Saturday, July 6, 2013
Dangerous Times: Obama's Arab Spring Logic
by James Lewis
Wanna have an authentic people's revolution? Wanna have an Arab Spring?
Well, Egypt is having a people's revolution of sorts, as the Egyptian military have cobbled together a political coalition ranging from the Coptic pope to the hyper-reactionary Salafists. They all support the overthrow of Brother Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama is a community organizer by profession. He knows all about organizing "spontaneous" demonstrations for the people's revolution. The tricky thing is deciding who represents the real people. In the long history of communist agitators -- the original term for "community organizers" -- they always get that part wrong. In the Soviet Union, the kulaks were never real people, but the tiny Bolshevik mob thugs were the authentic vox populi. After all, Vladimir Lenin told them so.
Obama can tell the real voice of the people in the Muslim world, because, as he told Hillary in the White House, according to the New York Times and the Carnegie Endowment, "The best revolutions are organic."
Let's call it the "arugula standard" of revolutionary authenticity. People like Ayers and Jodie Evans understand these things in Hyde Park, Illinois. The rule of thumb is: If they hate America, they are authentic, and you gotta send them money, arms, and propaganda media clowns.
How do you tell who's a real organic revolutionary to Obama? Well, the more radical they are, the farther they want to go back to the Muslim Dark Ages, and the more leftover leftists like George Soros they have on board, the more "authentic" they are.
This is the same logic our vaunted media use to prove that Governor Sarah Palin is not a real woman and Justice Clarence Thomas is not a real black man. These folks understand in their bones who is authentic and who isn't. It's radical chic: Jeremiah Wright, authentic. Lt. Col. Allen West, a total phony.
So here is how our president decides on the fate of nations.
1. You can overthrow Muslim regimes in nations like Egypt, where Obama told President Hosni Mubarak to "leave now" in February of 2011.
But:
... if you tell Brother Morsi to "leave now" today, that's a profound violation of democratic principles.
2. You can invade Libya with no provocation, and start a civil war against Moammar Gaddafi, without even checking with the U.S. Congress.
But:
You're not allowed to overthrow the nuke-happy mullahs in Tehran, no matter how often they threaten to destroy their neighbors -- not just Israel and America, but also the Arab Gulf regimes.
3. In 2011 you can celebrate the authentic people's revolution in Tahrir Square as it is twitter-mobbed by one Google Vice President Walid Ghoneim, from a safe loft in New York City. That Tahrir demonstration proved that the authentic people of Egypt rejected Mubarak.
But:
In 2013 you can't celebrate another tweeted people's revolution in Tahrir Square because it violates true democratic principles.
And, needless to say, you couldn't possibly celebrate the young people of Iran's Green Revolution, even if they are fighting the moral monsters of mullahdom.
But wait -- there's more!
4. You can fight al-Qaeda by killing Osama bin Laden, and the media will celebrate your victory.
But:
It's okay to arm and train al-Qaeda in Syria, where they are killing Assad's troops and any Christians they happen to run across.
5. You can direct Predator assassinations at Taliban killers in Afghanistan, the worst reactionary throwbacks in the modern world.
But:
You have to sabotage Afghanistan's elected President Karzai to negotiate a "peace" settlement with those very same Taliban, as Obama is doing even now.
Get it?
I don't.
Where's the logic? Where is the coherence? Where is the strategic purpose? Is it just to stir up trouble in Muslim nations on the chance that Obama can manipulate the outcome? Is this revolution for its own sake?
Dare I ask, where is the moral core of this administration?
Let me know if you can figure it out.
James Lewis
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/dangerous_times_obamas_arab_spring_logic.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Pakistan Bankrolls Terrorist Group
by Mohshin Habib
"They compete for the religious vote bank." — Arif Nizami, Pakistani poltical analystPakistan has just allocated over $4,000,000 for a Center, a "Knowledge Park" and other initiatives for the Islamist parent body of the banned terrorist group that attacked Mumbai, India, in 2008.
The Pakistani provincial government of Punjab included in its budget for fiscal 2013-14 a sum of 61.35 million Pakistani Rupees ($616,000 USD) to fund the largest Center of Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) -- the Islamist parent body of the banned terror organization Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT), which committed the Mumbai attacks.
In addition to that allocation for the JuD Center, known as Markaz-e-Taiba, the Pakistani government has also allocated Rs 350 million ($3,500,000 USD) for setting up a "Knowledge Park" and other initiatives at the Center.
A spokesman for the Punjab government defended the gift by saying that the government had taken administrative control of the welfare institutions being run by JuD, in compliance with Security Council resolutions of the United Nations. In December 2008, India formally requested the United Nations to designate JuD a terrorist organization, a request with which the UN Security Council complied. In 2012, the U.S. State Department offered a bounty of $10,000,000 on the head of JuD's Emir, or chief, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, relating to the Mumbai massacre. The US authority also offered $2 million for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Hafiz Mohammad Saeed's brother-in-law Abdur Rehman Makki, second in command of LeT. Makki is said to be in close contact with Taliban supreme commander Mullah Omar and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Ajmal Kassab, accused in the Mumbai attack, is said to have received training at the JuD's center, Markaz-e-Taiba.
However, a recent report in the Pakistani daily The News said that despite the appointment of an administrator, the Markaz-e-Taiba is effectively in the control of JuD, and that Pakistani and foreign journalists cannot go inside the Center without first obtaining permission from the media cell of the JuD. A source, according to the report, said a few months ago that JuD's Emir, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, held a convention at Markaz-e-Taiba, largely attended by JuD activists.
Background of Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its Emir, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed
The organization JuD was founded by its Emir (head, commander or general in Arabic), Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, in 1985. In 1987, Saeed founded Markaz-Dawa-wal-Irshad, the organization which, in Afghanistan in 1990, produced Laskar-e-Taiba [LeT], with its headquarters based in Lahore, the Punjab provincial capital, where Markaz-e-Taiba is located. There were two co-founders with Saeed. One, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, also a co-founder of the Palestinian Sunni terrorist organization Hamas, was killed by a car bomb blast on November 24, 1989 in Peshawar, Pakistan.As a terrorist outfit, LeT is banned in India, Pakistan (formally), the UK, the United States, the European Union, Russia and Australia. In 2001, Pakistan detained Saeed in relation to Indian accusations of his involvement in an attack on the lower house of the Indian parliament, Lok Sabha. After the 2006 Mumbai Train bombings, the provincial government of Punjab at that time arrested Saeed. He was released after a Lahore High court order in August, then arrested again by the provincial government, and finally released by the same high court on October 17, 2006.
LeT has repeatedly claimed through its journal and websites that its aim is to destroy and annihilate Hinduism and Judaism. LeT has declared Hindus and Jews to be the enemy of Islam as well as India and Israel to be the enemy of Pakistan. LeT also says it believes that violent Jihad is the duty of all Muslims.
Pakistan's new government and JUD
Punjab province is the stronghold of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), the party that formed the federal government after receiving the highest number of seats (166 out of 272) in the national election of May 2013. PML(N) also has repeatedly formed the provincial government of Punjab, the dominant and most influential province of Pakistan, in which more than half the Pakistani people live. Its Chief Minister, Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, is the younger brother of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who previously served two non-consecutive terms as Pakistan's Prime Minister. During the time of the election, PML(N) suffered remarkably fewer attacks by the Teherik-e-Taliban or other terrorist groups, compared to the other large democratic parties; these suffered dozens of blasts, with many casualties, especially during election meetings and rallies.The regime of the Islamist-minded dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, also saw the rise of the political career of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Always close to the powerful military officers, including director generals of Pakistan's ISI, Sharif joined the Punjab Advisory Board of Zia-ul-Haq. Additionally, since being introduced to its royal family by Osama bin Laden, Sharif still maintains a good relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Former Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) official Khalid Khawaja claimed that he arranged five meetings in the past between Nawaz Sharif and the late Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.
General Zia-ul-Haq appointed Hafiz Mohammad Saeed to the Council on Islamic Theologies. In early 1980s he was sent by the University of Engineering and Technology to Saudi Arabia, where he met Saudi Sheikhs who were taking part in Afghan Jihad.
The Economist wrote:
Another outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammed, is based in Bahawalpur, also in southern Punjab, where it has a huge seminary. Former members of both organisations are integral parts of the Pakistani Taliban. Another group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the devastating attack on Mumbai in 2008, also has Punjab as its home. "The Punjab government is not only complacent, there is a certain ambivalence in their attitude" towards extremists, says Arif Nizami, a political analyst based in Lahore. "They compete for the religious vote bank."As Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its leader, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, are well known as anti-Indian, the Indian authorities raised their concerns over the significant allocation. Indian External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said, "Given the positive signals recent weeks, I would expect that Pakistan would keep the new consideration and address our concerns."
Nawaz Sharif recently expressed his desire to upgrade relations with India. But many think that if Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its relations get privileges from Pakistan's newly elected provincial and federal governments, not only India, but the entire world will be more skeptical about the foreign policy of the "New Pakistan."
Mohshin Habib
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3804/pakistan-bankrolls-terrorists
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
What Will Happen to the Suez Canal?
by Michael Rubin
The major U.S. interest and, indeed, the main international interest in Egypt is the fate of the Suez Canal—built by the French and completed in 1869, and then overseen by the British in the wake of the 1879-1882 ‘Urabi revolt until finally nationalized by Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956. Not only does commercial shipping pass through the Suez Canal, but so too do U.S. warships heading toward the Persian Gulf.
Oil has already spiked on fears that the uprising in Egypt could interrupt shipping in the Suez. Any unrest is always troubling, but if past precedent means anything, then much of the worry is unfounded. Certainly, the Egyptian chapter of the Arab Spring brought instability to the Sinai. Bedouins upset at the Egyptian central government and extremists upset at the idea of supplying gas to Israel (and Jordan), no matter how much the Egyptian government needs the cash, have bombed the Arab Gas Pipeline a number of times since 2011. But throughout all the chaos, the Egyptian army and police have secured the Suez Canal. No tourist let alone an Egyptian can get close to the canal without getting stopped by the police and questioned. In a country where factories sit idle and the tourist industry has dried up, the Egyptians recognize just how important the hard currency generated by the Suez can be.
When ships pass through the canal—from small craft up to U.S. aircraft carriers—they take onto their bridge Egyptian pilots to navigate through the passage. No one in their right mind would call the Egyptian pilots professional in demeanor: They smoke, personify ornery, and solicit bribes of cigarettes, baseball caps, and other goods. But they did that before the Arab Spring and did not change their behavior under the Muslim Brotherhood regime. The future is uncertain. Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl is right to sound the warning about how none of the instances in which mobs have cheered coups have actually resulted in liberal democracy. While governance in Egypt is uncertain for now, at least, worst-case fears regarding security in the Suez Canal appear unfounded.
Michael Rubin
Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/07/05/what-will-happen-to-the-suez-canal/
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Egyptian Clerics Express Joy At Murder Of Four Shiites In Egypt
by MEMRI
Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian cleric Walid Ismail, which aired on Dream 2 TV on June 24, 2013, and a statement made by Egyptian cleric Mazen Sarsawi, which aired on Amjad TV on June 25:
Dream 2 TV, June 24, 2013
Interviewer: "You expressed your delight at the killing of [Egyptian Shiite] Sheik Hassan Shehata."
Walid Ismail: "Absolutely."
Interviewer: "By saying so, you might be accused of being one of the killers."
Walid Ismail: "This happiness is shared by the entire Egyptian people."
Another guest: "You claim to know what every single Egyptian feels?!"
MEMRI
Source: http://memri.convio.net/site/R?i=3bpwj3f-muVqutWr9hZYCg
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Mordechai Kedar: The Rhetoric of National Disaster
by Mordechai Kedar
Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)
Note: this article was written before Mursi was dismissed. An additional, updated article will be posted on Sunday's blog.
These days, when Egyptian spokesmen appear in the media - Mursi's supporters as well as those demanding his resignation - there is new and disagreeable rhetoric that increasingly dominates the public discourse. It begins with the name of the opposition movement, called "tamrrud" - "rebellion". It is no longer a protest or demonstration, it is a rebellion. The rebels waved signs with the slogan "irhal" - "leave" or "get out" - exactly like the signs that the demonstrators in Tahrir Square ("Liberation", from the British) waved two and a half years ago, when the target was Mubarak. By using this slogan, the demonstrators are equating Mursi with Mubarak, and there can be no worse insult to the president, who won the first democratic elections ever held in Egypt. Another slogan that was brought out of the January 2011 demonstration storage bin is "al-sha'b yurid isqat al-nitham" - "the people want to topple the regime". The implicit message is that the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood is just as illegitimate as Mubarak's regime was.
Others yell "Mursi - Kursi", meaning "Mursi, the chair", mocking Mursi for being stuck to his chair like Mubarak was, in his time. Mursi's supporters cling to the concept of the Shar'iyya - legitimacy - that the elections gave him, and assert that the demands for his resignation are illegitimate . His opposition calls out, "We will defend you, Egypt", implying that "the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to our homeland and our country", and some yell, "Free Egypt" (from the Brotherhood's occupation).
But the new and ominous factor is how both sides freely use radical expressions not used in the past, like "We will not yield", "red line", "blood will be spilled", "to the end", "we will fight with our spirits and our lives". These expressions clearly connote the tremendous amount of tension between the two camps: the opposition to Mursi in Tahrir Square, and his supporters in Rab'ia Al-Adawiyya Square. There was also tension regarding what the army would do when the period of the ultimatum elapsed, because the army imposed the ultimatum on both sides, but it was rejected by both sides. The Army has called on everyone "to act responsibly" because a descent into violence - the beginning of which was marked by more than twenty fatalities and hundreds of injured - would bring a national disaster upon Egypt, the beloved country of both sides.
However, too many people feel that it is "now or never": the rebels feel that if they go back home, Mursi and the Brotherhood will rule over them forever, and the Brotherhood is sure that if their victory is taken from them by force they will crash as an organization, which ultimately attained its goal and then failed to hold on to it. Each side wants absolute victory for itself, and total defeat for the other side. In post-Mubarak Egypt - unfortunately - a sense of collective consciousness where everyone can sit together and solve conflicts peacefully has not developed. The cultural polarization, political radicalization, the torrid summer, the economic collapse, the high unemployment, the hopelessness, the increasing violence, the approaching Ramadan and rhetoric of extremism all are jet fuel that is poured on the public conflagration in Egypt. These are the materials that national disaster is made of, and Egypt is surely capable of deteriorating into a situation similar to that in Syria.
Israel - surprisingly - is almost not mentioned at all in relation to the crisis, which is proof of both its seriousness and its severity. Nevertheless, Mursi - in an attempt to throw a bone to the masses - might cut off relations with Israel, or send the army into Sinai to "regain sovereignty" of the peninsula, but the worst thing would be if millions of Egyptians begin marching toward Israel in search of two things: water and bread. The waves of the Egyptian disaster might arrive to our shores, and we must be prepared.
===============
Dr. Kedar is available for lectures
Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) 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.
Egypt’s Second Revolution: Questions of Legitimacy
by Hani Shukrallah
Democracy is constituted by the express and active will of real, living people, not by a box; this is especially true when these people are engaged in an on-going revolution, charting their and their nation’s future
Fireworks
light the sky moments after Egypt's military chief says the president
is
replaced by chief justice of constitutional court outside the
presidential palace in Cairo
(Photo: AP)
The US government, a substantial section of mainstream Western media and the ousted Muslim Brotherhood all seem to agree: what took place in Egypt over the past few days was a military coup, a setback for the country's alleged "transition" to democracy.
Irrespective of the variety of vested interests involved, what the three detractors of one of the most potent popular revolutionary upsurges in modern history is contempt. Twenty-two million signatures (at nearly 50 percent of the nation’s adult population) are collected demanding the ousting of the president; the same demand is made by some 17 million people (at nearly 30 percent of the adult population) as they hit the streets throughout the country, in what has been described as the biggest demonstration in the history of mankind, and they do so against a barrage of threats and predictions warning of 30 June’s "rivers of blood," and stay there.
Unprecedented it may be, yet not really worth seeing (the Washington Post persisted in speaking of "rival demonstrations" between Morsi supporters and the "opposition"), it is not democracy; it is the army and the "deep state." Nothing short of the most profound sense of contempt for these very people could explain such utter blindness.
For the Muslim Brotherhood the contempt is deep-seated within a doctrine that constructs the leaders of the Gama’a as the ultimate interpreters of God’s will on earth, and as such owed blind obedience, and a lot of hand-kissing, by their "flock" – little wonder then that a rebellious Egyptian people have come to call them "sheep."
From the Western side of the above equation – and I am still dealing here with ideological perspective rather than crass interest – it is the equally deep-seated conviction that such people as Arabs and Muslims are incapable of insisting on the sort of "liberties" that "Western Man" takes for granted.
Certainly, race has become passé, now replaced by "culture," but what with our ostensibly inherent and immutable "Muslim" culture all we presumably can hope for is the kind of stunted and deformed "democracy" that Morsi and his tribe were offering us, never mind freedom of expression, speech, belief, assembly and protest, never mind also the frenzied power grab of Mubarak’s oligarchic and deeply authoritarian state machinery, kept fully intact but for the change of its bosses.
(In June of this year, the deposed Brotherhood president appointed in one sweep 17 new governors from among his group and its allies, a mere three months ahead of planned parliamentary elections, the better to rig them more effectively).
None of it, however, seemed to really matter, minor snags along the "transition," since all we Arabs and Muslims could hope for and deserve is a 2 percent margin in the ballot box – that is democracy enough in terms of our "culture."
Yet, there is another aspect to the blindness. Throughout history, popular revolutions by one people have had a tendency to inspire revolutionary upsurges by other peoples, just as Egypt’s was inspired by Tunisia’s, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria by both. For such a revolution to lead to a bungling, grimly oppressive Islamist regime, whose single claim to "democracy" is ostensibly "free and fair" elections is to drastically undercut such inspirational value. Would the Greeks find inspiration in such an outcome, or the Brazilians?
It was only on the fourth day of Egypt’s second revolution, and following intense American pressure to keep Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in power, that US President Barak Obama seemed to discover – all of a sudden – that democracy is not reducible to the ballot box.
Well, hey hurray! In fact, the history of democracy the world over is one where democratic liberties are won on the street, not the ballot box. Even if we set aside the founding democratic revolutions of the modern world, from Cromwell to Robespierre, via America’s founding fathers (beside which Egypt’s twin revolutions appear sparkling clean – "legitimacy" – wise), the extension of the franchise was won on the street, and so was the right of women to vote; trade unions, which were crucial in defining the very meaning of democracy and democratic liberties in today’s world, did not come out of the ballot box, but were born and evolved on shop-floors and on the street, and so has been the redefining of democracy in terms of women’s rights and liberation, well beyond the right to vote.
And last but not least Mr. Obama, need we remind you that the mere thought of running for office would not have occurred to you had it not been for the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Greensborro Sit-Ins, the March on Washington and the hundreds of other battles, big and small, waged with tremendous sacrifice, on the streets of the self-proclaimed "greatest democracy on earth," by a great many people, including such "legitimacy"‐unsavory characters as Malcolm X, Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and Angela Davis?
A very long and heroic march, full of blood and tears, put you in office Mr. Obama, and it was on the street that the heroes of these battles marched. And throughout the ballot box merely translated, almost always partially, and in stunted form, the gains won, yes, on the street.
Which seems to bring us straight back to our own erstwhile president, Dr. Morsi himself.
In his final, customarily incoherent, address to the nation, the former president (and don’t you just love the prefix "former" attached to the title of two presidents in a little over as many years) repeated the word "legitimacy" literally dozens of times. But here is a little reminder Mr. former-president, you were actually in prison when your predecessor, the "legitimate" president of the country, voted into his fourth term in what your American and other Western allies then hailed as Egypt’s first multi-candidate presidential elections, was illegitimately unseated. (There was nothing in the Egyptian Constitution then in force that allowed the president to cede his powers to something called the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces – SCAF).
We do not know the real story behind your escape from prison, whether it was the people in charge who broke you out of it, or a Hamas contingent imported especially for that purpose, as has been suggested in recent months. And frankly, I do not care. Morsi and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders were political prisoners, and in a revolution, setting political prisoners free is right and proper, even if "illegitimate."
The thing is, of course, that since the revolution the powers that be in Egypt, hijackers all, have been juggling "revolutionary legitimacy" and formal, legal legitimacy as stipulated by the Constitution and the law of the land, willy-nilly, arbitrarily – and always in ways best tailored to suite their immediate ends. The SCAF did so, over and over again, and so did the Muslim Brotherhood.
The starkest and most flagrant example of this was the "elected" president’s flaunting of constitution, law and democratic norms, by issuing, in November 2012, a Constitutional Declaration immunising his decisions against judicial review, immunising as well that mockery of a legislative body, the consultative Shura Council (the third of which members are appointed by the president, the other two-thirds scornfully voted in by a measly 7 percent of the electorate), and vesting it meanwhile with full legislative authority, and immunising furthermore, a Constituent Assembly, which had been transformed into a closed club of the Muslim Brotherhood an its Salafi and Jihadi allies. Both these institutions had been facing imminent rulings of unconstitutionality by Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court.
And what was Morsi's justification of such draconian measures which clearly aimed at perpetuating the Muslim Brotherhood’s sway over the country until such a time as humanity meets its maker? "Revolutionary legitimacy!" Well, Mr. former-president, this is exactly what is called being "hoist by your own petard," with the added qualification that yours’ was that of a hijacker, while the people who unseated you derived their revolutionary legitimacy from a real, living revolution, historically unprecedented by virtue of 22 million signatures, by virtue of millions on the streets.
Hani Shukrallah
Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/4/75712/Opinion/Egypt%E2%80%99s-second-revolution-Questions-of-legitimacy.aspx
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Egypt: Now What?
by Robert Spencer
Few analysts expected that the demonstrations in Egypt over the past few days would result in such a swift toppling of Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood regime, and no one can be sure of what is going to happen next in Egypt, but there are some things we do know:
First is that the forces standing for equality of rights for all and a free society in Egypt are overjoyed at what happened Wednesday. Secularists and Coptic Christians are celebrating, and insisting to a Western press that has been as indefatigably pro-Muslim Brotherhood as Barack Obama that this is not a military coup, but a revolution, a true people’s revolution as the “Arab Spring” that toppled Mubarak was supposed to be.
For this group, Egyptian Army Chief Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi sounded all the right notes as he announced the removal of Morsi and the suspension of the Sharia constitution that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood colleagues had forced upon the Egyptian people. “We’ll build an Egyptian society,” Al-Sisi declared, “that is strong and stable, that will not exclude anyone.” Morsi, of course, had insisted that the Egyptian society he had in mind wouldn’t exclude anyone, either, but the nation’s Christians and Western-oriented women knew that their inclusion would be ensured only if they knew their place. They hope that Al-Sisi’s statement represents a genuine affirmation of a society that will not impose Islamic law and will guarantee equality of rights for all.
What’s more, Egypt’s new rulers moved swiftly late Wednesday night to shut down three Islamic supremacist TV channels, including one run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and also raided Al Jazeera’s Egyptian offices – clear indications that they want to set Egypt on a course away from Sharia and Islamic absolutism.
I’m a free speech advocate. I don’t believe people whose views one dislikes should be shut down. That’s the road to tyranny. That’s the weapon of the desperately insecure and authoritarian Left. These Islamic supremacist channels should have been allowed to operate, as long as they weren’t the only voices speaking to Egyptians. Still, this is a good indication of the current leadership’s determination not to allow Sharia in Egypt.
Also ecstatic at Wednesday’s events, however, are the Salafists and other Islamic supremacist factions that despised Morsi for not imposing Islamic law quickly enough. Some protesters over the last few days even superimposed an image of Morsi over a Star of David, much as the “Arab Spring” demonstrators defaced posters of Mubarak by drawing Stars of David on his forehead. The implication in both instances is that the protesters despised the rulers for being pawns of the hated Israelis, and specifically for not abrogating the Camp David Accords and going to war with Israel.
Especially now with its economy in tatters, Egypt has good reason not to go to war with Israel, for doing so would likely jeopardize the billions it receives in aid from the United States – even in this age of Obama. Morsi, as pragmatic as the Muslim Brotherhood has been for ages, and as willing as his organization has always been to work toward final victory in stages, showed little signs of risking that aid. But this pragmatism enraged Islamic supremacists, who castigated Morsi for his gradualism (tadarruj), a concept that Sharia hardliners frown upon.
Ironically, however, now that Morsi is gone (at least for now), that U.S. aid could be at risk anyway. Barack Obama issued a stern statement Wednesday, directing U.S. government agencies to “review” the aid they’re giving to Egypt:
The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt, and we believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.Obama made no similar statement when Hosni Mubarak was toppled. The Muslim Brotherhood could well use this statement as a knife to the throat of Egypt, demanding that they be restored to power as the only means to ensure that the American aid keeps flowing and that Egypt’s economy doesn’t collapse utterly.
Nonetheless, it is hard not to take some joy in events that have Obama, whose support for the Muslim Brotherhood has been consistent and unstinting since he invited its leaders to attend his June 2009 speech in Cairo, “concerned,” and have Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issuing confused and angry statements questioning the protesters’ motives and reminding the world that Morsi was democratically elected.
Whether the demonstrators in Egypt who brought down Morsi can ultimately defeat the pro-Sharia forces in Egypt and establish a truly free society, and whether enough of them even really want to, remains to be seen. But if Obama and CAIR see them as foes, they can’t be all bad.
Robert Spencer
Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/egypt-now-what/
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Obama Orders Review of US aid to Egypt
by Daniel Siryoti and News Agencies
Senator Leahy: U.S. aid is cut off when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree • Obama calls for swift return to democratically elected civilian rule.
The Egyptian army -- U.S. funded
|
Photo credit: AP  |
U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday
called on the Egyptian military to move quickly and return power to a
"democratically elected civilian government."
"As I have said since the Egyptian Revolution,
the United States supports a set of core principles, including
opposition to violence, protection of universal human rights, and reform
that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people," Obama said in a
White House statement. "The United States does not support particular
individuals or political parties, but we are committed to the democratic
process and respect for the rule of law."
“Given today’s developments, I have also
directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the
implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of
Egypt,” the president said Wednesday.
Congress traditionally earmarks about $1 billion per year to the Egyptian army.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who heads up the appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, said the law is clear: “U.S. aid is cut off when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree," Politico reported.
Congress traditionally earmarks about $1 billion per year to the Egyptian army.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who heads up the appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, said the law is clear: “U.S. aid is cut off when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree," Politico reported.
Leahy said the committee will also “review
future aid to the Egyptian government as we wait for a clearer picture.
As the world’s oldest democracy, this is a time to reaffirm our
commitment to the principle that transfers of power should be by the
ballot, not by force of arms.”
According to Politico, the senator pointed to a
provision in last year’s appropriations bill that blocks aid following
changes in government in which “the military plays a decisive role.” It
was not immediately clear whether that provision applies to this year’s
aid, or whether the U.S. still has aid to disburse to Egypt before the
fiscal year ends in September.
News of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's ouster on Wednesday brought mixed reactions from around the world, with Morsi's enemies praising his removal while others called for a return of power to civilian rule as soon as possible.
News of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's ouster on Wednesday brought mixed reactions from around the world, with Morsi's enemies praising his removal while others called for a return of power to civilian rule as soon as possible.
Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose regime is
in its third year of violent civil war with a predominantly Sunni
uprising, was content to see Morsi go.
"Whoever makes political use of religion to
the benefit of some and at the expense of others -- is bound to fall,"
Assad said. "What is happening in Egypt is the fall of what is known as
political Islam."
Morsi had publicly supported the Sunni
insurgents in Syria, cutting off diplomatic ties with the Syrian
government in June and accusing it of taking part in a "campaign of
extermination and planned ethnic cleansing" during a rally with Sunni
clerics. Media outlets in Syria showed extensive coverage of the
protests in Egypt.
The European Union called for a return to democracy in Egypt on Thursday.
"I urge all sides to rapidly return to the
democratic process, including the holding of free and fair presidential
and parliamentary elections and the approval of a constitution, to be
done in a fully inclusive manner, so as to permit the country to resume
and complete its democratic transition," EU foreign policy chief
Catherine Ashton said in a statement. Ashton called for restraint and
urged Egyptian security forces to "do everything in their power to
protect the lives and well-being of Egyptian citizens."
"[The EU is] unequivocally committed to
supporting the Egyptian people in their aspirations to democracy and
inclusive governance," Ashton said.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said
he did not support "military intervention as a way to resolve disputes
in a democratic system" and urged all sides to "avoid violence."
"We continue to advise British citizens to
avoid all nonessential travel to Egypt apart from the Red Sea resorts,
and to monitor travel advice from the Foreign Office," Hague said in a
statement
Meanwhile, the Arab League praised Morsi's
departure on Thursday and said the world should respect the Egyptian
people's demand for change.
"The League closely monitored the events and
crucial developments taking place in the Arab Republic of Egypt, as part
of its national responsibilities and its concern to preserve security
and stability in Arab countries", Arab League Secretary-General Nabil
Elaraby said in a statement to Iraqi TV network Alsumaria.
Elaraby lauded the "Egyptian people's
revolution which will establish freedom, democracy, social equality and
good governance." He called upon everyone "to abide by the people's
demands for change; to preserve Egypt's future, role and historical
position on the Arab and international level."
Elaraby warned against "the dangers of
fiddling with Egypt's future, security and stability," later calling for
"compliance with the people's demands for change in this critical hour.
Such a fact is confirmed by history throughout all its epochs."
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged a swift return to civilian rule, restraint and respect for civil rights.
He did not, however, condemn the military
action, saying that "many Egyptians in their protests have voiced deep
frustrations and legitimate concerns. ... At the same time, military
interference in the affairs of any state is of concern."
Daniel Siryoti and News Agencies
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=10451
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Power and the Arab Revolutions – Some Thoughts on the Latest Events in Egypt
by Jonathan Spyer
That this is so seems empirically irrefutable – from Algeria to Gaza, via Syria and Egypt – the forces that when the talking is done go out to do battle with one another for the crown are the Islamists and the armed men of the regime (the latter usually organized under the banner of a secular, authoritarian nationalism.)
What is currently taking place in Egypt is a military coup in all but name. The army – the force through which Mubarak, Sadat and Nasir governed – is mobilizing to end the one year rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. It remains to be seen whether Mohammed Morsi and his comrades will yield to this mobilization, or attempt to resist it.
If they attempt the latter, Egypt will stand before a situation analogous to that of Algeria in 1991, when the regime’s military sought to annul the election victory of the Islamist FIS movement. The result was a bloody civil war which in retrospect may be seen as the precursor of what is now taking place in Syria, and what may now lie ahead in Egypt.
If, on the other hand, the Brotherhood choose to acquiesce to the demands of the military, then President Morsi’s remark that this will represent the reversal of the 2011 revolution is entirely correct. What will transpire will be military rule, presumably with a few civilian figureheads placed on the mast to enable the west to pretend that it is something else.
In 2010, I wrote a book called ‘The Transforming Fire’ which contains the following sentence; “In the Middle East, it is the regimes or the Islamists; there is no third way.” I undertake the somewhat vulgar act of quoting myself not in order to demonstrate what a very clever boy indeed I’ve been, but rather to indicate that this basic fact of the presence of two serious contenders for power in the main countries of the Arabic speaking world has been obvious and apparent before the events of 2011, which are usually (though inaccurately) held to mark the advent of the historic processes currently being witnessed in the Middle East.
To paraphrase George Orwell’s poor Winston Smith, however, I understand how, but I do not quite understand why. After all, the throngs of young people that we have witnessed in recent days in the streets of Egypt are not a mirage. No more were the young civil society activists who began the uprising in Syria, or the sophisticated liberals and reformers in Egypt. What are the factors which time and time again prevent the emergence of a muscular, representative, civilian and secular politics in the Arab world?
A politics of this type, which can combine the readiness for the use of force with a commitment to the open society seems to me to be the foundation stone for workable democracy.
In my own country, Israel, it very clearly exists. The primordial call of Jewish identity is the bedrock on which the democratic structure stands and is defensible and defended. Take away the former, and the latter would soon fall too.
Now the willingness to use force in order to defend rests at root always on something ‘irrational’, ie deeper than profit-loss, self-interested thinking. It must by necessity do so, since by engagement in such activity, the individual increases the possibility of his or her own early extinction. The ‘trick’ for making the open society work and be defensible seems to me the ability to combine or harmonize this deeper, non-rational layer of human motivation with the entirely rational commitment to institutions, structures, checks, balances and so on.
In the highly populated countries of the Arab world, glaringly, this has never been achieved. The liberal reformers are quite unable to command the kind of potent loyalties by which movements sustain themselves and win. Today, in Egypt, it is not they who are the real political and military actors. The required levels of commitment exist, solely, in the hands of Islamists on the one hand, and authoritarian nationalists on the other.
For as long as this remains the case, secure, rights based societies are likely to remain elusive in the Arabic-speaking world. But is the reason why it is the case, ultimately, because of powerful, pervasive ideas and practices in these societies which militate against the development of the kind of movements and institutions which could form the basis for a defendable civil society? It may well be. An unreformed, power-oriented religion that commands the deep loyalty of masses of people, and a stress on community security over individual rights would be the most notable factors here. And if it is so, it means that the anger of the populations at mis-managed societies will continue to be mis-directed, and that much remaining strife almost certainly lies ahead.
Jonathan Spyer
Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/07/power-and-the-arab-revolutions-some-thoughts-on-the-latest-events-in-egypt/
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)