulfill his father's financial pledges.

Meanwhile, Hamas seems to have gotten itself into trouble with many Egyptians, who accuse the movement of meddling in their internal affairs.

Egyptian media reports and politicians say Hamas has been dispatching weapons and gunmen to Egypt to support Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi, who is facing growing discontent at home.

When Hamas leaders visited Cairo last week, they were forced to flee the hotel where they were staying after hundreds of angry Egyptian demonstrators protested their presence on Egyptian soil.

Hamas's support for the anti-Assad rebels in Syria has also resulted in a crisis between the movement and the Iranian-backed terror group Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Some Lebanese have accused Hamas of arming anti-Assad radical Islamists and setting up terror cells in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

Unconfirmed reports said that Hizbullah has asked Hamas leaders based in Beirut to leave the country.

Musa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official, this week made a secret visit to Beirut in a bid to defuse tensions between his movement and Hizbullah.

Hamas is also facing many problems at home.

Hamas's relations with other terror groups in the Gaza Strip have also recently witnessed a serious deterioration.

The Islamic Jihad organization decided this week to sever ties with Hamas over the death of a top Jihad operative, Raed Jundiyeh.

Jundiyeh was killed when Hamas policemen tried to arrest him last weekend, sparking a sharp crisis between the two parties.

In addition, Hamas has been forced to deal with Al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafi followers who think that the Hamas leadership is not radical enough, especially with regards to imposing strict Islamic laws and fighting the "Zionist enemy."

Hamas officials admit that all these these developments have had a negative impact on their movement's standing among Palestinians and Arabs.

Hamas's failure to improve the living conditions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip has also driven away an increased number of Palestinians -- in addition to reports about fierce internal squabbling among Hamas's top brass and the absence of a unified policy toward many controversial issues plaguing the Palestinians and the Arab world.

In a move reflecting Hamas's growing predicament, the movement was forced this week to welcome Palestinian singer Mohamed Assaf, who won the popular Arab Idol contest held by Saudi Arabia's MBC TV station.

Although Hamas leaders have condemned the contest as "anti-Islamic" and "morally corrupt," they were forced to voice their support for the 23-year-old Assaf in the wake of the overwhelming and unprecedented support he received from Palestinians.

When Hamas leaders begin to "sweat," it should be seen as a positive development in the Palestinian arena. It now remains to be seen whether Palestinians will take advantage of the situation and turn against Hamas.

Khaled Abu Toameh


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"Sunrise" over Istanbul

by Robert Ellis

It might not have occurred to the AKP government that unless it changes course, it could suffer the same fate as other regimes.

By now, it must have dawned on even the most dim-witted European politician that there is a discrepancy between Turkey's rhetoric and performance -- at least, as far as Europe is concerned. Turkey's EU Minister Egemen Bağış has from time to time entertained us with his various distortions of reality, including his recent claim that "the sun of Europe rises from Istanbul every morning nowadays." But the events that have unfolded in Turkey in recent weeks present a different picture.

In 2006 Turkey and the US agreed that Turkey's EU accession is a strategic priority for both countries, and three years ago the UK renewed its strategic partnership agreement with Turkey. On this occasion, David Cameron underlined that the UK would remain Turkey's "strongest possible advocate" for EU membership. A recent photo posted on the Twitter account of the Turkish Ambassador to Washington, Namık Tan, showing US Secretary of State John Kerry, with his hand on British Ambassador Peter Westmacott's shoulder, talking with Namık Tan, indicates that the three are still hugger mugger.

Whatever Turkey might profess, the drift of Turkey's foreign policy, not to speak of its domestic policy, is towards the Muslim world and the Middle East. In an interview with the Cairo Review in March last year, Foreign Minister Davutoğlu explained that Turkey's policy of strategic depth, which has been dubbed "neo-Ottoman," rests on an engagement with countries with which Turkey shares a common past and geography as well as shared interests and common ideals. He envisaged Turkey utilizing its geopolitical position in the midst of Afro-Eurasia to set the parameters of a new global order.

In a speech made last April at a Justice and Development Party [AKP] congress in Konya, Davutoğlu was more specific and spoke of the party's historic mission to create a new world order [nizam-i âlem, the Ottoman concept of a world order under Islam] with the emergence of Turkey as a global power.

This hangs together with Davutoğlu's Sarajevo speech in October 2009, where he made clear that the goal of Turkish foreign policy was once again to make the Balkans, the Caucasus and Middle East, together with Turkey, the center of world politics. This March, in an address to the party faithful in Bursa, the Foreign Minister stated that the last century was a parenthesis and that Turkey would again unite Sarajevo with Damascus and Benghazi with Erzurum and Batumi.

This theme was echoed by Prime Minister Erdoğan recently, when on his return from North Africa he sent greetings to Istanbul's brother cities Sarajevo, Baku, Beirut, Skopje, Damascus, Gaza, Mecca and Medina, but with no mention of Europe. According to Nuray Mert, Associate Professor of Political Science at Istanbul University, who has previously clashed with Erdoğan, many observers have failed to recognize that neo-Ottomanism is an irredentist version of Turkish nationalism.

In a keynote speech at the Istanbul Forum last October, Erdoğan's chief advisor Ibrahim Kalın spoke of a new geopolitical context and of a conscious decision by Turkish policy-makers to redefine Turkey's strategic priorities in the 21st century. According to Kalın, Turkey is beginning to read history from a non-Eurocentric point of view: the European model of secular democracy and pluralism has little traction in the Arab and larger Muslim world.

In a television interview early this year, Prime Minister Erdoğan mentioned that he had told Russian President Vladimir Putin that if Turkey were admitted to the Shanghai Five [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], they would say goodbye to the EU: "The Shanghai Five is better and more powerful and we have common values with them."

After the clashes between demonstrators and police around Gezi Park in Istanbul, the European Parliament a fortnight ago passed a strongly worded resolution, expressing not only deep concern at the disproportionate and excessive use of force by the Turkish police but also reiterating the rules of the club that Turkey ostensibly aspires to join.

The resolution pointed out that freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental principles of the EU and reminded Turkey that in an inclusive, pluralist democracy all citizens should feel represented. Furthermore, Prime Minister Erdoğan was urged to take a unifying and conciliatory position.

Apart from agreeing to abide by the decision of Istanbul's administrative court on the future of Gezi Park, and, if necessary, to hold a plebiscite, Erdoğan's response was predictable. He refused to accept the European Parliament's decision; he said it was both not binding for Turkey and "anti-democratic." Characteristically, he added, "Is it your place to pass such a resolution?"

The EU's decision to open one more negotiating chapter with Turkey, but to postpone the opening until October, means that there is still a slender thread binding Turkey to the EU. But Prime Minister Erdoğan's response to the demonstrations could usher in a new era of intolerance and repression.

At a number of mass rallies under the slogan "Respect for the National Will," Erdoğan has claimed that the widespread unrest is the result of an conspiracy between "the traitors inside and their partners outside" to destabilize the Turkish economy and the government's achievements. More specifically, he has accused "the interest rate lobby," which is understood to be a reference to the Jews. Yeni Şafak, an Islamist daily, has even alleged that the protests are an American Jewish plot organized by the AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and the American Enterprise Institute.

A round-up of protesters has already begun and the Turkish intelligence service [MIT] has launched an investigation into foreign links. Moreover, Interior Minister Muammer Güler has spoken of the need for a regulation to take action against those who provoke the public via the social media. A number of television channels have also been fined for their coverage of the Gezi Park protests, as the Radio and Television Supreme Council [RTÜK] consider this "harming the physical, moral and mental development of children and young people."

Foreign Minister Davutoğlu in his interview with Cairo Review said that history is replete with examples of regimes failing to survive when they lost their legitimacy in the eyes of their people. It might not have occurred to the AKP government that unless it changes course, it could suffer the same fate.

Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Freeze Arab's illegal Construction First

by Eli E. Hertz

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s calls for a freeze on Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem while Arab construction, which far exceeds Jewish development, continues unfettered – are clearly biased.
Arabs claim that Jewish settlements “change the status” of the Territories and represent a distortion of the Oslo Accords. The phrase applies to acts that change the political status of the disputed territory – such as outright Israeli annexation, or a Palestinian declaration of statehood. Since Jewish settlements are legal, any halt in construction should be reciprocated.
The Oslo Accords do not forbid Israeli or Arab settlement activity. Charging that further Jewish settlement activity preempts final negotiations by establishing realities, requires reciprocity.
If Jews were forcibly expelled from the West Bank in 1948 during a war of aggression aimed at them, then these Territories must be considered disputed Territories, at the least.
The Israeli-Palestinian border dispute is like every other major and minor boundary dispute around the globe. Since the West Bank was redeemed in 1967 in a war of self defense and is not “Occupied Territory” gained illegally by a bellicose power, and since this fact is recognized in the wording of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 that call for a settlement to institute “secure and recognized boundaries.”
According to David Bar-Ilan, a former policy planning official, the tempo of Arab construction is “more than 10 times the number of buildings under construction [in the Territory] than those approved [by the Israeli government] for the [Jewish] settlers.”

Eli E. Hertz


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

New Gaza Rocket Fire Shows Jihadist Calculations

by IPT News

A Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist died, and a second terrorist injured, this weekend in Gaza at the hands of Hamas operatives.

An angry PIJ sought revenge – by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

It started Saturday when Hamas police reportedly wanted to arrest a drug suspect in the town of Shuja'iyya. But PIJ commander Raed Jundiya, a friend of the suspect, reportedly intervened. He was shot and killed in a resulting skirmish. At his funeral Sunday, PIJ military wing chief Mohammad al-Harazin was injured when he was hit by a car driven by Hamas members.

Jundiya's death "represents a major service to the Zionist enemy, provided completely free of charge, whether deliberately or not, because the martyr was, as everybody knows, on the top of the Zionists' hit-list as he headed the Brigades' rocket unit," a Hamas statement said.

While PIJ said it would break off relations with Hamas, it fired at least six rockets at civilian communities in southern Israel. Two were picked off by Israel's Iron Dome defense system. No injuries were reported from the other four. Israel struck back, hitting two arms depots and a rocket launching site in Gaza.

Rocket fire from Gaza dropped off considerably since November's Pillar of Defense campaign targeted the infrastructure used in the incessant attacks. Since it governs Gaza, Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rocket fire coming from the territory. So while PIJ's retaliation for Jundiya's death may seem disconnected, Times of Israel reporter Avi Issacharoff writes that it is Hamas that suffers most from Israeli retaliation, including a possible closing of border crossings which could create shortages on fuel and other supplies. That could cut into popular support for Hamas among Palestinians.

IPT News


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Libyan Intelligence: Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood Involved in Benghazi

by Raymond Ibrahim


According to a Libyan intelligence document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including Egyptian President Morsi, were involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where several Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were killed.

On Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites, including Veto Gate, quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra’i.  Prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, Director of National Security for Libya, the report is addressed to the nation’s Minister of Interior.

It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law”), were arrested.

Image of the Libyan intelligence document

According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il…”

It should be noted that these findings are unsurprising: the supremacism of prominent Brotherhood figure Safwat Hegazi is such that he publicly declares the Brotherhood “will rule the world“;  Saudi Mansour’s hate-mongering, pro-Brotherhood TV station repeatedly aired footage of the YouTube Muhammad movie inciting violence around the Muslim world; popular Sheikh Muhammad Hassan holds that smiling to non-Muslims is forbidden, except when trying to win them over to Islam;  and Sheikh Hazim Abu Ismail is simply an openly anti-freedom, anti-infidel religious leader.

As for President Morsi, a video made during the consulate attack records people speaking in the Egyptian dialect: as they approach the beleaguered U.S. compound, one of them yells to the besiegers, “Don’t shoot—Dr. Morsi sent us!”

Raymond Ibrahim


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Egyptian Opposition accuses U.S. Ambassador To Egypt of Taking Sides In Support Of Muslim Brotherhood


During the past week, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson has been under fire, mainly from Egyptian opposition circles, following statements she made on June 18, 2013 in Cairo, at a conference at the Ibn Khaldun Research Center, which is headed by Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim. According to Egyptian media, Patterson said at the conference (which was closed to the press) that "Mursi is not Mubarak" and that "there is no room for comparison because Mubarak was in power for 30 years, which ended with his ouster, while Mursi is an elected president who has yet to complete his first year [in office]..." With Egypt currently in turmoil in anticipation of protests calling for Mursi's ouster on the first anniversary of his presidency (June 30, 2013),[1] the statements attributed to Patterson were seen as supporting the Mursi regime and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and opposing the popular protests planned by his opponents. 

Mursi 1.JPG
Patterson seated next to S'ad Al-Din Ibrahim at the Ibn Khaldun Research Center conference (Image:, June 18, 2013)

Oppositionists in Egypt condemned Patterson's statements, seeing them as an attack on the forces of the revolution and a blatant interference in the country's internal affairs on behalf of the regime, and advised the ambassador to shut up. Oppositionist papers claimed that Patterson was instigating strife in Egyptian society and delivering false reports to the U.S. administration that paint the opposition as being in decline, and even called to expel her from Egypt. Egyptians on social networks cursed Patterson and called to boycott American products.
This is not the first time Patterson has been under public fire in Egypt. Since her appointment in March 2011, she has faced attacks on several occasions from all social and political circles in Egypt, both Islamic and non-Islamic. She has been accused of being concerned only with American and Israeli interests and of trying to create Egyptian dependence on U.S. aid. During the foreign funding affair in early 2013, lawsuits calling for her expulsion from Egypt were submitted, claiming that she had overstepped her authority by refusing to deliver the American NGO workers implicated in the affair to the Egyptian authorities and by sheltering them in the U.S. embassy. In March 2013, a popular protest was held outside the U.S. embassy calling to expel her from Cairo.[2]
The following are excerpts from the statements attributed to Patterson, from her actual statements as published by the U.S. embassy, and from the responses to her statements in Egypt. 

Patterson's Statement – The U.S. Embassy Version vs. Egyptian Media Version 

According to sources who attended the June 18, 2013 conference, on the topic of "The U.S. Administration's Position On The Political Situation In Egypt," Ambassador Anne Patterson said: "Mursi is not Mubarak... There is no room for comparison because Mubarak was in power for 30 years, which ended with his ouster, while Mursi is an elected president who has yet to complete his first year [in office]..." Regarding the Tamarrud popular campaign for a no-confidence vote against Mursi, which is heading the June 30, 2013 protest, Patterson said that campaigns such as this influence decision-makers, and that they express the aspiration of the Egyptian people to determine its own future, and therefore the Egyptian government must recognize this aspiration. She added: "We support protests, but mobilizing the street will never bring about stable democracy, which can only be achieved by elections." According to reports in Egyptian media, Patterson also said: "The Egyptian army is our friend, it has good relations with the U.S. administration... [But] we completely object to military rule; Egypt should be a civil state..."[3]

However, the transcript of Patterson's statements at the conference, which appears on the official website of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, does not include these statements, especially the statement that enraged the opposition, that Mursi cannot be compared to Mubarak. According to this transcript, the statements by Patterson that could be interpreted as supporting the MB and opposing the popular protest on June 30 are the following: "We oppose chaos... The Government of the United States of America supports Egypt, its people, and its government...  In order to do this, the U.S. Government must deal with the Egyptian Government.  This is the government that you and your fellow citizens elected... Throughout Egypt's post-revolution series of elections, the United States took the position that we would work with whoever won elections that met international standards, and this is what we have done. Because many in the Egyptian Government are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or its Freedom and Justice Party, the U.S. Government must work with them across a huge range of issues...

"Some say that street action will produce better results than elections. To be honest, my government and I are deeply skeptical. Egypt needs stability to get its economic house in order, and more violence on the streets will do little more than add new names to the lists of martyrs.  Instead, I recommend Egyptians get organized.  Join or start a political party that reflects your values and aspirations..."[4]

Egyptian Oppositionists To Patterson: Shut Up And Mind Your Own Business 

As mentioned, Egyptian oppositionists criticized Patterson's statements and claimed that they constitute an improper interference in Egypt's internal affairs. George Ishak, a member of the National Salvation Front – an umbrella organization of Egyptian opposition forces – said: "If I saw her on the street, I would tell her: Shut up and don't interfere in affairs that do not concern you." He added: "The American ambassador is an evil woman who incites strife."[5] Magdi Hamdan, a member of the National Salvation Front and head of the Democratic Front Party, also advised Patterson to "say nice things or shut up," and added that her statements contradict the U.S.'s claim that it supports democracies and stands by the revolution forces. According to him, the U.S.'s only interest is Israel's security, and therefore it is defending Mursi and the MB, who are the only ones loyal to the U.S.[6] Hisham Abu Al-Sa'd, another member of the Democratic Front Party, likewise attacked the U.S. interference, claiming that America's primary goal is to protect Israel's security and that it sees Mursi and the MB as suitable for the task. He added: "We expected the Egyptian regime to protest these statements so as to defend its honor in the eyes of the Egyptian people... but that did not happen."[7]
A communiqué issued by the Egyptian Communist Party described Patterson's statements as insolent and a blatant interference in Egypt's business, and as aggression towards the free will of the Egyptian people to oust the MB regime and complete its revolution. The communique claimed further: "This statement at this [particular] time was a message of support for Mursi and his allies... [given as] a reward for their stance in support of aggression and foreign intervention in Syria." It added that Patterson was attempting to pressure the Egyptian army and other elements in Egypt to refrain from assisting the people in toppling Mursi, because the imperialist forces fear the second wave of the Egyptian revolution, which could spread to other peoples of the region and other regions in the world and threaten their interests.[8]

Egyptian Opposition Press: Patterson Is An Ambassador of the MB; She Should Be Expelled From Egypt

The Egyptian opposition press portrayed Patterson's statements as a proclamation of support by the American government for the Mursi regime, and Patterson as an ally of the MB and opponent of the revolution. For example, an article titled "Profile of Anne Patterson, the [MB] Movement's Ambassador," published by journalist Akram Sami in the opposition Egyptian daily Al-Watan, stated: "Despite the criticism and hatred that Egyptians direct at her, she has managed to train the forces of political Islam to benefit her country, and proved to her government that she can deal with the Islamic [forces] in a manner that suits her and serves her country's interest. The American Ambassador in Cairo, Anne Patterson, who has become a pariah [in the eyes of] the Egyptian opposition due to her role as the 'American High Commissioner in Egypt' and because of her constant interference in Egyptian affairs, which oversteps the boundaries [of her office], has a great deal of experience in working with the forces of political Islam, thanks to her activity in Pakistan and Afghanistan…"[9]
The daily Al-Wafd likewise described Patterson as "the American High Commissioner of Egypt under the MB's sponsorship" and quoted Imad Gad, an expert at the Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies, as saying that Patterson had been appointed ambassador in Cairo "due to her dark past, [i.e., her] involvement in planning the assassination of well-known politicians and supervising their execution while she served as ambassador to Columbia and Pakistan." 

Gad described Patterson's recent meetings with MB leaders, and especially her meeting with the MB deputy general guide on June 25, 2013, as "a desperate attempt on her part to demonstrate that her work in Egypt is anchored in reality, especially after John Kerry discovered in his recent visit to Egypt contradictions between the reality there and the reports that Patterson had submitted to the American State Department." In Gad's opinion, Patterson's efforts are intended to prolong the MB rule, and this in order to justify her reports in which she claimed that the extensive popular rage has waned due to Mursi's election.

Al-Wafd also cited 'Issam Al-Sharif, the coordinator of the Free Front for Peaceful Change, who demanded Patterson's immediate removal on the grounds that she has violated all accepted diplomatic norms. He said: "She has no right to tour the provinces, but in the Mursi era, she has toured through all parts of Egypt and has met with whoever she wanted because she is aware that the regime is fragile and feeble." Al-Sharif warned the next American ambassador to Egypt not to follow the example of Patterson, who, he said, does not report the real facts to the American government and flagrantly intervenes in Egyptian affairs, and has even charged the Coptic patriarch Tawadros to prohibit the Copts from participating in the June 30 demonstrations.[10]

Egyptian Journalist: Patterson Has Gone Too Far This Time In Her Interference In Egypt's Affairs

In an article in the Egypt daily Al-Misriyyoun, Muhammad Khader Al-Sharif, a member of the Egyptian Journalists Union, wrote: "...Anne Patterson's job allows her to reside and be [here], to work and to come and go, but this time 'Her Excellency' went too far in intervening in Egyptian affairs. She meets with whoever she wants and sets a fire amongst the people...

"[Her recent statements were] a flagrant intervention in Egyptian affairs, which no Arab or foreign ambassador and no state may intervene in. [Patterson] sticks her nose into everything in a manner that recalls the days of Lord Cromer, the British High Commissioner during the British occupation [in 1883-1907]... who was one of the major advocates of Westernization and one of the leading colonialists in the Islamic world, and one who formulated the policy that colonialism practiced [back then] and still practices [today] in an attempt to liquidate the foundations of the Islamic world and the Arab nation.

"Neither I nor anyone else who subscribes to a respectable nationalism can agree to the ambassador's intervention in Egyptian affairs, and particularly [in the affairs of] the army, even if [the army] receives annual American assistance, however large it may be..."[11]

Irate Responses On The Social Networks To Patterson's Alleged Statements

Many used the social networks to express their outrage over Patterson's alleged statements. For example, the businessman and founder of the Free Egyptians party, Naguib Sawiris, wrote on his Twitter account: "Do us a favor and shut up."[12]

Mursi 2.JPG
Sawiris' tweet

In response to reports that the U.S. intends to replace Patterson with the current U.S. ambassador to Jordan (rumors that were since denied), the editor of the Egyptian opposition weekly Al-Usbu', Mustafa Bakri, wrote on his Facebook account: "[Patterson] has played a dubious role in Egypt by submitting erroneous reports to the [American] government in which she sided with the MB at the expense of other forces. Washington has promptly decided [to recall Patterson from Cairo] due to the crises that were caused by her declarations about the army and the events of the [upcoming] 'June 30 Revolution.'"[13]

Mursi 3.JPG

Bakri's message on Facebook

Responses On Facebook Page Of American Embassy In Cairo

Egyptian citizens expressed their rage over Patterson's statement and "the American intervention in Egyptian life" on the Facebook page of the American Embassy in Cairo. Some called to boycott American products, and others wrote English messages brutally cursing and insulting the ambassador. The following is a sample of messages in Arabic:[14]
"Patterson should stop playing [the role] of High Commissioner in Egypt. Stop intervening in Egyptian internal affairs. Stop supporting terrorists, your policy has failed the world over. Egypt will not fall, to your chagrin and the chagrin of your ambassador."

Mursi 4.JPG

"If you try to intervene in Egyptian affairs, we will launch a campaign similar to the 'Tamarrud' campaign to boycott all American products. Stop intervening in Egyptian affairs."

Mursi 5.JPG

"I would like to say to the American ambassador in Cairo, Anne Patterson: The Egyptian people are unlike the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where traders in religion and murderers are in power. Whoever plays with fire will be burned by it."

Mursi 6.JPG

"We as a people respect all the other peoples and oppose America's intervention in Egyptian life. [We oppose] its support for a regime that is fascist and suppresses liberties, and [its act of] forcing the Egyptian people to surrender to this regime for the sake of American interests. Where is the liberty you advocate?"

Mursi 7.JPG 

[3] Al-Watan (Egypt), June 18, 2013; Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), June 19, 2013.
[4], June 18, 2013.
[5] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), June 20, 2013.
[6] Akhbar Al-Yawm (Egypt), June 20, 2013.
[7] Al-Mal (Egypt), June 20, 2013.
[8] Al-Dustour (Egypt), June 20, 2013.
[9] Al-Watan (Egypt), June 22, 2013
[10] Al-Wafd (Egypt), June 23, 2013.
[11] Al-Misriyyoun (Egypt), June 22, 2013.
[12], June 19, 2013.
[13], June 21, 2013.
[14], June 25, 2013.



Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.