More on the US pro-Islam, pro-Arab Policy

US policy in the Middle East in the 20th century followed in the footsteps of British Middle Eastern policy, and can be seen as a continuation of it. It was no accident that the British upper crust called the American elite "our American cousins." Indeed, this was often true in a literal sense as many titled Britishers married rich American men and women. Therefore, cousins were found on both sides of the Atlantic.

British policy announced a pro-Islamic turn in 1920 when the Supreme Command of the WW One allies, the Entente powers, ordered the Greek army to stop advancing in Anatolia, and thereby to stop defeating the Turkish army. There is reason to believe that Britain was the leading power pushing for the order to the Greeks to stop. In that same year, British officers in Jerusalem --in what was then officially called Occupied Enemy Territory Administration-South-- encouraged Haj Amin el-Husseini to instigate anti-Jewish riots in order to discourage Great Power approval of the Jewish National Home principle at the San Remo Conference. This British encouragement for Arab violence against Jews in Israel was not at that time the official policy out of London but seems to have been a local initiative of British officers in the country, some or all of whom had been influenced by the notorious Tsarist forgery/plagiarism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Later, the London policy towards the Jewish National Home followed the local initiative and became hostile to the Jews, encouraging Arab hostility to Jews in the country. In other words, the Arabs became a tool of London for its own anti-Jewish hostility.

Back in Anatolia, in 1922, naval ships of the UK, US and other Western Great Powers watched as Ataturk's new Turkish army drove the Greeks of Anatolia and Smyrna into the sea at the Smyrna port, although Greek boats of all sorts were allowed to pick up refugees. Meanwhile, the powers did not oppose renewed massacres of Armenians in the city [see George Horton, Marjorie Housepian]. The new revolutionary Soviet Union also sided with the Turks in those years, thereby taking the same stance as the Western capitalist powers.

In other parts of the British Empire, the British encouraged Muslims against non-Muslims, and Arabs against non-Arab Muslims. In India, the UK encouraged Muslim demands for a separate state ["pakistan", which had never existed before] against the aspiration of the Indian National Congress for a unified India. In the former Ottoman Empire, the UK saw to it that the vilayet [province] of Mosul, inhabited not by Arabs but by Kurdish Muslims , Assyrian Christians, Jews and smaller ethno-religious groups, be transferred to the new, British-sponsored Kingdom of Iraq and taken away from the new Turkish Republic. Some say that this was because oil had been discovered in and around the city of Mosul, which would be more under British influence as a part of Iraq --then under a British mandate-- than as a part of Turkey. In Iraq, the British winked at the massacre of thousands of Assyrians in 1933 at the hands of the Iraqi Arab army.

During WW2, the UK violated its mandate to foster development of the Jewish National Home by severely limiting the number of Jews to be allowed to immigrate into the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home. This was the notorious 1939 White Paper policy. More generally, UK foreign minister Anthony Eden came out in support of pan-Arab nationalism by calling for formation of what became the Arab League. Eden's speech came on 29 May 1941, just three days before the notorious pro-Nazi pogrom against Jews in Baghdad [1 & 2 June 1941]. Hence, it would have been only natural for Eden to keep British troops outside Baghdad at that time from intervening to stop the massacre of the Jews. Be that as it may, British troops there at that time did not intervene.

When the Jewish underground in Israel was fighting for independence and to have the UK let Jewish Holocaust survivors into the country, the UK continued to refuse to honor its commitments under the mandate. Although Pres. Truman had called for 100,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors to be allowed into Israel by the UK in 1946, by 1947 the US State Dept and other USGovt agencies were encouraging the Arab war effort against the as yet unborn Israel. Here the US slipped into the role of continuing the British anti-Jewish, pro-Arab, pro-Muslim policy.
The UK in Israel supported Arab forces against the Jews, fighting the Jews directly in Yafo [Jaffa] and in Jerusalem.

In 1952, British and US operatives encouraged and helped Nasser and his pro-Hitlerite "Free Officers" to overthrow the parliamentary monarchy of King Farouq. Mubarak belonged to the regime put in place by Nasser and the "Free Officers" in 1952. In that year, American mainstream publications celebrated the fall of King Farouq by explaining that the rebels were against Farouq's "corruption." In Iraq, in the 1960s and 1970s, the USA supported the Arab national socialist Ba`ath Party, the crowning glory of which was Saddam Hussein. After Israeli aircraft had destroyed the Iraqi Osirak atomic development facility [1981], the US administration wanted to denounce Israel for this defensive action, although it did not because public opinion was with Israel. The US also formally "recognized" the PLO in November 1988, although high level contacts with the PLO had gone on for decades.

In early 1979, the Carter Administration --its foreign policy directed by the Sorcerer's Apprentice, Zbigniew Brzezinski-- helped the Islamist fanatic Ayatollah Khomeini, take over Iran. Was Zbig unaware of Khomeini's fanaticism and bigotry? It was no secret to specialists on Iran at that time where Khomeini stood. Likewise, James Clapper, Obama's director of national intelligence [Intelligence?], knows where the Muslim Brotherhood stands and pretended it was something else. Interestingly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national insecurity advisor has also been an advisor to Obama. Zbig's grand theory was and --apparently-- still is to build up Islamic fanaticism. No doubt in pursuit of this purpose, Obama sent Zbig to Damascus in February 2008, months before his election. Zbig was probably supposed to tell Junior Assad that if Obama were elected, then the Assads would have a friend in the White House. The fact that Damascus and Assad's very own mouth are world centers of Judeophobic agitprop and hate indoctrination, did not deter either Zbig or Obama.

These facts among others are the background to Obama administration efforts to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt. I think that the disciples of Zbig succeeded all too well in Iran. We don't need another Khomeini, this time in Egypt. But stopping Obama's goal from being realized needs constant criticism of Obama for the dangerous course that he is taking.

Sources
Mitchell Bard, The Arab Lobby (New York: Harper Collins 2010) [a lengthy excerpt is found here]
Isaiah Friedman, British Pan-Arab Policy, 1915-1922 (2009) [see synopsis here & here]
Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return (London 1978)
George Horton, The Blight of Asia [Horton was the US consul in Smyrna in 1922]
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair
Lord Kinross, Ataturk; A Biography of Mustafa Kemal (1965)

Richard Meinertzhagen, Middle East Diary
Jacques de Morgan, The History of the Armenian People (Boston: Hairenik Press 1918)
Horace Samuel, Revolt by Leave (London)
E K Sarkisian & R G Sahakian, Vital Issues in Modern Armenian History (Watertown, MA: Armenian Studies 1965)
Shlomo Slonim, "The 1948 American Embargo on Arms to Palestine," Political Science Quarterly, (Fall 1979)
Bernard Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945.
_ _ _ _ _ _. The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929. (British Historical Society)
Meir Zamir [see several online articles by Zamir on British policy in the 1944 to 1948 period in HaArets & Jerusalem Post]
William Ziff, The Rape of Palestine

- - - - - -
One Jerusalem on the changes in Egypt [includes link to Victor David Hanson].
2-24-2011 At least one mainstream journalist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, talks common sense about the Muslim Brotherhood. If he could only get the ears of Obama, Hilary, James Clapper, and the other fantasy mongers in the Administration [here]
Another MSM journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, also gives helpful info about the MB's hatred of Jews, specifically Qaradawi's explanation that Muslim hatred of Jews is rooted in Islam and that Muslims must kill all Jews before Judgment Day can come [here]. For those unfamiliar with Islamic lore, this article demonstrates that hatred for Israel is rooted in Islam's hatred for Jews and has nothing especially to do with "settlements" or "occupation."

Why Did James Clapper Falsely Claim that the Muslim Brotherhood Is "largely secular" & Not Extreme?

Just about everybody knows by now that James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence [sic!] made some dumb comments about the Muslim Brotherhood. He said that it was "largely secular". This statement was so blatantly false and indeed ridiculous that both bloggers and American politicians and former American officials ridiculed him for it and/or demanded that he leave his post. What the statement meant, that is, what its purpose was, was to get the American people to accept the Muslim Brotherhood as rulers of Egypt. Here are quotes from Clapper on the Politico site, although it is not the full statement as originally published on Politico but a short version after he had "clarified" his original remarks:

In response to questioning from Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) about the threat posed by the group, Clapper suggested that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

The Brotherhood uses the slogan, “Islam is the answer,” and generally advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a “caliphate.” [on Hot Air][disclaimer on Politico]

Clapper said later in the hearing:

Clapper said later in the hearing that the Brotherhood in Egypt runs 29 hospitals "not under the guise of an extremist agenda." He said the group fills a vacuum caused by the absence of government services, but added, "It is not necessarily with a view to promoting violence or overthrow of the state. [available on Judith Klinghoffer's blog]

Experts like Walid Phares reacted with amazement [here]. Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton expressed deep disagreement with this claim by Clapper, when interviewed by Fox News.

Let's analyze and try to characterize Clapper's statement. He portrays the MB as not extreme and not religious [obviously a lie], as innocuous and even as humanitarian and working for "social betterment." This silly characterization of MB was supported later in the statement by the claim that it runs 29 hospitals. He says that it not a disciplined, unified organization, implying that it is not a group to worry about. Rather he claims, the MB is: "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam." Now, I cannot refute his claim that the MB has "decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam." But supposing that they said it and that they "eschewed violence," is Clapper incapable of understanding that when a group like the MB is in a weak position, it might pretend to be non-violent, innocuous, generously intentioned and so on. That is called taqiyya in Arabic and has been often practiced by religio-political movements [most religious movements in Islam are also political] that need to show obeisance to a strong enemy, at least for the moment.

Of course, the word "eschew" implies that previously they had endorsed violence. In fact, the now fallen Mubarak came out of the same regime that Nasser and Sadat established in 1952, with American and British help at that time. Nasser also had MB support in his takeover in 1952. However, after the takeover was well established, the MB turned against Nasser and tried to assassinate him after which he treated the MB and its leaders very severely. Earlier, in 1948 the MB had sent a delegation of armed men to fight to prevent Israeli independence. Naturally, the British, who controlled the border at that time [before May 15, 1948], allowed the armed Muslim fanatics to cross the border to fight the Jews.

More recently, after the treaty with Israel, Sadat gave more freedom than previously to the MB. The native Egyptian Christians, the Copts, the purest descendants of the ancient Egyptians, suffered from the increased influence of the MB --and Sadat himself was assassinated by an offshoot group of the MB.

Clapper's statement is a lie and Clapper surely knows it. So he is lying to the Congress and the American people. Given many other statements and policies of the Obama administration, as well as overt and covert actions of the Obama govt, such as encouraging the pro-Hamas "Gaza Freedom" convoy that tried to break Israel's legitimate blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, we may conclude that Clapper and Obama & Co. want to promote the Muslim Brotherhood, probably as a coming government of Egypt or to ensure that MB gets a role in a future Egyptian govt. Clapper was using his presumed professional expertise to try to persuade the American people that there is nothing to fear from the MB.

Clapper clarifies [here]
Barry Rubin on Obamamaniac's Egypt policy [here] & on the MB's real aims [here]
Translation of a book by an MB official where he spells what the MB really stands for, as he sees it, not as Clapper or Obama sees it [here] [h/t Judith Klinghoffer]
John Roy Carlson on the MB's war on Israel [with British cooperation] and the MB's plans for Egyptian Jews [here]
Melanie Philips on Obama's zigzags and promotion of the MB [here]
2-15-2011 Bret Stephens of the WSJ on the Muslim Brotherhood's propensity to be all things to all men, that is, to deceive the West into thinking that the MB is somehow nice and innocuous [here]

EU to Remove Ban on Iranian Nuke Officials Coming to EU Lands

Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign affairs commissioner, is going to lift the ban forbidding the Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, to travel in EU territory. The ban was imposed on him because he was previously head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency which is working to produce a nuclear bomb, thereby violating Iran's commitment not to make a nuke bomb, a commitment undertaken by Iran when it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty back in the 1960s. Salehi was declared "persona non grata" in the EU because of his role in Iran's nuke Bomb Project. Now the British Lady [Lady Ashton is supposed to be a lady] is overlooking Iran's treaty violation, thereby encouraging Iran's nuke Bomb Project.

Lady Ashton intends to remove the ban on Salehi so that he can properly carry out his new functions.

Funny, isn't it, that "extreme leftist revolutionaries" defend the Iranian Bomb Project, and high officials of the EU do so as well?? Leading EU states plus the USA played games for years with Iran over the nuke project, setting several new deadlines in order to cater to Iran after Iran had failed to meet previous deadlines. Lately, Muhammad al-Barada`i, who covered up for Iran's bomb project as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in the fateful years of Iranian nuclear development, has been touted as a suitable leader for a new "democratic" Egypt by the Obama White House and the State Department. Islamic fanatics in the Hizbullah and other terrorist organizations also defend and support the Iranian Bomb Project. Maybe the EU and the "Left" and the jihadists all think that an Iranian bomb is just what the world needs in the 21st century. With that kind of broad agreement coming from almost everybody, maybe the world is heading towards peace!

Here is the report on this news from Guysen News, 2-9-2011.

L'Union européenne devrait lever les restrictions interdisant au ministre iranien des Affaires étrangères, Ali Akbar Salehi, de voyager dans les pays européens, à cause de sa participation dans le programme nucléaire iranien. M. Salehi occupait comme précédent poste la direction de l'Agence iranienne de l'énergie atomique, et avait été de ce fait déclaré persona non grata en Europe. La chef de la diplomatie de l'UE, Catherine Ashton, compte changer la donne afin de permettre à M. Salehi de remplir comme il se doit ses nouvelles fonctions. [ici 2-9-2011, Guysen News 11:10]

Obama White House Promotes Islamism in Egypt & Turkey

UPDATING 1-8&9&10-2011 at bottom

It has been obvious since Obama's inauguration, if not before, that his policy, foreign and domestic, was going to be openly pro-Muslim. His inauguration speech told us that the American people were made up of "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus." This was a new departure in that Jews have long been and most likely were still at that time a larger group in the American population than Muslims were. Interviews that he gave after his inauguration confirmed this impression and his pro-Muslim stance was openly expressed in speeches in Ankara and Cairo. The Cairo speech was full of groundless flattery for Islam's supposedly beneficial impact on the world and its culture. But historical falsifications to flatter the Islamic ego were no problem for someone who had already bowed down low before the Saudi king.

The other side of the coin of flattering Muslims was a harsh attitude toward Israel and the rights of Jews, particularly the right to settle throughout the Land of Israel, enshrined in international law in the mandate that the League of Nations gave to the UK to administer this country.

Now, with the Egyptian crisis, we see that Washington, led by Obama, has been pushing the Egyptian govt to bring the Muslim Brotherhood, tantamount to a fascistic organization & Nazi collaborators as far back as the 1930s, into Egypt's government. The Obama crowd coyly referred to the MB as "non-secular" forces in Egyptian society. The Obama crowd doesn't want to acknowledge that the disease, Mubarak's tyranny, could be less bad than the cure, a government in which the Muslim Brotherhood has major influence. David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post, perceives the dangers involved in Obama's pro-Muslim Brotherhood moves in Egypt:

. . . the White House's subsequent reported moves to legitimate Egypt's Islamists -- whose outlook conflicts utterly with the democratic agenda -- make no sense, and suggest a frighteningly superficial understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood's intentions and potential achievements.

Far from learning the lessons of the Islamists' skilled subversion of other pro-democracy movements, working with potential leaders of an Egyptian transition to minimize the risk of such a process recurring, and making publicly plain that there will be no ongoing American alliance with an Egypt in which an unreformed Islamist movement has even a marginal role in government, the White House seems to be actively encouraging a transitional outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood [JPost 2-6-2011]

Fiamma Nirenstein has called Obama a "bull in the Mideast china shop." That description is fitting. We could also call him and Hilary "little children playing with matches." The fires that they might set could burn away not only tyrannical regimes in Arab lands. The Muslim Brotherhood in power would be in position to cause wars between Arabs and Israel, between Arabs and Arabs, and between Arabs and European states on the other side of the Mediterranean.

Besides striving to get the Muslim Brotherhood a seat in Egypt's government, Obama & Co. have been urging the European Union over the past two years to accept Turkey as a member, although Turkey has been moving more and more in an Islamist direction ever since Erdogan's AKP party took over the country in late 2002. Obama's collaboration with Turkey was also involved in the fake "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" which sought to end the blockade of the Hamas regime in Gaza [they too are Islamists]. A few weeks after the dramatic event on the Turkish Islamist-run ship, the Mavi Marmara, one of Obama's political friends in DC gave the Woodrow Wilson public service award to the Turkish foreign minister, Davutoglu. [on the Mavi Marmara & the pro-Hamas "Freedom Flotilla," see posts on this blog from late May through June].

Fiamma Nirenstein points out that the results of the Turkish referendum in September 2010 clearly show that Turkey is moving closer to Iran than to Europe [unless maybe Europe is going in the same direction?]. Yet, she goes on, Western political elites in Brussels at the EU headquarters and in Washington perceive the increase in power for the Islamist govt of Erdogan as "democratization" and such like Good Things. [here in English translation below the Italian original].

Other articles from the Italian press on the same issue [qui]

What the Muslim Brotherhood stands for in its own words [here]

Barry Rubin on Obama's role in the Egyptian crisis [here]

Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini on the prospect of a MB takeover of Egypt [from the Italian ANSA press service]:

EGYPT: ITALY'S FM, NO TO RADICAL ISLAMISM IN POWER

31 January , 11:08

(ANSAmed) - BRUSSELS, JANAURY 31 - "We do not want a solution that leads to radical Islamism finding itself in power". This is according to the Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, who has arrived at the EU Council in Brussels for talks on the Egyptian crisis. [Frattini added] "this would not be democracy". [ANSAmed here]

It seems like Obama's radical stance demanding inclusion of the MB in a transitional govt and the immediate departure of Mubarak, a stance since softened, had Italy --and no doubt some other EU states-- spooked. This is despite Frattini's diplomatic pretense that Italy, the EU and the USA all shared the same position. Angela Merkel too expressed apprehension that radical Islamists might take over Egypt. Her foreign minister Westerwelle had joined the USA-UK position that Mubarak had to get out right away, contradicting her. But Westerwelle too, like the French leaders, was probably just being diplomatic by showing a unified position with the USA.
- - - - - - - -
UPDATING 2-8-2011 Barry Rubin on foolishness about the uprising in Egypt [here]. Interfaith, freedom revolutions don't always work out in favor of freedom, as in the Young Turks' uprising in 1908.
2-8-2011 ANSA, Italian Press Agency -- The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the EU issued a report on Turkish ill treatment of minorities, mentioning particularly the Kurds and the Rom [Gypsies] [qui].
2-9-2011 Jeff Jacoby on the inacceptability of the Muslim Brotherhood in any position of power in Egypt [here]
Lee Smith on the dangers the MB and of one of its co-thinkers, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for years and a "popular" star on al-Jazeera TV. Qaradawi's incitement of hatred and his disingenuous doubletalk are "popular" on the Qatari station [here]
George Jonas on al-Barada`i, the MB and Obama [here]
2-10-2011 Michael Young on how the structure of the present Egyptian regime cannot be overlooked or bent to Obama's current whims [here]

The Muslim Brotherhood, a Ravenous Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

UPDATED 2-4&5&6-2011 at bottom

The Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk are wolves in sheep's clothing. It is now fashionable to depict the Islamic bigots and warmongers as mere "democrats" and "a few agitated Islamist fundamentalists" [as by Zbig Brzezinski].
Here is Richard Cohen, a Washington Post journalist, with whom I usually disagree, on the MB:

A democratic Egypt or a state of hate?

Richard Cohen

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Things are about to go from bad to worse in the Middle East. An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is nowhere in sight. Lebanon just became a Hezbollah state, which is to say that Iran has become an even more important regional power, and Egypt, once stable if tenuously so, has been pitched into chaos. This is the most dire prospect of them all. The dream of a democratic Egypt is sure to produce a nightmare.

Egypt's problems are immense. It has a population it cannot support, a standard of living that is stagnant and a self-image as leader of the (Sunni) Arab world that does not, really, correspond to reality. It also lacks the civic and political institutions that are necessary for democracy. The next Egyptian government - or the one after - might well be composed of Islamists. In that case, the peace with Israel will be abrogated and the mob currently in the streets will roar its approval.

My take on all this is relentlessly gloomy. I care about Israel. I care about Egypt, too, but its survival is hardly at stake. I care about democratic values, but they are worse than useless in societies that have no tradition of tolerance or respect for minority rights. What we want for Egypt is what we have ourselves. This, though, is an identity crisis. We are not them.

It's impossible now to get a fix on what is happening in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood seems to be lying low. Is this a reflection of weakness or canniness? The Brotherhood remains the only well-organized institution in Egypt other than the military. It has been underground for generations - jailed, tortured, infiltrated, but still, somehow, flourishing. Its moment may be approaching.

Under a different name (Hamas), the Muslim Brotherhood runs the Gaza Strip. Hamas's charter states unequivocally that it wants to eradicate Israel. It mentions the 1978 Camp David accords, and not with admiration. ("Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle through the treacherous Camp David Agreement.") No doubt that in an Egyptian election, the call to repudiate the treaty will prove popular - as popular as the peace with Israel has not been.

The Muslim Brotherhood's most influential thinker was the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb. He was hanged in 1966, but not before he had managed to turn out a vast amount of writings. He showed almost superhuman courage and was, in many respects, a formidable man. But he was also a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, an anti-Semite and a fervent hater of most things American. As if to prove that familiarity breeds contempt, he had spent about two years in the United States.

The Egyptian crisis has produced the usual blather about the role of America. The United States remains powerful and important, but it has already lost control of events - not that it ever really had it. Moreover, it hardly matters what Washington now says. The Islamists of the Brotherhood do not despise America for what it does but for what it is. Read Qutb's purplish alarm at the dress and appearance of American women. Read his racist remarks about blacks. The Islamic state Qutb envisioned would be racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian as well. It would treat women as the Taliban now does - if only because the Taliban, too, reveres Qutb. He rejected a clemency offer, saying his words would matter more if he was dead. He was right.

Majority rule is a worthwhile idea. But so, too, are respect for minorities, freedom of religion, the equality of women and adherence to treaties, such as the one with Israel, the only democracy in the region. It's possible that the contemporary Islamists of Egypt think differently about these matters than did Qutb. If that's the case, then there is no cause for concern. But Hamas in the Gaza Strip, although recently moderating its message, suggests otherwise. So does Iran.

Those Americans and others who cheer the mobs in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities, who clamor for more robust anti-Mubarak statements from the Obama administration, would be wise to let Washington proceed slowly. Hosni Mubarak is history. He has stayed too long, been too recalcitrant - and, for good reason, let his fear of the future ossify the present. Egypt and the entire Middle East are on the verge of convulsing. America needs to be on the right side of human rights. But it also needs to be on the right side of history. This time, the two may not be the same.

- - - - - - - - - - - -end of Cohen's op ed - - - - - -

Lately, the MB has formed an odd couple with Muhammad Barada`i [Mohammed Barade'i] Now Barada`i, who was such a disaster at the International Atomic Energy Agency, because he promoted the Iranian Nuke Project, is being promoted in turn by US diplomacy as a transitional ruler for Egypt. It is time to examine the personal record of this assistant to Iran's aspirations to nuclear terrorist capability. Although an Egyptian, Barada`i at the IAEA was partial to Iran's policy. This was against Egypt's interest. Indeed, most Arab states opposed the Iran Bomb Project, seeing it as a threat to their states and govts. But Barada`i pretended that the US and Israeli bombs [assumed in Israel's case] were the main problem.

The articles linked to below take up both Barada`i and the MB:

Here is Barry Rubin on Barada'i and the MB [& here] and on the fanatical Muslim distaste for democracy.

Like a typical apologist for tyrants and warmongers, Barada`i does his thing.

But Barada`i's own supporters see him as a "transitional figurehead." This report in the Wall Street Journal also tells of a "shadow legislature" aiming to replace Mubarak. It includes MB leaders and wants to use Barada`i merely to bring down Mubarak. Remember what happened to the so-called "moderates" in Iran who supported Khomeini's overthrow of the Shah. [this paragraph added on 2-4-2011]

More of Barada`i's hatred of Israel [here] & here]

Elder of Ziyyon and Bataween of Point of No Return bring evidence about the MB from the 1940s, both from the book Cairo to Damascus by Armenian-American author, John Roy Carlson [Avedis Derounian / Arthur Derounian] and from Egyptian Jews [for this testimony see both links to Point of No Return, but especially the comments on Butros-Ghali's propaganda slop here. Butros Butros-Ghali was once secretary-general of the UN].

Ambassador Dore Gold on the MB and its support for Barada`i as a temporary figurehead leader and, I would add, like Mohammed Naguib who fronted for Nasser in Egypt in 1952.

Yossi Klein HaLevi in the NYTimes on an MB rise to power in Egypt and its meaning for Israel [here]

Carlo Panella on Obama's Middle Eastern policy after the Egyptian uprising [qui e qui]

Once again Obama's diplomacy recklessly favors enemies of Israel and enemies of civilization.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 2-4-2011 Barry Rubin asks: Who's Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? [here], & talks about what Egypt would be like under MB hegemony [here] & reports that the MB will disavow the peace treaty with Israel if it takes power [here & Russian report here]
Also See paragraph above starting "But Barada`i. . . "
On 2-6-2011 More by Barry Rubin [here], on silly ideas about Egyptian reality, particularly those of the NYT's roger cohen.
UPDATING 2-5-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein calls Obama "The Bull in the Mideast China Shop" [English translation below the Italian original here]. She also sees through the slimey faker, al-Barada`i [in Italian qui]
Two short items on the MB wanting to end the peace with Israel [unsatisfactory as it is for Israel-here & here]
Food being smuggled out of Gaza to Egypt [here][So much for the fake "human rights" gangs that claim that Israel is starving Gaza]
Hatred of Jews on the pro-govt, pro-Mubarak side too [here]. Indeed, after the treaty with Israel, both Sadat and later Mubarak encouraged or allowed MB Judeophobic agitation besides that carried on state-owned media and in state schools. So Mubarak is --to an extent-- hoist on his own petard, so to speak.
The Wall Street Journal cites the Hamas takeover of Gaza after an election [2006] as a cautionary tale against demanding that the MB be allowed to take part in elections in Egypt [here]. An election victory for the MB, like that for Hamas, would be "one man, one vote, one time." What is key here is "one time." Once in power the MB, like its affiliate Hamas, would not conduct further elections or allow free elections or other liberal, democratic freedoms. This is besides its love for jihad.
UPDATING 2-6-2011 The NYTimes depicts the MB following as decent and respectful, and their leader is depicted as cultured & civilized and living in a "tasteful" apartment [here]