Egyptian Copt Blames Obama for Abetting Egyptian Chaos

Naguib Sawiris is one of the top businessmen in Egypt and a member of the Coptic Christian minority, the purest descendants of the ancient Egyptians. He shared his views of Obama in an interview with Style, a monthly magazine of the Italian paper, Corriere della Sera, just about a month after Obama's political intervention in Egypt --Mubarak must step down-- set off the series of events that seems likely to bring the anti-peace, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian Muslim Brotherhood to power in the Land of the Nile. Sawiris' words seem prophetic:

Style: . . . your position has recently changed; you were a supporter of Barack Obama and now, on the other hand, you criticize him bitterly.
NS: Like many I had placed so many hopes on him. But he has done little, too little, and today the United States is still thrashing about in the quagmire of a deep, aggressive crisis.
[Style di Corriere della Sera, March 2011]

Style: You bemoan the lack of action of a president who in a short time carried out a reform, such as the health reform for which decades would be needed in other countries.
NS: Apart from the fact that many, including myself, do not approve the way in which the health reform was carried out. . . But what was most needed for America in these years was a policy of economic and jobs recovery. . .

NS: If I stood for election in this country, I would pick up a lot of votes.
Style: And why don't you do it?
NS: It is complicated. I am a Christian and this is a Muslim country.

NS: I must say that I don't like President Barack Obama. He projects weakness, sends the wrong message, feeds too many expectations. . .

NS: We must be very tough and have no mercy on the terrorists. Whoever kills innocent persons in the name of religion deserves to die. It doesn't seem to me that Obama is firm in the struggle against Islamic terrorism. He is too conciliatory.
Style: Do you also consider as terrorists the Palestinians who are fighting against the Israelis?
NS: Yes, if they go to Tel Aviv to put a bomb in a discotheque. Yes, when they kill women and children with Hamas' rockets. Not when they struggle in Gaza against the Israeli occupation.

Style: And as a businessman, how do you judge Obama?
NS: . . . Frankly, there is nothing about him that I like. . .

Sawiris negotiated at one stage as Mubarak was falling with Omar Suleiman and the Egyptian opposition. He wants a Marshall Plan for Egypt funded by Europe, the USA and the Gulf states, in order to create jobs and guarantee stability in Egypt. He supported Omar Suleiman for the transitional period after Mubarak and also feared constitutional chaos.

NS: And then it is important that first the Constitution should be changed because with the present constitution Egypt might fall into juridical chaos, which might benefit the Muslim Brotherhood.
[Style di Corriere della Sera, March 2011]

This last statement by Sawiris was prophetic. Now we see that Egypt is in chaos in more ways than one. Its economy is failing, the state is running out of money needed to buy basic foods abroad, Muslim mobs attack native Christians, Islamist leaders --including of the Muslim Brotherhood-- and candidates for office want to go back to a state of war with Israel, etc etc. Sawiris openly calls Obama soft on Islamic terrorism. And Obama, by pushing Mubarak out and letting his "intelligence experts" [like Clapper] pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate ["largely secular"] or even letting it be said that the United States was not opposed to religious groups taking part in the Egyptian government, helped a great deal to bring on today's chaos and crisis in Egypt which threatens Middle Eastern peace and stability in the Mediterranean region.

Sawiris founded Orascom Telecom, the largest in the Middle East, which he sold not long ago. He also is chairman of Wind telecom in Italy and has other telecom interests. Forbes lists his net worth at over $2.9 billion.

Why Did Obama Harshly Scold Mubarak, Demanding that He Leave, while Coddling Bashar Assad?

UPDATING 4-23&24&26&27&5-7-2011See at bottom

Many have noticed that Obama and Hilary were rough with Mubarak, telling him to leave office just a few days into the mass demonstrations in Egypt, whereas it took them two or three weeks to tell Qaddafi to get out, and whereas Washington --Obama, Hilary, the State Dept-- are still coddling Bashar [Basher] Assad. What explains this differential treatment? Many competent commentators have taken a stab at the question. Lee Smith wrote a fine article on the subject. Just this afternoon [4-22-2011, Israel Channel 1], Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University, pointed out that Hilary called Basher a "reformer" just a few weeks ago, albeit to widespread contempt. Zisser, like Smith, discussed the differential treatment for Mubarak who was not exceptionally bad or cruel, as Arab rulers go, and for Bashar, who --Zisser pointed out-- is being protected or coddled or treated leniently by the Washington mob. But Zisser did not claim to have an answer.

Why this differential treatment? In fact, there is one and the same answer for Obama wanting to get rid of Mubarak while keeping Assad in power. Obama and his evil advisors and mentors, like Zbig Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton, want Israel to be encircled by enemies. So Obama encourages Turkey against Israel, scoffing at the Armenian-Americans who naively supported him on account of his promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. He encouraged the Code Pink and Free Gaza campaigners who teamed up with the Turkish jihadists on last May's convoy to Gaza. Lee Hamilton's Woodrow Wilson Center even gave Turkish FM Davutoglu the Woodrow Wilson award a few weeks after the Mavi Marmara incident. No doubt as a reward for embarassing Israel in world public opinion.

Syria is a very hostile state on Israel's northeast which supports the equally hostile Hizbullah on Israel's north in Lebanon. Both, by the way, are clearly Judeophobic, not merely "critical" of Israel. The Hizbullah, well-armed by Iran and Syria, could not exist in Lebanon as a state within a state --as the hegemonic body in the state-- without Syrian support. Iran which is farther away threatens Israel with the Bomb and with long-distance rockets. Obama was counting on a strong, stable anti-Israel front on Israel's north and northeast to threaten and pressure Israel, joining with Western diplomatic pressure from the US, UK, EU, etc. The protest movement in Syria threatens that strong, stable anti-Israel front.

Mubarak on the other hand was cooperating with Israel on security matters, especially in regard to Hamas and Iran. To be sure, he was violating the 1979 treaty with Israel in regard to anti-Israel agitation and propaganda in the Egyptian media, schools, etc. But he was cooperating, if only minimally, on security, especially in regard to Hamas. Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of Mubarak, and of course a bitter enemy of Israel and the Jews based on medieval Islamic teaching. Obama wanted to much increase MB influence over Egyptian policy towards Israel, if not to bring the MB into the govt. Recall that a US official said --before Mubarak's ouster-- that "non-secular" factors in Egyptian society and politics should be brought into the govt for the sake of "democracy." "Non-secular" factors was a clear reference to the MB. And now, the post-Mubarak regime is giving in to various MB demands, warning of renegotiating the agreement for purchase of Egyptian natural gas. The two serious candidates for president of Egypt, `Amr Musa --head of the Arab League-- and the repulsive Muhammad al-Barada`i who helped along the Iranian Bomb Project, are talking against Israel, warning of intervening against any Israeli attack on the Hamas and demanding reopening of the 1979 treaty besides the gas purchase agreement. Obama's endeavors to encircle Israel with a more hostile power on the south [more hostile, less amenable to peace with Israel than Mubarak was] have borne fruit. That has happened. Note that democracy was never Obama's real concern. Demonstrators have been shot since Mubarak's ouster. Dissidents like Maikel Nabil Sanad are now in jail. Ten or more Copts were killed in clashes with MB thugs. The army damaged Coptic monasteries. Moreover, the people in Egypt are poorer and less secure economically than before the ouster, albeit things were bad then too.

So here Obama succeeded in having a more anti-Israeli front set up on the south. Yet, the northern anti-Israel front is being shaken by pesky demonstrators in Syria who demand freedom for their country and improvement in their situation. The Syrian demonstrations are a blow to Obama's encirclement strategy. So after more than a month of anti-regime protests in Syria, Obama and his Washington gang have not demanded that Assad get out. The criticisms from the State Department are relatively mild. Of course, the Assad regime is immensely more bloodthirsty than Mubarak ever was. Obama's concern is not with decency or democracy but with encircling Israel with very hostile powers. Hence, the answer to the question asked by Lee Smith and Eyal Zisser is one and the same. Obama wants to encircle and besiege Israel. Assad serves that purpose much better than Mubarak.

Also consider why Obama has been soft on Iran, friendly to Erdogan's Turkey and Pakistan [another Muslim fanatic state].

Lastly, consider the role of the so-called "left" and the so-called "human rights" organizations. These bodies, insofar as they focus their hatred on Israel, serve the anti-Israel policy of the EU, UK, and the old hatred for Jews of the US State Department. The self-styled "human rights" outfits like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hate Israel more than they love or believe or serve the cause of human rights. The anti-Israel "Left" cares much less about exploited, ill-treated workers --in Abu Dhabi or Dubai, let us say-- or about the vast capital concentrated in the hands of the Arab oil billionaires than they do about harming Jews in Israel. They are unwitting tools at best of the UK, EU, & US State Department.

- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 4-23-2011 Can it be true that goody goody "peace groups", like CodePink for instance, can be considered "tools" of wealthy and powerful Establishment forces? Alana Goodman thinks so. She wondered why "the anti-war movement has pretty much evaporated under President Obama". She concludes that "the anti-war movement was little more than a partisan anti-Bush movement. Obama has continued most of Bush’s counterterrorism tactics, increased AfPak [Afghanistan-Pakistan] drone strikes, kept open Guantanamo Bay, sent the U.S. into a war in Libya and tinkered with Miranda rights for terrorists. And yet no massive anti-war protests greet him in California, nobody burns him in effigy, nobody chants that he’s 'the real terrorist.'" [here]
Simon Tisdall admits that Western govts are soft on Assad the Basher, some --such as the US & UK-- wanting to keep him in office supposedly for the sake of "Israel-Palestine peace efforts." The so-called "peace efforts" & "peace process" are thinly disguised efforts to weaken Israel and thereby give the Arabs a chance to finish Hitler's work. As I say above, the Obama gang wants to maintain a strong, stable anti-Israel front on Israel's northern & northeastern borders. [Tisdall here]
Walter Russell Mead points out that the reasons given for US intervention in Libya are present "in spades" in Syria. Mead also reminds us that, "For decades now, Syria has been a principal state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Hezbollah and Hamas would not exist in their present forms without Syrian protection and support. On its own behalf, and as Iran’s closest strategic ally in the Arab world, Syria has a long record of arming, training and sheltering terrorists." [here]
Washington Times editorial 4-23-2011 [here] supports Alana Goodman's premise that the "anti-war movement" dried up under Obama and her conclusion that the "anti-war movement" under Bush was mainly a partisan movement cynically manipulated by Democrats [here].
4-24-2011 Elliott Abrams notes the disrepancy in Obama's positions toward Mubarak and Assad respectively. Abrams calls for stronger US action.
William Harris says that Bashar the Basher is committing war crimes. Further, Harris does not think very highly of Obama's Syria policy: "It is difficult to think of anything more obstinately counter-intuitive than Barack Obama's reluctance to give up on the Syrian dictatorship and the bankrupt policy of "engagement" [with Assad]. Morality, strategic interest, and simple good sense together demand an end to the nonsense about reforming what cannot be reformed; if it survives, the dictatorship will be so blood-soaked that no decent person could "engage" its leadership. On the other hand, a new Syria will mean a new Middle East, with the Iranian theocracy's capability in the Levant dealt a stunning reverse and new prospects for a real Arab-Israeli peace process. " [see here]
Carlo Panella has written several pieces about Syria: "Assad First Slaughters the Demonstrators, Then He Calls Them Martyrs"[in Italiano qui] e "Nazi Repression in Syria. . ." [qui] e "Assad's Opponents" qui.
Wall Street Journal on the Syria lobby in Washington [here].
4-27-2011 Aaron David Miller, ex-State Dept, informs us that "the Assads hold a special place in the schemes and dreams of U.S. policymakers." But, but. They're bloodthirsty bastards, aren't they? How could Washington possibly like them? [here]
Lee Smith asks "Why Is Obama Protecting Assad?" [here]. He quotes Michael Doran who writes that Obama was counting on Assad's Syria to be part of a general, comprehensive "peace" agreement between Israel and the Arab states. Doran writes: “the Obama administration has made the Arab-Israeli peace process the organizing principle of its Middle East policy.” Getting rid of Assad would somehow thwart that purpose. Doran implies that Assad staying in power in Syria is essential to this "peace" strategy. Doran doesn't explain why a Syrian govt without the Assad clan could not also make "peace" or even peace with Israel. Or be just as likely or just as unlikely to do so.
Lee Smith concludes: "the Obama White House’s Syria policy is not pragmatic and cautious. Rather, it is adventurist and ideological. The administration is sheltering Damascus in order to salvage its own bankrupt Middle East policy. If he loses Assad, Obama is lost in the region and the administration will be forced, obviously against its will, to recalibrate. The question is, how much will U.S. interests suffer in the meantime?" [here]. What Lee Smith and Doran say fits in with what Aaron David Miller wrote: "the Assads hold a special place in the schemes and dreams of U.S. policymakers."
Syrian oppositionist Farid Ghadry asks where the West is in Syria's time of travail. He especially wants to know why Erdogan of Turkey wants to send a "freedom flotilla" to Hamas-ruled Gaza but is not interested in sending a similar "freedom flotilla" to the Syrian people [here].
Elliott Abrams on Obama's Syria policy [here]
Julian Borger on British Syria policy since Junior Basher rose to power in 2000 [here]
St Andrews University in Britain said to be embarassed over Syrian funding for a "Syrian Studies" center [here]. A pimp of the pen like Patrick Seale, a toady for the Syrian regime, is an advisor to the center.
Washington Times editorial scolding Obama's policy ["The Nobama Doctrine"] & calling for intervention to save the Syrian people [here]
Lee Smith has more on why Obama & Company are soft on the Assads [here]: ". . . in place of a rational intellect and a moral center, all the White House has is an imaginary peace process, a pipe dream that requires the “reform-minded” Bashar al-Assad to come to his senses and engage with Washington."
4-30-2011 James Traub gives reasons why he thinks that Western powers were so fond of Syria and Bashar the Basher [here]
Elliott Abrams complains about the soft Obama adminstration response to Syrian govt physical abuse of an American diplomat [here]
Jonathan Spyer takes on the Israeli fools [Uri Sagi, Alon Liel, etc] who want a "deal" with Assad's Syria and need the West to prop him up until that will o'the wisp eventuality [here]
Barry Rubin points out that Assad's Syria has never been a real partner for peace for Israel despite what the Obama and previous US administrations have "believed" or pretended to believe. This should have been known and understood in the West as far back as the 1960s. [I believe that it probably was understood in the West]. He goes on to point out the danger of surrendering Israel's natural defense of the Golan Heights to Syria. How can we know in advance that the Assad gang or any succeeding regime in Syria will keep a peace treaty with Israel if it controls the strategic advantage of the Golan Heights? [here]
Barry Rubin points out that everybody --every Western govt, in particular-- should have [& could have] known just how bad the Syrian regime was many years ago. But up till the recent revolt, the Western govts were playing dumb about Junior Assad, Bashar the Basher [here].
Another piece by Barry Rubin, if combined with his two articles linked to above on Syria, supports my argument that Obama and his gang want Israel to be surrounded by hostile powers. Barry might not agree explicitly with my sound inferences from his analyses.
5-7-2011 Barry Rubin despairs over any decent response to the Syria crisis emerging from Washington's Foggy Bottom [and Foggy Top][here]

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]

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]

More on Apartheid -- Arab-Muslim Religious Apartheid in Egypt

UPDATING 10-1-2010 &1-12-2011

Responsible Arab & Muslim bodies advocate religious apartheid. Of course, the dhimma system which began as a means for the Arab-Muslim conquerors to oppress, economically exploit and humiliate native subject peoples in their new empire always had aspects of apartheid, although based more on religion and nationality than on skin color and biological race. In order to accommodate modern times and modern medical science, the Muslim apartheid system has been updated.

"The Union of Egyptian Physicians has recently announced [2008] that transplants between persons of 'divergent creeds or nationalities' should be forbidden, the transgressors punished. This decision not only surpasses the Parliament [of Egypt] (where a new law on this matter is still under discussion) but it especially signals an aggravation of the tense relations between Egyptian Christians and Muslims." [Corriere della Sera, 20 August 2008]

Il Sindicato dei Medici egiziani ha da poco annunciato [2008] che trapianti tra persone di "diverso credo o nazionalita" vanno proibiti. [Corriere della Sera, 20 Agosto 2008]

The idea for this ban came from the Muslim Brotherhood who control the Physicians Union, according to Nabil el-Gindi, a doctor. He adds that the Islamist physicians "say that it is needed to avoid the organ trade, that rich Christians now buy them [organs] for two pounds [Egyptian pounds] from poor Muslims."

I have not ascertained whether this decision by the physicians union was written into law or if some similar bill became law. However, this is how the majority of Egyptian physicians think, this is how the Muslim Brotherhood thinks. And some people in Washington and London are eager to negotiate with the Hamas which is the Palestinian Arab affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many in DC and London are eager to have the MB allowed to take over the Egyptian govt since it probably has majority support in Egypt. Then the anti-democratic MB could be dealt with as a democratically elected governing party because it could probably win a majority vote.

El-Gindi informs us that in Egyptian hospitals and medical schools, Coptic Christians, the purest native Egyptians, are discriminated against. He reports that some of the best Coptic physicians leave the country, forced to emigrate. One of them, Magdi Yacoub, is a world famous cardiologist, now living in London.

Jimmy Carter has not noticed this situation. Or if he has, he has been quiet about it. Of course, neither the well-funded "human rights" and civil rights bodies, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, nor the UN's so-called "human rights council", is interested in the openly avowed support for apartheid by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor in the regular oppression and humiliation undergone by Copts, native Egyptian Christians, in Egypt. Only Israel can do wrong. Only Israel is to be accused.

These "human rights" and "civil rights" bodies are manipulative instruments trying to influence and manipulate public opinion. They can rightly be called Judeophobic or antisemitic.

UPDATING 10-1-2010
As of early 2010, Egypt had not yet passed a law on transplants. What is significant is the attitude of Egyptian physicians themselves who favor banning transplants between persons of different religions or nationalities. Bear in mind that Muhammad Atta's family were Egyptian physicians and Dr al-Zawahiri, Ben Laden's second in command [or perhaps top commander of al-Qa`ida, if Ben Laden is indeed dead, as some believe] is an Egyptian physician.

Here is another report:

The Egyptian Medical Association, through its spokesman on August 18 [2008], denied that a bill in the Egyptian parliament would discriminate between Christians and Muslims by prohibiting organ transplants between members of the two faiths. The Association supports the controversial measure. “This is all to protect poor Muslims from rich Christians who buy their organs and vice versa,” explained Hamdi Al Sayed – the director of the Medical Association. Under the bill, physicians who violate the proposed law would face retribution.

Al Sayed denied any sectarianism in the proposed law saying that “if some Copts are angered by the law then why is it that Muslims are not.” Even so, Al Sayed said that under the draft law, it’s not possible for a Coptic Christian to donate organs to a Muslim and vice versa simply because donations have been restricted to family members up to the fourth degree. Al Sayed continued “…it is degrading for both religions if lets say, a poor Christian has to sell his kidney to a rich Muslim, or a poor Muslim has to sell his kidney to a rich Christian. It is not right for either religion and that is why we made this law so we can stop organ trafficking.” Finally, Al Sayed continued, “It is not about trying to promote differences between religions but it’s just to minimize the trade of organs as much as we can.”

Speaking for Coptic Christians, Bishop Marcos said “We all have the same Egyptian blood, but if the reason for the measure is to end organ trafficking, we reject it because it may also occur between believers of the same religion.” For Bishop Marcos, the Association’s decision is “very grave” since it can lead to prohibiting blood donation between Christians and Muslims [here]

More links
in English [here&here&here]

in Italian [qui & qui (citato della Repubblica)]
1-12-2011 Aftermath of Alexandria massacre on New Years Eve [here]

Miracle of Miracles -- Arab States, like Israel, Fear an Obama "Engagement" with A-jad's Iran

UPDATING 5-(7&10&11)-2009 LINK REPLACED 12-2-2010

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

The half-brights and all-dumbs and smart ignoramuses in the Obama Administration have run into a likely unforeseen obstacle to their obsessive dream of helping the Iranian ayatollahs obtain the Bomb. The six Arab sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf have

. . . concerns [about this policy that] . . . sound strikingly like those coming from the mouths of Israeli officials.
[AP, Salah Nasrawi, 6 May 2009 updated link as of 12-2-2010]

Like Israel, they fear the prospect of a fanatic Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Once upon a time the US claimed to fear nuclear proliferation. A treaty against nuclear proliferation [NPT] was duly drawn up and signed by most states, including Iran, which is now violating it. However, after years of European negotiations with A-jad's government over stopping nuclear weapons development, with new deadlines repeatedly offered when Iran did not comply with previous deadlines, the new wet-behind-the-ears administration of Barack Obama declares that it opposes the military option against the nuclear weapons development of Iran.

Obama and his crowd --divided into young wackos and scary, white starched shirt old and middle-aged white men-- claim that they know of some magical diplomatic means to stop Iran's nuclear development. They forget --or pretend not to know-- that the threat of force is also a tool of diplomacy and that "tough diplomacy" [an Obama term?] needs the threat or potential of military force to back it up, and not just tough, angry words. Or maybe the "engagement" policy is not meant at all to lead to peace but to cause more chaos in the Middle East. Anyhow, the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council [the GCC: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates] plus Egypt seem to think that any deal ensuing from the "engagement" process might endanger them and their interests.

US allies in Mideast cautious over Iran overtures -- Salah Nasrawi, [AP 6 May 2009 updated link as 12-2-2010]

Washington's efforts to start a dialogue with Iran have sent ripples of alarm through the capitals of America's closest Arab allies, who accuse Tehran of playing a destabilizing role in the Middle East.

The concerns being raised by Arab leaders sound strikingly like those coming from the mouths of Israeli officials.
"We hope that any dialogue between countries will not come at our expense," said a statement Tuesday by the six oil-rich nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who have long relied on U.S. protection in the region.

The Obama administration has been reaching out to Iran in a marked shift after shunning contacts for decades. But U.S. allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, say Tehran is not a positive force in the region with its support for Islamic militant groups such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit conveyed the concerns this week when U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who is dealing with Iran, visited Cairo.
"Iran's behavior in the region is negative in many aspects and does not help in advancing security, stability and peace," he [Aboul-Gheit] told Ross.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was in Saudi Arabia and Egypt this week, has sought to reassure the Arab allies that any contacts with Iran would be "open and transparent" and regional allies would be kept informed "so nobody gets surprised."
. . . . .

Israel and the U.S. suspect Iran's program to enrich uranium is aimed at developing nuclear weapons — a concern shared by the GCC.

"There exists a strategic and military threat (to Gulf countries) and we are against any nuclear program that isn't approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency because we believe that the Iranian nuclear program should not destabilize the region," the organization said in its statement.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's son, an increasingly influential figure in the regime, said Tuesday that Egypt and Iran also do not always see eye to eye.

"Both Egypt and Iran are key countries in the region, but we have our differences regarding the future of the region and peace," said Gamal Mubarak. Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation, has long seen Iran as a regional rival.

Egypt has become increasingly vocal over its concerns about Iran, especially following its discovery in April of what it described as a "Hezbollah cell" plotting to destabilize the country. The Iranian-backed Lebanese group has denied the accusations, while admitting it did have an operative in Egypt supervising weapons shipments to the Palestinian Hamas group.

In a rare confluence of interests with its Arab neighbors, Israel has also singled out Iran as the greatest threat to stability in the region.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with President Barack Obama later this month and is expected to push for a tough U.S. stance on Iran. Israel argues that progress in peace with the Palestinians can't happen unless Iran is reined in.

The London-based Palestinian daily, Al-Quds Al-Arabi even said the Arab moderates governments are actively working on building an alliance with Israel to counter Iranian influence in the region.
[full article - AP, 6 May 2009 updated link as of 12-2010]

Adding to its credibility is that this report comes from the Associated Press, signed by Salah Nasrawi, who bears an Arab name. Despite what Hilary [Obama's secretary of state] as well as one of Obama's Jewish flunkeys, Rahm ["Kapo"] Emanuel said, to the effect that if Israel did not come to terms with the "palestinians," Israel would not get support against Iran from Arab states, it seems that the Arabs are not listening. It seems that they too fear Iran first of all more than they worry about "progress . . . in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians."

Last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians. [Jerusalem Post, 5-4 & 5-5-2009]

Apparently, Hilary and Rahm Kapo were just making empty threats to Israel, since the Arab states in question seem to be much closer to Israel's position --on this issue-- than to the American or, perhaps, the Anglo-American position of appeasing the ayatollahs of Iran.
- - - - - - -
UPDATING 5-(7&10)-2009 Jennifer Rubin at the Contentions blog also noticed this story. See her comment and 25 reader comments.
Caroline Glick on Arab rejection of linkage between Arab-Israeli issues and the Iranian nuclear weapons development.
Yoram Ettinger on linkage between the Iranian bomb project and Arab-Israeli negotiations.
David Hazony on linkage here, particularly on "national security advisor" Jones.
LINK ADDED 12-2-2010: I have replaced the original link to this story. I found it at first on the Yahoo site whence it has unfortunately vanished. The link now shown here is to HaArets which left out the reporter's name, Salah Nasrawi.

"Peace in the Middle East -- An impossibility," quoth Moshe Sharon

Professor Moshe Sharon has clearly asserted the impossibility of peace in the Middle East. I would amend this to say that under present and foreseeable circumstances peace between the Arabs and Israel is impossible. As Sharon points out the main obstacle to peace is the Arab-Muslim attitude toward non-believers, especially the Jews whom they have oppressed as dhimmis for more than a thousand years. Their religion commands the Arabs/Muslims to make perpetual war against non-Muslim states --with truces allowed when this is for the ultimate benefit of the Muslim war machine, to give it time to rearm and regroup-- until the whole world is brought under the rule of Islam. The name that Muslims give to war for conquering the lands of non-believers [kuffar] is jihad. When non-believers are overwhelmingly militarily superior to the Muslims and are perceived by the Muslims as willing and able and ready to use that military superiority against them, then the Muslims can be very peaceful.

Sharon shows up the fatuity or the cynicism of the "peace processors" and "peacemongers" of varied and sundry stripes. Here are Sharon's words:
In the present situation in the Middle East:

On one hand, they [the Arabs] arm themselves well and get ready for war. On the other hand, they speak about "peace" and even publish "peace plans" every so often, which are meant to turn Israel into a narrow, indefensible piece of land, which can be conquered in a single offensive.
Various Israeli governments and the American State Department which is influenced by the Saudis, backed up by misled communications media, lacking information and defeatist, have convinced themselves and the public for years that the moment that the Arabs sign an agreement, whether a "peace treaty" or any other agreement, they will of necessity also honor it. While doing so, they [the Arabs] have always demanded that Israel pay for such pieces of paper with territory that is vital for its [Israel's] defense. But the Arabs have proven again and again that they only fulfill the clauses of an agreement that they choose to fulfill and only as long as it is worthwhile for them to fulfill them [such clauses].
. . . . .
Not much remains of the "peace treaty" with Egypt beyond a piece of paper which represents a continuing cease fire, much like the ones that existed between 1956-1957, 1968-1973, and 1973-1979.
Egypt takes first place in the world in antisemitic publications and their distribution. This is only one of the crude violations of the peace treaty with Israel. Even Jordan --the very existence of which is dependent on the protection that Israel grants it-- does not fulfill all of the clauses of the peace treaty that it signed, and its communications media spread anti-Israel poison. [Nativ, January 2008]
[MORE TO COME]

Sharon correctly mentions the US State Department as a problem, which he sees as stemming from its susceptibility to Saudi pressure. But he apparently does not see the State Dept as representing a much more major and central problem than he realizes. Furthermore, he attributes the State Dept's problematic nature to Saudi influence. This does not explain why the State Dept was hostile to Jews before the Holocaust in the 1930s and during the Holocaust from 1939 to 1945. In that period, Saudi oil was just beginning to be developed and the Saudi royal family had nowhere near the wealth that it possesses today, and indeed the kingdom was fairly new as kingdoms go, having been established only in 1925, as the kingdom of Nejd & Hijaz, with British approval. The Saudis modestly applied their dynastic name to the kingdom in 1932, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but their influence was very minor before King `Abdul-`Aziz ibn Sa`ud met with President Franklin Roosevelt in early 1945 on his way home from the Yalta Conference.

Sharon is professor emeritus of Islamic & Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
- - - - - - - - - -

An 18th Century Traveler Describes Dhimmitude in Egypt

Carsten Niebuhr, an 18th century Danish traveler in the Middle East, then called the Orient, published this account of being a dhimmi in Egypt.

In Cairo, no Christian and no Jew can show himself mounted on a horse. They only ride donkeys and must get off as soon as they encounter an Egyptian, even the least important. The Egyptians never go about except on a horse, preceded by an insolent servant who, armed with a big club, warns the man on the donkey to show the obligatory marks of respect for his master, by crying out: "Infidel, get off! . . ."

It is true that in Egypt these distinctions between Mohammedans and persons belonging to other religions are made on a grander scale than anywhere else in the Orient. Christians and Jews must get down to the ground even in front of the house of the Chief Cadi; in front of more than some twenty other houses where the judges give justice; in front of the gate of the janissaries, and in front of several mosques. It is not tolerated that they even pass in front of several mosques very venerated for their holiness or through the El-Karafe quarter where many tombs and prayer houses are located; they must make a detour in order to avoid these places, for the very ground on which they stand is so sacred in the eyes of the people that it could not tolerate being profaned by the feet of Infidels.
[M. Niebuhr, Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East, vol. I (Edinburgh 1792), pp 81-82. Quoted by Yahudiya Masriya, pp 29-30]

This description was confirmed not long afterwards by a member of Napoleon's scientific research staff that came to Egypt along with him. When an important personage came along in the streets of Cairo, riding on a horse, . . .

The Christians and the Jews were obliged to get off their donkeys.
[Tableau de l'Egypte pendant le sejour de l'Armee francaise, par A.G....D, membre de la Commission des Sciences et Arts, seant au Kaire, an XI, 1800, vol. I, p 14. Quoted by Yahudiya Masriya, p 30]

- - - - - - -
Note: Yahudiya Masriya [= Egyptian Jewess in Arabic] was an early pen-name used by Bat Yeor. This latter name is also a penname and means Daughter of the Nile in Hebrew.
- - - - - - -
Coming: poems of Zion, archeological updates, oppression and persecution of Jews in Jerusalem under Muslim rule