Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Lipstick On A Pig - Whitewashing The Muslim Brotherhood


Having already lost Lebanon to Hezbollah, the Obama Administration is in the process of losing Egypt to the Islamist Salafists. And loving it.

The official line out of the White House now is that the Obama Administration has no problem with the Muslim Brotherhood governing Egypt - provided, as the Obama Administration put it, they 'reject violence and recognize democratic goals.'

That's exactly what the Obama Administration once said about Hezbollah.

Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is no stranger to President Obama. During his infamous speech in Cairo, he insisted that Mubarak allow Muslim Brotherhood members to attend. And if the Telegraph is to be believed,the Obama Administration actually has encouraged anti-government forces covertly for quite some time.

The White House statement came today after US special envoy and ex-Ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner met in the US embassy with opposition Mohammed Elbaradei and clandestinely, with Issam El-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Wisner also delivered the coup de grĂ¢ce to Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarrak for Obama. After meeting with him, Mubarak announced on state television that he would not run in the coming September elections and would concentrate on what he called 'a peaceful transition of power' during the remainder of his term.I wouldn't bet money on him sticking around until September...or even lasting out the week.

The Obama White House's new embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite similar to President Carter's embrace of Khomeini and 'democratic elements' overthrowing our ally the Shah in Iran. And it has been echoed by a number of the usual suspects on the Left, who proclaim loudly that we can work with the Ikhwan, that they're non-violent, and that after all, they're on the right side of democracy, aren't they?

'Non-violent' and 'democratic' is an interesting way to describe the Muslim Brotherhood, the chief inspiration of jihadists worldwide, including its 'Palestinian' branch, the Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as Hamas.

The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, and the movement's major philosopher and ideologue Sayyid Qutb are the intellectual inspiration behind al-Qaeda, Lashkar e Tiaba, Hizb al Tahrir,The Taliban, Jemayaah Islamiah,and virtually every violent Sunni Islamist group on the planet. And it was the 'non-violent' Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that assassinated Egyptian prime minister Mahmud Nokrashi in 1948 for being too secular, and attempted to assassinate Egyptian strongman Gamal Nasser and launch an Islamist coup against his regime. More recently, the Brotherhood murdered Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 for making peace with Israel, and made a number of attempts on King Hussein of Jordan's life.

After these episodes, the Brotherhood was vigorously suppressed in Egypt by both Nasser and Sadat's successor, Hosni Mubarak. Both occasions led to a large number of Ikhwan followers seeking refuge in countries like Saudi Arabia,Qatar, Kuwait and the Emirates.

They found refuge and welcome there, and the Brotherhood ideology merged seamlessly with wahabism and petro-dollars to create today's Islamist movement.

The Brotherhood, like the other jihadist groups favors a Global Islamic Caliphate ruled by sharia, Islam’s legal-political structure along the same lines that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and Hamas rules Gaza,but they have taken Mohammed's words. "War is deception" to heart.

While they have no compunction in using violence to advance their agenda at a time of their own choosing, their official preferred model is is to undermine a society politically and socially first. However, they have no problem with more violent jihadists, and a number of Brotherhood adherents have played a prominent role in violent jihad. Sheikh Abdul Rahman of WTC bombing fame and al-Qaeda's Number Two Ayman Zawahiri both came out of the Ikhwan, among many others.

The Brotherhood's spiritual leader and co-founder, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, lives in Qatar and broadcasts his program, ash-Shariah wal-Hayat ("Shariah and Life") on Al Jazeera.During his career , al-Qaradawi has used the anti-Semitic forgery 'The Protocols of Zion' as an Islamist teaching tool, has voiced enthusiastic support for terrorist homicide bombings in Israel, referred to the Holocaust as a punishment Allah imposed on Jews to punish them for their corruption and expressed hope that 'Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers'.He also considers Jewish pregnant women and their unborn babies to be valid targets on the ground that the babies could grow up to join the Israeli Army.

He also favors wife beating and death for homosexuals.

Brotherhood “Supreme Guide” Muhammad Mahdi Akef has referred to Osama bin-Laden as a mujahadeen, or freedom fighter and as “close to Allah on high.” And he is hardly alone in this assessment.Nor will any Brotherhood figure condemn the genocidal agenda of its Palestinian branch, Hamas, in the slightest.

So with all of this, including good examples in Gaza and Afghanistan on exactly what Muslim Brotherhood-style rule looks like, one has to wonder why the Obama Administration would be so open to working with them and why so many Left wing journalists seem to be so willing to give the Ikhwan a pass.

In some cases, its simple denial.Foreign policy establishment types have long felt that he US can 'engage' with such people as rational actors in Western terms, and not matter how often that leads to epic failure, there are apparently some people who never quite get it. For others, it's simply easier not to contemplate what dealing with Islamists in a decisive fashion would really entail, which has essentially been our problem since 9/11. Some may simply like the feel-good rush of supporting what appears to be a populist revolution..no matter what that ultimately means.

Whatever the reason, they're going to have to end the denial sooner or later.There's no question that even if the army re-establishes control, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be a significant force in the new order of things. Most observers feel like the Muslim Brotherhood would win an honest election in Egypt, or at least do well enough to command a significant number of ministries. Next to the army, the Brotherhood is the best organized institution in Egypt.

So at best, we're looking at an increasingly Islamist pro-Hamas regime like Turkey. At worst, it's Hamas-style rule. Either way, the Egyptian /Israeli peace treaty - which was always just an armistice - is history. Anyone who doubts that ought to take a peek at the latest Pew poll on Egyptian attitudes to subjects like fundamentalist Islamism, Israel,the US and terrorism.

Any way you look at it, any laudatory self-delusion now going on in the White House and with their allies in the media about democracy and the Muslim Brotherhood is in for a rude awakening.

There simply is no way to put lipstick on this pig and pretend it's something its not.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!


Rosey said...

Fortunately, Israel has nuclear weapons. I hope that they are ready to push the button, because their existence will likely depend on it, shortly. I hope I am wrong, but based on this post, I think I'm right. Israel should have an itchy trigger finger.

B.Poster said...

Actually the relations with Egypt that Israel has, which you describe as an "armistice" is spot on. This is similar to the relations with the United States as well. Its just an armistice, a cold peace of sorts. This armistice/cold peace cost us an enromous amount of money to maintain!! In addition, this regime has oppressed its people.

I've been calling for the ouster of the Mubarak government for quite some time, at least since 1990 and I've been especially vocal about it since about the year 2000 for largely these reasons.

Egyptians want freedom, liberty, self determination, and economic opportunity. We want this for them too!! So does the Aemrican government. For better or worse, the promotion of democracy has been the centerpiece of American foreign policy even at the expense of our own interests since at least 2001.

Ideally what we should do and should have been doing was supporting groups within Egypt who will address the legitimate needs of the Egyptian people and will help hold the line against Islamic terrorists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Had we have done this we might have been able to help oust the Mubarak regime and been able to assist someone far more favorable to us. The bottom line is we could have and should doen alot better than Mubarak.

We still might be able to support groups who will address the needs of the Eqyptians and will support liberty for them and assist us against Islamic terrorism.

EVERRYONE in positions of influence in America supports liberty and democracy for Egypt. The problem is those who are wise are concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood and other enemies of Aemrica gaining control. Those who are not wise, well they just keep blindliy moving forward singing neat songs about "democracy," "economic opportunity", and things like that. Often times enemies of America fine tune their rhetoric for such gulliable people.

The American government simply must do a better job of getting its message out. Unfortunately many government officials belong to the gulliable crowd!!

B.Poster said...


I agree. Furthermore I would add that in your post where you put "Israel" the name "America" could be inserted and it would be just as accurate. Apparently pro-Mubarak forces are clashing with the anti-Mubarak forces and the whole thing is a giant cluster-f*ck. We have been told by media talking pundits and government officals who continunally run to miccrophones about this that Mr. Mubarak had no support among the Egyptian people. Apparently they are wrong yet again.

Did they lie or did they simply not have all of their facts together before they spoke? I think its the latter. Here's where good Hummit would be helpful.

Our decicision makers could have better information to work with when making decisions and we might be able to identify groups within the revolution who could work with us on our joint goals of addressing the needs of the Egyptian people and containing the Muslim Brotherhood.

Addressing the needs of the Egyptian people will be solely the job of the Egyptian government. Its not our job. In fact, the Egyptians are accusing of meddling when we say Mubarak needs to go. Nevertheless with good intellegence we might be able to identify groups within the revolution who are compatible with addressing the legitimate needs of the Egyptian people and will be compatible with our needs of containing Islamic terrorists who are bent on our destruction.

louielouie said...

it is just odd to me, that the liberal/progressive/socialist has more in common with the ra......., ra......., islamists, than they do with the tea party movement.

Freedom Fighter said...

Poster, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about non-Islamist groups in Egypt who would 'work with us on our joint goals.'

In the first place, while those groups exist, they are far fewer in number and far less organized than the Islamists. And second of all, to be frank we have few 'joint goals in common with the average Egyptian.When you read the Arab press as I do and listen to what their clerics, journalists and opinion makers say,with far too many of them it's like they're living on another planet.

I've often said that the Arabs need far less military aid and Mercedes-Benz's and a lot more psychiatrists and prozac.


Freedom Fighter said...

hello Louie,
For an answer to your question about why the Left has so much in common with Islamists rather than the Tea Party, watch this space.