Sunday, September 25, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
WHAT JEWS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CHRISTIANS
The Region: What Jews should know... JPost - Opinion - Columnists
Most Jews today (or should I merely say many?), even the most secular, have a tremendous fear of Christians – especially fervent believers of the type represented today by Evangelicals – and conservatives. There is a material basis for this fear based on past Jewish experience. But it’s 2011; things have changed, and it’s time to reconsider these assumptions and see if they still make sense.
Let me begin by mentioning two specific situations I have witnessed that show the foolishness of this blindness:
1. In a certain city a group of Jews organized a march for Israel. Several Christian groups wanted to participate. Since some elements among the Jews disagreed with the Christians on other political issues, they canceled the march rather than participate alongside pro-Israel Christians.
2. In a certain other city, an Israeli speaker was invited to speak by the main pro-Israel Jewish group. He was also invited to speak by a respectable pro-Israel Christian group. The potential speaker was informed that if he spoke for the Christian group the pro-Israel Jewish group would refuse to have him as a speaker.
This kind of behavior is simultaneously shameful and stupid. We are not speaking here of political sophistication but about a mode of thinking equivalent to a fear of catching cooties.
True, for almost 2,000 years many Christians and their institutions have often persecuted Jews. In this short space I will not attempt to review that history or get beyond generalizations. Readers are able to do that for themselves.
For 200 years, modern conservative and nationalist thought in the West has also often persecuted Jews, in words, attitudes and actions. A good starting point for that phase is the triumph of German nationalists over Napoleon and the reversal of the French revolution’s grant of rights to Jews in those lands. And of course the culmination was in the Nazi death camps.
It is understandable, then, that Jews supported parties of the liberal and left-wing type where they were welcomed, where modernity was extolled, and where Jews believed they could integrate with the masses and thus defuse grassroots anti-Semitism. That strategy made perfect sense.
With Communism’s betrayal of the Jews, the contemporary tendency for the far Left to take over traditional social democratic and liberal institutions, and the Left’s romance with Third World (and particularly Palestinian, Arab and Islamist radicalism), the world has changed. The Left has largely abandoned Israel as a cause, often becoming antagonistic and even evincing anti-Semitism.
There is still hope for reviving the social democratic and liberal tradition of being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, but that won’t happen until the infiltration and seizure of intellectual hegemony of the far Left is defeated.
Meanwhile, there has also been a change among many Christians (especially those called Evangelicals) and conservatives toward a greater friendship regarding Jews and Israel. A key reason for this shift – and proof of its authenticity – are a set of transformations in the thinking of these groups.
Before discussing the details, though, let me make it clear that Jews do not have to become conservatives or even agree with them – or with Evangelical Christians – on a wide range of issues. What is worthwhile, however, is to accept the offer of friendship on certain specific issues, respectfully disagree on others, and not demonize such people.
As noted above, many conservatives and pious Protestants have changed their view of Jews. Factors that once made for anti-Semitism have now been reversed. Here is a brief summary:
• Formerly, Jews were seen as subverting Christianity. Now, in an increasingly secular world, Jews (even only slightly religious ones) are seen as fellow believers, allies in preserving religiosity in the face of huge challenges.
• A key element in anti-Semitism were Christian documents of Jews as the “suffering servant” whose humiliation proved Christianity to be correct, and “replacement theology,” which says that Jews are no longer the “chosen people,” that this role has now been filled by Christians. These ideas have been widely abandoned by Evangelicals. There is a new interest in – and gratitude for – the Jewish roots of Christianity, and a view of Jews as fellows in a Judeo-Christian religious community.
They are very much aware of Biblical verses that, for example, say that the creator of the universe will not bless those who attack or hate the Jewish people. There is also a real understanding of the history of the Holocaust and past anti-Semitism, along with a desire to make amends. While there are those seeking converts, of course, and some who believe that supporting Jews will bring Armageddon, these are largely outdated concepts.
• Conservatives tended to view Jews as cosmopolitan anti-nationalists, leftists and pacifists. Today, however, the existence of Israel has given a different perspective on this. Jews, in the eyes of most conservatives, have created a model nation-state, a country that is willing and able to fight in its self-defense, where religion is respected as an important element in Jewish peoplehood.
• An especially important question has been how conservatives deal with the fact that there are so many Jews on the Left, that is, among their political opponents and those who fight against religion in various ways. In the twentieth century especially, this was a huge source of anti-Semitism and a central element in Nazi doctrine.
Contemporary conservatives have, however, developed a new way of viewing this issue. First, of course, they have observed the Left’s growing antagonism toward Israel and even toward Jews. Most importantly, they view leftist and anti-religious Jews as enemies of their own people. This neatly dispenses with a traditional core issue of anti-Semitism.
Someone like, say, Noam Chomsky is not seen as part of “the Jewish conspiracy against America,” but as a person who has so broken with his Jewish roots and the interests of his people that he is as much against the Jews as he is against his country or conservative values. In a sense, this concept parallels what most Jews – especially the religious and the pro-Israel majority – also think of such people.
In France and Italy, Holland and Spain, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, conservative parties are more pro-Israel than their counterparts on the Left. This has less to do with Israeli or Jewish behavior – whatever claims are made to the contrary – than it does the philosophical and political evolution of politics within those countries.
Let me make this absolutely clear: to cooperate with liberals on supporting Israel one need not be a liberal; to cooperate with conservatives on supporting Israel one need not be a conservative. To cooperate with Christians on supporting Israel one need not be a Christian.
Of course, a distinction must be made between much larger conservative forces and smaller neo-fascist ones. The Le Pen party in France, the British National Party, and other forces continue the historic anti-Semitism of the right wing. In the United States, some right-wingers still hold traditional anti-Semitic concepts.
Yet the Jewish people have always survived via a willingness to understand the world as it is and to act as necessary without sacrificing core principles. While working to maintain and rebuild relations with real liberal and moderate social democratic forces where possible, Israel and Jews should also shake the extended hand of conservatives and Christians which is so often sincerely offered.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center (www.gloriacenter.org). He is a featured columnist at PJM (http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/) and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) journal.
Most Jews today (or should I merely say many?), even the most secular, have a tremendous fear of Christians – especially fervent believers of the type represented today by Evangelicals – and conservatives. There is a material basis for this fear based on past Jewish experience. But it’s 2011; things have changed, and it’s time to reconsider these assumptions and see if they still make sense.
Let me begin by mentioning two specific situations I have witnessed that show the foolishness of this blindness:
1. In a certain city a group of Jews organized a march for Israel. Several Christian groups wanted to participate. Since some elements among the Jews disagreed with the Christians on other political issues, they canceled the march rather than participate alongside pro-Israel Christians.
2. In a certain other city, an Israeli speaker was invited to speak by the main pro-Israel Jewish group. He was also invited to speak by a respectable pro-Israel Christian group. The potential speaker was informed that if he spoke for the Christian group the pro-Israel Jewish group would refuse to have him as a speaker.
This kind of behavior is simultaneously shameful and stupid. We are not speaking here of political sophistication but about a mode of thinking equivalent to a fear of catching cooties.
True, for almost 2,000 years many Christians and their institutions have often persecuted Jews. In this short space I will not attempt to review that history or get beyond generalizations. Readers are able to do that for themselves.
For 200 years, modern conservative and nationalist thought in the West has also often persecuted Jews, in words, attitudes and actions. A good starting point for that phase is the triumph of German nationalists over Napoleon and the reversal of the French revolution’s grant of rights to Jews in those lands. And of course the culmination was in the Nazi death camps.
It is understandable, then, that Jews supported parties of the liberal and left-wing type where they were welcomed, where modernity was extolled, and where Jews believed they could integrate with the masses and thus defuse grassroots anti-Semitism. That strategy made perfect sense.
With Communism’s betrayal of the Jews, the contemporary tendency for the far Left to take over traditional social democratic and liberal institutions, and the Left’s romance with Third World (and particularly Palestinian, Arab and Islamist radicalism), the world has changed. The Left has largely abandoned Israel as a cause, often becoming antagonistic and even evincing anti-Semitism.
There is still hope for reviving the social democratic and liberal tradition of being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, but that won’t happen until the infiltration and seizure of intellectual hegemony of the far Left is defeated.
Meanwhile, there has also been a change among many Christians (especially those called Evangelicals) and conservatives toward a greater friendship regarding Jews and Israel. A key reason for this shift – and proof of its authenticity – are a set of transformations in the thinking of these groups.
Before discussing the details, though, let me make it clear that Jews do not have to become conservatives or even agree with them – or with Evangelical Christians – on a wide range of issues. What is worthwhile, however, is to accept the offer of friendship on certain specific issues, respectfully disagree on others, and not demonize such people.
As noted above, many conservatives and pious Protestants have changed their view of Jews. Factors that once made for anti-Semitism have now been reversed. Here is a brief summary:
• Formerly, Jews were seen as subverting Christianity. Now, in an increasingly secular world, Jews (even only slightly religious ones) are seen as fellow believers, allies in preserving religiosity in the face of huge challenges.
• A key element in anti-Semitism were Christian documents of Jews as the “suffering servant” whose humiliation proved Christianity to be correct, and “replacement theology,” which says that Jews are no longer the “chosen people,” that this role has now been filled by Christians. These ideas have been widely abandoned by Evangelicals. There is a new interest in – and gratitude for – the Jewish roots of Christianity, and a view of Jews as fellows in a Judeo-Christian religious community.
They are very much aware of Biblical verses that, for example, say that the creator of the universe will not bless those who attack or hate the Jewish people. There is also a real understanding of the history of the Holocaust and past anti-Semitism, along with a desire to make amends. While there are those seeking converts, of course, and some who believe that supporting Jews will bring Armageddon, these are largely outdated concepts.
• Conservatives tended to view Jews as cosmopolitan anti-nationalists, leftists and pacifists. Today, however, the existence of Israel has given a different perspective on this. Jews, in the eyes of most conservatives, have created a model nation-state, a country that is willing and able to fight in its self-defense, where religion is respected as an important element in Jewish peoplehood.
• An especially important question has been how conservatives deal with the fact that there are so many Jews on the Left, that is, among their political opponents and those who fight against religion in various ways. In the twentieth century especially, this was a huge source of anti-Semitism and a central element in Nazi doctrine.
Contemporary conservatives have, however, developed a new way of viewing this issue. First, of course, they have observed the Left’s growing antagonism toward Israel and even toward Jews. Most importantly, they view leftist and anti-religious Jews as enemies of their own people. This neatly dispenses with a traditional core issue of anti-Semitism.
Someone like, say, Noam Chomsky is not seen as part of “the Jewish conspiracy against America,” but as a person who has so broken with his Jewish roots and the interests of his people that he is as much against the Jews as he is against his country or conservative values. In a sense, this concept parallels what most Jews – especially the religious and the pro-Israel majority – also think of such people.
In France and Italy, Holland and Spain, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, conservative parties are more pro-Israel than their counterparts on the Left. This has less to do with Israeli or Jewish behavior – whatever claims are made to the contrary – than it does the philosophical and political evolution of politics within those countries.
Let me make this absolutely clear: to cooperate with liberals on supporting Israel one need not be a liberal; to cooperate with conservatives on supporting Israel one need not be a conservative. To cooperate with Christians on supporting Israel one need not be a Christian.
Of course, a distinction must be made between much larger conservative forces and smaller neo-fascist ones. The Le Pen party in France, the British National Party, and other forces continue the historic anti-Semitism of the right wing. In the United States, some right-wingers still hold traditional anti-Semitic concepts.
Yet the Jewish people have always survived via a willingness to understand the world as it is and to act as necessary without sacrificing core principles. While working to maintain and rebuild relations with real liberal and moderate social democratic forces where possible, Israel and Jews should also shake the extended hand of conservatives and Christians which is so often sincerely offered.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center (www.gloriacenter.org). He is a featured columnist at PJM (http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/) and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) journal.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Gloria Center: Israel's New Neighbor Egypt: Radical Nationalist President; Islamist-Dominated Parliament [Article]
Gloria Center: Israel's New Neighbor Egypt: Radical Nationalist President; Islamist-Dominated Parliament [Article]
We depend on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible donation through PayPal or by credit card click here. When processing your donation through PayPal please indicate in the "Special Instructions for Seller Box" for GLORIA Center. If you would like to donate by check please write to "American Friends of IDC" and place "For GLORIA Center" on memo line. You can mail the donation to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
Amr Moussa, probably Egypt's next president, has given a comprehensive picture of his views, a foretaste of the likely policies of someone about to become the Arab world's most powerful person. One thing he said is particularly important and shocking. Read on.
Moussa, former Egyptian foreign minister (1991-2001) and head of the Arab League until his resignation takes effect on May 15, is a figure from the Egyptian establishment and the old regime. But which aspect of the old regime: that of the centrist Husni Mubarak, the moderate Anwar al-Sadat, or the radical Arab nationalist Gamal Abd al Nasser?
Moussa is the last Nasserist. He knows that the next president must also be a populist to survive. So he will bash Israel, the United States, and the Egyptian upper class. The hope is that he will be pragmatic enough to restrict his demagoguery to rhetoric.
It might seem ironic that a revolution against the old regime ends up electing as president a figure from the old regime. Yet Moussa perfectly combines experience and name recognition with radicalism. A recent Pew poll shows him with an 89 percent positive rating. Moussa's prospects look so good because the Islamists aren't running a presidential candidate. Moderate democrats, restricted to a small urban middle class constituency, can choose among four candidates running against each other, thus further splitting that vote.
Another reason Moussa's election appears likely is his deft use of the anti-Israel card. So identified is Moussa with hostility to Israel that in 2001 a popular song entitled, "I Hate Israel (I love Amr Moussa)" zoomed to the top of the Egyptian hit parade. Indeed, Moussa is now emphasizing that much of the reason for his break with Mubarak was due to his desire to take a stronger policy against Israel.
Moussa's basic argument in his Wall Street Journal interview is that Egypt has obtained nothing from peace with Israel and that Israel is completely at fault for the lack of an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement. Of course, Egypt received: the Sinai's return; the reopening of its oilfields and the Suez Canal; and the opportunity for more trade, tourism, and a lower military budget. Failure to take advantage of the latter points was due to Egyptian decisions.
In addition, Egypt and Israel had what amounts to an alliance against revolutionary Islamism, particularly Hamas in the Gaza Strip. President Moussa will reverse this policy and see Hamas as an ally, albeit one that he won't trust and might try to restrain.
Hamas is now starting to believe that by attacking Israel it will have the power to draw Egypt into a war with Israel. If that view is not countered decisively by the next Egyptian government, the result will be a return to the 1960s and a terrible major conflict. Unfortunately, the current U.S. government cannot be counted on to see and help eliminate that problem.
As the Wall Street Journal accurately notes: "U.S. and European officials said they don't see the Egypt-Israel peace agreement in danger in the near term. They say Cairo won't place in jeopardy billions of dollars in aid."
We've seen this kind of economic determinism before and every time it is applied to Middle East states it fails. Examples:
--Yasir Arafat will make peace with Israel because he wants to get a state and huge compensation funding.
--Syria will moderate and turn toward the West and away from Iran in order to get trade and investment.
--Iran would much rather become wealthy than to pursue these silly ideas about spreading Islamist revolution.
Now, here's what's really shocking in the interview. To quote the Journal's account, Moussa, "Described a political landscape in which the Muslim Brotherhood...is dominant. It is inevitable, he said, that parliamentary elections in September will usher in a legislature led by a bloc of Islamists, with the Brotherhood at the forefront."
Think about that. Even Moussa, who is anti-Islamist, admits this, though Western governments and mass media haven't figured it out yet. He's running as an independent meaning with no political party behind him. Thus, Moussa must constantly compromise with the Islamist majority in parliament that will consist of the Muslim Brotherhood plus even more radical groups.
The alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood with even more radical "Salafi" groups--the kind of people who launched a terrorist war in Egypt during the 1990s and who support Usama bin Ladin--is another dangerous development. The Salafis are the ones attacking Christians; the Brotherhood-Salafi alliance has organized two demonstrations outside Israel's embassy. In contrast, there are no riot police present and the demonstrators are allowed to approach closer to the embassy than before. It's only a matter of time before there's a nasty incident.
Now, just for fun, check out this MEMRI video on the pro-bin Ladin, anti-American demonstration at the al-Nur mosque in Cairo. They chant, "Death to America" and the Islamist chant calling for the slaughter of all Jews. There's also a new one we'll be hearing a lot of in the months to come, "Obama is the enemy of Allah!" There are, what, 2000 people in that one mosque?
Note how young the crowd is. See how they use their state-of-the-art smartphones to taken snapshots of bin Ladin's face in the mosque's place of honor! At least one of them is wearing the jacket of the English national football (soccer) team! Why they might even use Facebook!
The Financial Times reports a speech by Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badie that when Egypt's parliament meets the Brotherhood, which will have the largest bloc, will propose the following program:
"An end to normalization [with Israel] which has given our enemy stability; an end to [Egyptian] efforts to secure from infiltrators the borders of the Zionists; the abolition of all [joint] economic interests such as the Qualified Industrial Zones agreement and the export of Egyptian gas to Israel."
Note the key point there: "an end to efforts to secure from infiltrators the borders of the Zionists." In other words, to turn Egypt into what the Gaza Strip was in the 1950s, Jordan was in the late 1960s, and Lebanon was in the 1970s: a springboard and safe haven for terrorists attacking Israel across the border. Such a policy can only end in full-scale war.
Isn't it great that now Egypt is a democratic state where people feel free to voice their opinions? Of course, the problem is the nature of those opinions.
Remember this: The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't have to engage in terrorist violence within Egypt because it has allies ready to do so. This is just like Hamas' use of smaller groups to attack Israel from the Gaza Strip and then disclaims responsibility, allowing its apologists to claim that now it's really moderate.
While I doubt that the Islamists will have an outright majority they should come pretty close and thus have one by allying with various radical nationalists, leftists, and independents. That also means they'll take a leading role in writing Egypt's new constitution.
Moussa makes another important point in the interview. First, after many years in which Egypt was oriented inward, he will reassert a leading Egyptian role in the Arab world. That probably means conciliation with Syria and the recreation of a radical Arab bloc that includes Egypt for the first time in more than 30 years. The best thing that can be said is that neither Iraq nor the Saudis would participate, while the Jordanians would be very wary.
Egypt will no longer be a U.S. ally. The question is the degree to which it will be an enemy of the United States.
Finally, he knows that he will have to deliver economic benefits to the masses. But that probably means higher subsidies and more government jobs, policies that will do nothing to improve Egypt's economy in a real way. The worse the economy gets, the greater the anti-Israel, anti-American demagoguery will be.
. We are able to predict this crisis more than six months ahead of time, yet Western countries, media, and experts have not yet seen what is certainly coming down the road toward us.
* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin)
We depend on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible donation through PayPal or by credit card click here. When processing your donation through PayPal please indicate in the "Special Instructions for Seller Box" for GLORIA Center. If you would like to donate by check please write to "American Friends of IDC" and place "For GLORIA Center" on memo line. You can mail the donation to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
Amr Moussa, probably Egypt's next president, has given a comprehensive picture of his views, a foretaste of the likely policies of someone about to become the Arab world's most powerful person. One thing he said is particularly important and shocking. Read on.
Moussa, former Egyptian foreign minister (1991-2001) and head of the Arab League until his resignation takes effect on May 15, is a figure from the Egyptian establishment and the old regime. But which aspect of the old regime: that of the centrist Husni Mubarak, the moderate Anwar al-Sadat, or the radical Arab nationalist Gamal Abd al Nasser?
Moussa is the last Nasserist. He knows that the next president must also be a populist to survive. So he will bash Israel, the United States, and the Egyptian upper class. The hope is that he will be pragmatic enough to restrict his demagoguery to rhetoric.
It might seem ironic that a revolution against the old regime ends up electing as president a figure from the old regime. Yet Moussa perfectly combines experience and name recognition with radicalism. A recent Pew poll shows him with an 89 percent positive rating. Moussa's prospects look so good because the Islamists aren't running a presidential candidate. Moderate democrats, restricted to a small urban middle class constituency, can choose among four candidates running against each other, thus further splitting that vote.
Another reason Moussa's election appears likely is his deft use of the anti-Israel card. So identified is Moussa with hostility to Israel that in 2001 a popular song entitled, "I Hate Israel (I love Amr Moussa)" zoomed to the top of the Egyptian hit parade. Indeed, Moussa is now emphasizing that much of the reason for his break with Mubarak was due to his desire to take a stronger policy against Israel.
Moussa's basic argument in his Wall Street Journal interview is that Egypt has obtained nothing from peace with Israel and that Israel is completely at fault for the lack of an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement. Of course, Egypt received: the Sinai's return; the reopening of its oilfields and the Suez Canal; and the opportunity for more trade, tourism, and a lower military budget. Failure to take advantage of the latter points was due to Egyptian decisions.
In addition, Egypt and Israel had what amounts to an alliance against revolutionary Islamism, particularly Hamas in the Gaza Strip. President Moussa will reverse this policy and see Hamas as an ally, albeit one that he won't trust and might try to restrain.
Hamas is now starting to believe that by attacking Israel it will have the power to draw Egypt into a war with Israel. If that view is not countered decisively by the next Egyptian government, the result will be a return to the 1960s and a terrible major conflict. Unfortunately, the current U.S. government cannot be counted on to see and help eliminate that problem.
As the Wall Street Journal accurately notes: "U.S. and European officials said they don't see the Egypt-Israel peace agreement in danger in the near term. They say Cairo won't place in jeopardy billions of dollars in aid."
We've seen this kind of economic determinism before and every time it is applied to Middle East states it fails. Examples:
--Yasir Arafat will make peace with Israel because he wants to get a state and huge compensation funding.
--Syria will moderate and turn toward the West and away from Iran in order to get trade and investment.
--Iran would much rather become wealthy than to pursue these silly ideas about spreading Islamist revolution.
Now, here's what's really shocking in the interview. To quote the Journal's account, Moussa, "Described a political landscape in which the Muslim Brotherhood...is dominant. It is inevitable, he said, that parliamentary elections in September will usher in a legislature led by a bloc of Islamists, with the Brotherhood at the forefront."
Think about that. Even Moussa, who is anti-Islamist, admits this, though Western governments and mass media haven't figured it out yet. He's running as an independent meaning with no political party behind him. Thus, Moussa must constantly compromise with the Islamist majority in parliament that will consist of the Muslim Brotherhood plus even more radical groups.
The alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood with even more radical "Salafi" groups--the kind of people who launched a terrorist war in Egypt during the 1990s and who support Usama bin Ladin--is another dangerous development. The Salafis are the ones attacking Christians; the Brotherhood-Salafi alliance has organized two demonstrations outside Israel's embassy. In contrast, there are no riot police present and the demonstrators are allowed to approach closer to the embassy than before. It's only a matter of time before there's a nasty incident.
Now, just for fun, check out this MEMRI video on the pro-bin Ladin, anti-American demonstration at the al-Nur mosque in Cairo. They chant, "Death to America" and the Islamist chant calling for the slaughter of all Jews. There's also a new one we'll be hearing a lot of in the months to come, "Obama is the enemy of Allah!" There are, what, 2000 people in that one mosque?
Note how young the crowd is. See how they use their state-of-the-art smartphones to taken snapshots of bin Ladin's face in the mosque's place of honor! At least one of them is wearing the jacket of the English national football (soccer) team! Why they might even use Facebook!
The Financial Times reports a speech by Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badie that when Egypt's parliament meets the Brotherhood, which will have the largest bloc, will propose the following program:
"An end to normalization [with Israel] which has given our enemy stability; an end to [Egyptian] efforts to secure from infiltrators the borders of the Zionists; the abolition of all [joint] economic interests such as the Qualified Industrial Zones agreement and the export of Egyptian gas to Israel."
Note the key point there: "an end to efforts to secure from infiltrators the borders of the Zionists." In other words, to turn Egypt into what the Gaza Strip was in the 1950s, Jordan was in the late 1960s, and Lebanon was in the 1970s: a springboard and safe haven for terrorists attacking Israel across the border. Such a policy can only end in full-scale war.
Isn't it great that now Egypt is a democratic state where people feel free to voice their opinions? Of course, the problem is the nature of those opinions.
Remember this: The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't have to engage in terrorist violence within Egypt because it has allies ready to do so. This is just like Hamas' use of smaller groups to attack Israel from the Gaza Strip and then disclaims responsibility, allowing its apologists to claim that now it's really moderate.
While I doubt that the Islamists will have an outright majority they should come pretty close and thus have one by allying with various radical nationalists, leftists, and independents. That also means they'll take a leading role in writing Egypt's new constitution.
Moussa makes another important point in the interview. First, after many years in which Egypt was oriented inward, he will reassert a leading Egyptian role in the Arab world. That probably means conciliation with Syria and the recreation of a radical Arab bloc that includes Egypt for the first time in more than 30 years. The best thing that can be said is that neither Iraq nor the Saudis would participate, while the Jordanians would be very wary.
Egypt will no longer be a U.S. ally. The question is the degree to which it will be an enemy of the United States.
Finally, he knows that he will have to deliver economic benefits to the masses. But that probably means higher subsidies and more government jobs, policies that will do nothing to improve Egypt's economy in a real way. The worse the economy gets, the greater the anti-Israel, anti-American demagoguery will be.
. We are able to predict this crisis more than six months ahead of time, yet Western countries, media, and experts have not yet seen what is certainly coming down the road toward us.
* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin)
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Return
When is He coming? Well, that's up for debate. The fact that He's coming, however, isn't. Billy Graham was once asked, When shall the end of the world be? To that he responded, The end of the world begins the moment you die. Good ole Billy; always the evangelist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
Les secrets de la beauté naturelle5 months ago
-
The End of Hamas5 months ago
-
FAKE REVIVAL2 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
