The Paradoxes of Qatar: Pro-American & Anti-American at the Same Time

Qatar hosts the headquarters of the American Central Command, which actually guided the US war on  Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2003. The same Qatar owns and operates from Qatar the Al-Jazeera TV network which broadcasts and incites in both English and Arabic, particularly  through the voice of one Sheikh Qaradawi, who preaches hatred of America. The two facilities, the CENTCOM HQ and the premises of al-Jazeera can be seen with the naked eye one from the other.

Hussein Ibish, a spokesman to the American public of Arab views --therefore he writes with relative restrain and moderation-- describes the Qatari paradox: anti-American & pro-American at the same time. He writes on the occasion of the closing down of al-Jazeera America, which never succeeded in gaining enough audience share to make the project worthwhile for Qatar:

Al Jazeera America was the latest, and perhaps most ambitious, branch of a media empire that the tiny but wealthy Gulf emirate of Qatar has used to project its influence, first regionally and then globally. The American-specific incarnation, begun in 2013, was partly an effort to rebrand for the United States the earlier iterations of the franchise, Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English. But the American network was hobbled from the start by this very legacy.

Because Al Jazeera Arabic overtly promoted Doha’s foreign policy objectives, the network was controversial and disliked by virtually every other government in the region. The Arabic station introduced a freewheeling reporting style — except for avoiding any criticism of Qatar — that transfixed Arab audiences with previously unheard-of debates.

Impartial it was not: A hefty dose of old-fashioned Arab nationalism and a strong bias for the Muslim Brotherhood, which was supported by the Qatari government, were unmistakable. This ideological orientation led to exaggerated accusations in the United States, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, that Al Jazeera served as a media affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Hyperbolic as such claims were, there was a distinctly anti-American bent to its reportage. The Iraq war, in particular, was portrayed virtually as a campaign of mass murder.

The real problem here was the Janus-faced nature of Qatari foreign policy, contradictory and ultimately unsustainable.

On one hand, the huge American military presence in Qatar is a key element of Qatari security strategy. Centcom largely ran the Iraq war out of its forward headquarters at the Udeid Air Base, which Qatar built to encourage a United States establishment there. On the other hand, Qatar gave a hugely influential platform on Al Jazeera to the Muslim Brotherhood cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who elsewhere preached that “Americans in Iraq are all fighters and invaders” whether they were military or civilian, and that it was “a duty for all Muslims” to kill them. Thus Qatar was indispensable to the American war effort in Iraq and at the same time gave credence to one of the most influential Islamic propagandists against it.

Al Jazeera English, the network’s global English-language incarnation, was much more subtle than its Arabic-language counterpart. But it, too, has played a distinct role in Qatar’s ambitious outreach.

The English channel reached its peak of influence through its unrivaled coverage of the Egyptian uprising in January 2011. Despite a pro-Brotherhood bias, its reporting of the insurrection was also extraordinarily detailed, comprehensive and informative. Even the White House was said to be relying on Al Jazeera English for information during the uprising.

Since then, though, Al Jazeera’s credibility has suffered, particularly in the Arab world. After the 2013 ouster of the Brotherhood government of President Mohamed Morsi, the English network’s Egyptian bureau fell apart when its staff members were arrested and charged with disseminating “false news.” Qatar was eventually forced to close its pro-Brotherhood Arabic service to repair relations with Egypt.

That is the baggage that Al Jazeera America inherited on its debut. . . . . 
[New York Times, 17 February 2016; emph. added] [full article here]

As far as it goes the article is interesting and informative. And, I believe, factual. However, it is curious that Ibish somehow forgets to mention another paradox: the USA, the world's great friend of liberty and enemy of Communist tyranny, tolerates the slavery the prevails in Qatar in the form of the indentured servitude of tens of thousands or more of foreign workers brought in to do the  hard and work in the  sheikdom. It is Nepalis and others, horribly treated, who build the stadiums for the 2022 world soccer championship or FIFA Mondiale. Many of them have died. But the USA does not seem to care. Neither does the so-called "Global Left" such as it is, seem to care about slavery in Qatar. Nor does the anti-Israel BDS movement seem to care. 

In the summer of 2014 when Israel was fighting against thousands of rockets shot at Israeli towns and cities by Hamas, the USA in the person of John Kerry wanted Israel to accept mediation between itself and Hamas on the part of both Turkey and Qatar, both of them Muslim states hostile to Israel. Just by the way, perhaps the US State Department thought that the fact that Qatar was financing Hamas, itself a jihadi organization, was inconsequential. Israel thought otherwise and preferred Egyptian mediation. Maybe this is explained by the fact that the US press, the contemptuously called MSM, hardly reports on the  ugly social conditions prevailing in Arab states. At least not in Qatar.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hamas, the "Left" & Qatar [here]
Marxist-Leninst enjoys favor of rich Arab amir [here]

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.

How an Academic Clown Defends Muslim Bigots from the Truth

Juan Cole epitomizes a whole school of professors and instructors of Middle Eastern, Islamic and Arabic studies who constantly seek to whitewash Arab/Muslim sins of commission or omission in word or deed. This school of academics who favor and cover up for Arab nationalism and its various specific causes, no matter what, has its counterparts in Western and Soviet foreign ministries and in the West's corps of journalists, who often operate in tandem with their diplomatic corps. Prof Martin Kramer caught Cole in a crude and sloppy cover up which ought to embarass Cole if he were susceptible to feeling embarassed over his mistakes and frauds.

Cole recently defended the Muslim Brotherhood from the truth about its genocidal plans for the Jews, not just Israelis, but Jews. An Israeli reporter who knows Arabic reported that two speakers at a Muslim Brotherhood rally held in Cairo quoted the medieval hadith that foretold that at Judgment Day the Muslims would kill the Jews. According to this Muslim fable, some Jews would hide behind rocks and trees that would in turn cry out: O Muslim, O slave of Allah. A Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him. [see here]. Cole read a translation of the Israeli's report and promptly jumped to a conclusion [not very scholarly that]. He denied that his pets of the Religion of Peace [so designated by Pres. George Bush II] could speak in such unkind terms, while using as proof a short Arabic press report of the rally which did not mention recital of a quote from Muslim literature calling for killing the Jews. But an argument from silence is never conclusive. Rather than pursue the truth of the matter, Cole failed to search for the video of the proceedings --held at the al-Azhar Islamic university in Cairo-- which was available online and was found by Martin Kramer. Kramer has the videos [here]. By the way, Hamas --now rulers of Gaza-- tucked this notorious genocidal hadith into Article 7 of the Hamas charter more than 20 years ago. So it's quite appropriate that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyyah has announced that Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. [See photos of Haniyyah hugging MB leaders.]

Now, as indicated above, it is not only journalists and professors who belong to the whitewash-the-Arabs school. Diplomats too fall into that troublesome class. The blogger Challah Hu Akbar contrasts the behavior of the chief diplomat of the US State Dept, Madame Hilary Clinton, towards Muslim Brotherhood leaders as compared with her attitude toward Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Here's the story:

Israeli media recently reported that US officials are offering numerous excuses as to why they do not wish to meet with Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during his upcoming visit. The most outrageous claim was that “we [US officials] do not want to be photographed with him.”

While US officials say they do not wish to be photographed with Lieberman, the foreign minister of the only stable country in the Middle East that’s still a reliable US ally, they seem to have no qualms being seen with Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Below is a photo of Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Egypt, meeting with Mohammad Badie, General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, on January 18. On January 11, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met with Mohammed Morsi, head of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. On January 12, former president Jimmy Carter also met with Badie. [see several affectionate photos here]

Carter of course never met a Judeophobe whom he didn't like. But the current problem is the Obama White House and the Clinton State Dept who decided to have the US ambassador to Egypt meet and be photographed with MB leaders but who not meet or be photographed with FM Lieberman. Now, the MB leader who shook hands with the US ambassador is an undeniably charming fellow. Here are a few quotes from him:

. . . the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life. . .

Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it. [here]

Funny, isn't it, that the General Guide [or Supreme Guide] of the Muslim Brotherhood can say these hateful things, including expressions of hostility to America, and then smile and shake the hands of the American ambassador [actually, an ambassadress] to Egypt? Funny, isn't it, that the Obama administration has no qualms about dealing with this hate-ridden bigot and fanatic maniac?

All the same, it ought not be forgotten that Cole is not the first prof of ME and Arabic studies to defend or cover up for repulsive and reprehensible Arab/Muslim actions. Prof William Polk was whitewashing the Arabs fifty years ago as an academic and also practiced the same policy as a high State Dept official.

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]

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]

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]

Hamas Goes along with Corruption in Noah's Time and Now

Hamas goes along with corruption both in today's world and in the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood, read last sabbath in synagogues around the world. How so?

Hamas is a Hebrew word meaning brutality, thuggery, violence and the like. It appears in Genesis 6:11.
And the Earth became corrupt before God and the earth was full of hamas.

[ ותשחת הארץ לפני האלקים ותמלא הארץ חמס [בראשית ו, יא

Isn't that true today? The earth is corrupt and full of violence, thuggery, brutality. Who can deny it? And an Arab/Muslim terrorist organization, named Hamas, is a major perpetrator of brutality and thuggery against Jews and against its own people. Yet, major governments, Western govts, that pose as defenders of civilization, the United Kingdom & United States and others, not to mention the European Union, court the Hamas. Some want to bring it into "the political process" for the sake of making peace with Israel, supposedly. Yet Hamas's charter distinctly states the aim of destroying Israel, indeed, the charter expresses the aspiration to genocide of Jews. This is done by quoting a medieval Muslim hadith tradition in Article 7. To summarize: At Judgment Day the Muslims will kill Jews. The Jews will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will address the Muslims, saying: A Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him.

Those who cannot recognize that that is a call to genocide are corrupt. I don't say that they are stupid, for even a moron can understand what it means. Yet Tony Blair and his minion in British intelligence, the aptly named Alistair Crooke, have been dealing with Hamas for years, trying to bring them into the "political process" or "peace process." Condoleeza Rice, Prez Bush II's secretary of state, insisted that Hamas had to be allowed to take part in Palestinian Authority elections, for the sake of democracy. Other than the fact that Hamas is not truly democratic --unless democracy merely means majority rule, even if minority rights are not respected-- the Oslo Accords of 1993 banned any party from Palestinian Authority elections that did not accept the Accords and the so-called "peace process." Hamas does not accept those accords and openly declares the aim of destroying Israel and killing the Jews. Nevertheless, Ms Rice demanded Hamas participation in PA elections against the disagreement of both Israel and Abu Mazen's Palestinian Authority. It was all for the sake of democracy. Ms Rice just loves democracy.

Humorists describe Hamas' commitment to democracy as: One man one vote one time. In other words, once they get in power, they will never give it up willingly.

The corruption in Washington is not limited to Rice. All sorts of think-tank half-wits, "policy wonks," are calling for contact with Hamas and its elder sister, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is the main source of Hamas ideology. These calls for an opening to Hamas and the MB are made in the name of "peace" and "democracy." Well, maybe it is all a matter of definition. I have no doubt that James Jones, the US national insecurity advisor is licking his chops at the thought of the bloodthirsty Hamas being elevated higher than it already is. Here the corrupt in Western govts embrace the party of lies and brutality, the Hamas.

Another blatant case of corruption is the United Nations, which was founded as an instrument -- the naive believed-- of attaining world peace. Within the UN, perhaps the most corrupt body is the UN "human rights commission," now renamed "human rights council." The body remains corrupt and a corruptor of the UN's original high ideals in a very Orwellian manner. Christian Rocca put it this way, in an article for Il Foglio April 27, 2005.

At the UN, the Torturers Watch over Human Rights

China, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya have three things in common: they are ferocious dictatorships, they reject the concept of human rights, and they are enthusiastic members of the UN Human Rights Commission. In 2003, Libya even presided over its work... The regimes that torture and repress and keep their own subjects in chains are never missing from the Commission. Indeed, they are the ones that seek most tenaciously to get a seat at Geneva.... Even Kofi Annan's wise men have recognized that some countries go into the Commission "not to reinforce human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize other countries."

Here's Rocca's original:

Cina, Cuba, Sudan, Siria, Arabia Saudita e Libia hanno in comune tre cose: sono feroci dittature, rifiutano il concetto di diritti umani e sono stati membri entusiasti della commissione dell’Onu sui diritti umani. La Libia nel 2003 ha addirittura presieduto i lavori, mentre nel 2002, cioè subito dopo l’11/9, gli Stati Uniti sono stati esclusi dalla commissione per effetto della strana alleanza tra le dittature e quei paesi europei contrari alla politica di Bush. I regimi che torturano e reprimono e tengono in catene i propri sudditi non mancano mai dentro la commissione, anzi sono quelli che cercano più tenacemente di ottenere uno scranno a Ginevra. La metà di quei regimi che il rapporto annuale di Freedom House definisce “the worst of the worst”, “il peggio del peggio”, vuole entrare, ed entra, nella commissione. Il motivo è semplice: dall’interno è più facile evitare le critiche per non aver rispettato i diritti umani. Anche i saggi di Kofi Annan hanno riconosciuto che alcuni paesi entrano nella commissione “non per rafforzare i diritti umani, ma per proteggere se stessi contro le critiche oppure per criticare altri paesi”.

So "human rights" are used to promote political interests of states against other states and, no doubt, against their own peoples. Meanwhile, the UN "human rights council" with its Orwellian name is working to whitewash Hamas through the ill-begotten Goldstone Report. Corrupt?

Then we have the new JStreet gang in Washington that pretends to be pro-Israel and pro-"peace." Like Condi Rice, JStreet looks with favor on Hamas, viewing it as a needed part of the "peace process." By having James Jones, the Obama White House's national insecurity advisor, as the main speaker at its Washington conclave JStreet demonstrates once again that it was created with George Soros' money to support the State Department's long-standing anti-Israel policy. Various reports in the media indicate that JStreet sees encouraging State Dept and White House pressure on Israel to make concessions to Arab mass murderers as a main part of its mission.

The last case of corruption that we will now take up [but not necessarily the least] is the censorship by Yale University of a book published by the Yale Univ Press on the Muhammad Cartoons affair. A book about this affair ought to contain the cartoons too, so that readers know what is being talked about, right? Well, not at Yale or its Yale Univ Press. Martin Kramer suggests that Yale is trying to establish monetary relationships with Saudi Arabia and the oil rich Persian Gulf states. One potential Saudi contributor to Yale is Prince al-Waleed. We wouldn't want to insult our benefactors by publishing the cartoons that they didn't like, would we? So at Yale, academic standards go out the window, while money-grubbing comes in through the front door as Yale awaits its prince charming.

Of course, quite a few other American universities have already taken big bucks from rich Arabs to set up Muslim study centers and Islamic institutes and Middle Eastern studies centers and so forth, while allowing their Islamic benefactors/paymasters to set the terms for conduct and for research limits at these centers. The American university is already corrupt. Yale is not the first.
Nor the last.

And the Earth became corrupt and full of Hamas.

Obama Affirms Evil, Sinister Anti-Jewish Racism in Cairo Speech

More Links Added at bottom 6-5-2009 & 7-20-2009

Obama's Cairo speech reaffirmed the long-standing anti-Jewish racism of US State Department policy by opposing and denying the Jewish right to live in parts of the ancient Jewish homeland -Judea & Samaria- recognized by the international community in a series of legal acts and decisions as parts of the Jewish National Home.

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

This is an evil, sinister position. It threatens the right of Jewish residence in all countries throughout the world. It ought to be condemned by decent people everywhere. Note that Obama used the word "legitimacy" rather than "legality." That is because the State Department is aware that the Jews have a legal right to live in those places, although these Judeophobic bigots don't want Jews in those places.

Again, bear in mind that Obama's position is not his own position particularly. John Foster Dulles back in the 1950s claimed that it was in the American interest to ally with the "staunchly anti-Communist" Arab/Muslim world [to use a term common at the time in media mouthpieces for the State Dept, such as Time and Life mags]. Dulles formed the Baghdad Pact for this purpose, an ostensibly anti-Soviet alliance that excluded Israel. The main stream media of the time praised Saudi Arabia as a "desert democracy" that was inimical to Communism.

What Obama is doing is promoting Dulles' old policy with a brown face, presumably making it less obviously Judeophobic, less imperialistic, more "leftist" and egalitarian, blah blah blah. In the 1950s, Dulles openly excluded Israel from his alliance with Arabs and Muslims, insinuating that Israel as a Jewish state was closer to Communists than the Arabs were.

Obama's speech acknowledges that

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.

But he does not acknowledge specifically that Arabs and other Muslims persecuted Jews "for centuries" -actually since Muhammad's time, 1400 years ago-- as mandated by the tenets of their religion in the Quran, the Hadith, Muslim jurisprudence and legal writings, etc. On this point, Dulles was more honest than Obama, acknowledging in Congressional committee testimony that Arab hatred of Jews went back to Muhammad.

Nor does Obama acknowledge that Arabs collaborated in the Holocaust, attributing the Judeophobia ["anti-Semitism"] that led to the Holocaust solely to Europe, overlooking the palestinian Arab leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni], British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem who collaborated in the Holocaust, urging Arabs over Radio Berlin to "Kill Jews wherever you find them." Husseini was only one of the Arab and other Muslim Holocaust collaborators. Husseini lived in Berlin for most of WW2, surrounded by an entourage of members of the leading Palestinian Arab families, including Khalidis, relatives of Obama's friend Rashid Khalidi and Arab propagandist, Walid Khalidi, who is comfortably ensconced at Harvard.

What Obama is doing is giving an old policy a new face. After all, he claims to be a "liberal," whatever that means today. He is a Democrat, claiming sympathy for the poor and the working class, whereas Dulles was a Republican, frankly avowing his sympathy for Big Business. Obama is brown-skinned, Dulles was white-skinned. Yet, the policy toward Israel and the Arabs is the same, albeit Dulles was more honest about it.

There is a lot more to say about his praise of Islam, overlooking the big blemishes like the oppression of dhimmis, like slavery, like the belief in perpetual jihad war until the whole world is brought under Islamic law. His ascription of the Renaissance and Enlightenment to Islamic civilization is ridiculously and grossly exaggerated while the destruction of older civilizations by Islamic jihad wars goes unmentioned by him. No doubt Obama's speech will get much more analysis and others will likely take up the many facets of it that need analysis and criticism. [here is one analysis-critique & Daniel Pipes' view & Hugh Fitzgerald's take & Egyptian Sandmonkey's too & Michael Rubin's & Martin Peretz' & Raymond Ibrahim's & Melanie Philips' & Barry Rubin's & Caroline Glick's & Gerald Steinberg's & Efraim Zuroff's & Giorgio Israel (in Il Foglio in Italian) & Michael Young of Beirut] & Elizabeth Berney.
& Morton Klein's take added 7-23-2009 [Klein is president of the Zionist Organization of America].

But the anti-Jewish Racism of Obama's hostility to Jews exercising their human and national rights by living in Judea-Samaria is what ought to be borne in mind at this time.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Just as a post-script, Obama is supposed to meet in Egypt with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood who hold frankly Judeophobic views, and indeed are hostile to all non-Muslims. This is a sinister event that may mean some very horrid outcomes in the future.