When
it came to light that Egypt’s new president had made blatantly
antisemitic (in the Western context today they could also be called
racist) remarks, it finally became necessary--albeit only when the New York Times covered a story (putting
it in the most apologetic light, by the way) that's been evident during
many years--for the U.S. government to reluctantly and grudgingly
remark on these statements, through the medium of spokesman Jay Carney.
My
problem in dealing with such statements is that they are seen as
isolated acts. As I’ve been writing now for about 30 years, the Muslim
Brotherhood has always talked this way as do Hamas, Hizballah, the Ba’th
Party, the Iranian regime, and many—though not all—Arab intellectuals,
journalists, politicians, and journalists in living memory. In fact,
already a new Mursi statement has surfaced,
"We must nurse children on hatred towards Jews." Note he did not add,
until I become president and then we can start teaching them to live in
peace with others of different faiths.
It
isn't just pathetic but also weird that educated Euro-North Americans
who are eager to destroy the career of anyone who has ever uttered a
single sentence that was or can be portrayed as hate speech will accept
those who issue whole reams of the stuff. What is truly ridiculous about
this kind of controversy is the outrage or apologia over one statement.
In fact, Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood leadership including leading
figures in the ruling party have made hundreds of radical statements.
They are either ignored or explained away as insignificant.
Here are just two from the very top of the organization.
First, Khairat El Shater, the Brotherhood’s Deputy General Guide said in April 2012:
“Our main and overall mission as Muslim Brothers is to empower God’s
Religion on Earth…and to [establish] the subjugation of people to God on
Earth.”
Second, Muhammad Badi, the Brotherhood’s head, explained in his September 2010 speech which virtually announced the launching of the revolution to overthrow the Mubarak regime: “…the
factors that will lead to the collapse of the United States are much
more powerful than those that led to the collapse of the Soviet
empire….The United States is now experiencing the beginning of its end,
and is heading towards
its demise...."
Yet
people who point to the Brotherhood's radical history, extremist
statements, and intolerant behavior now in a systematic way are
ridiculed. We aren't even hearing the pragmatic-sounding argument: "Of
course, these people are extremist, totalitarian, and anti-American but
we have to deal with them. " No, what we are getting instead is: "They
aren't really extremist, totalitarian, or anti-American and we prefer to
deal with them
because they are moderate and a bulwark against the Salafists."
All
three of the top foreign policy appointments just made by President
Barack Obama--John Kerry as secretary of state; Chuck Hagel as secretary
of defense, and John Brennan as CIA director--strongly endorse that
latter stance. Indeed, Brennan practically created it.
The
White House's response to Mursi's remarks was in the framework of that
approach, condemning the language of one particular statement while
praising Mursi for some things he's done. He is praised for not
abrogating the Egypt-Israel peace treaty--yet--and for helping get a
ceasefire in the latest Israel-Hamas war. It is good that Mursi helped
U.S. goals in that case but since he was, in effect, doing even more to
help his ally Hamas, one should be entitled to a certain element of
cynicism. The Egyptian regime is apparently blocking some--not all--of
the weapons going into Gaza because a direct confrontation with Israel
is not in its interests. Of course, direct confrontation with Israel
(after 1973)
wasn't in Egyptian, Syrian, or Iraqi interests either. That's why they
used terrorist group clients to do the job.
But
the main problem with the White House response is not that it was too
weak but that it deals with calling Jews the offspring of pigs and
monkeys against whom eternal war must be waged as entirely isolated from
any analysis or
policy consideration. None of these factors are considered as part of
the Egyptian president's and Muslim Brotherhood's ideology and
worldview.
This
kind of hate speech is not equivalent to an American politician making a
gaffe--many such examples can be given--but as a core aspect of the
Islamist and Brotherhood ideology from which its
policy behavior will flow.
Please be subscriber 31,123 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d
love to have your support. Why not make a tax-deductible donation
(instead of giving your money to pay for Senator Harry Reid's Cowboy
Poetry Festival and U.S. aid for the Egyptian and Syrian Muslim
Brotherhoods) to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
Carney's
government-crafted statement also reflects a strong hint that Mursi is
now older and wiser so the things he said before becoming president
don't matter any more. He's being disciplined by the requirements of
wielding power. Such concepts have failed repeatedly in the Middle
East--Arab nationalists did not become
moderate, neither did Islamists in Iran, or Yasir Arafat in the
Palestinian Authority--and other parts of the world. Indeed, hate speech
is more significant when it doesn't just feature a banned ethnic slur
word but is followed up by stirring up violent hatreds among millions of
people that are likely--as they have in the past--to lead to war and
terrorism.
It
is ridiculous that such disproved, mistaken ideas form the basis for
U.S. policy in 2013. The response to Mursi's rants is like condemning
some nasty anti-capitalist statements made by Lenin before the
Bolsheviks
seized power in Russia but implying that this is merely a problem of
intemperate language, of hate speech, that will probably go away now
that he is facing the responsibilities of power. Carney adds, "This
type of rhetoric is not acceptable or productive in a democratic Egypt."
That is correct diplomatic language but those who use it are supposed
to know that such sentiments are also ridiculous. Acceptable? That type
of rhetoric is the norm now. And whatever Mursi says about keeping the
treaty with Israel his view of Jews, as sub-humans who should be wiped
out, may have something to do with his behavior as president in future.
Note,
too, that Mursi and his colleagues believe that to think that way is a
direct command from God, a personage in whom they place
a high level of respect.
The
White House did not respond on the fact that Mursi's statement is based
on key Islamic texts. There was no need for the White House to say
that--and it wasn't asked. But it is vital that the White House
understands that fact. Islamist ideas are interpretations that are not
inevitable but the fact that they are quite arguably proper
interpretations of the proper Islamic religious worldview makes them far
more powerful than behaving
as if they are the zany misinterpretations of marginal would-be
hijackers of Islam.
It isn't easy to deal with this situation. The problem, though, is that it needed to be managed before it got to this point.
Consider the question of whether the U.S. government should supply Egypt with advanced military equipment.
How's this for a joke:
The
reason why America has been giving Egypt arms for the last 30-plus
years is to use them against the people who are now in power in Egypt.
Of
course, it isn't that simple but the weapons were also provided to keep
the existing regime in power, to keep it at peace with Israel, and to
ensure a close relationship with the United States. Only the last of
these points still applies. Yet that, too, is compromised. The premise
now is that military officers will constrain the Brotherhood regime.
But, of course, they won't, at least not short of the direct launching
of a war on Israel. Many officers sympathize with the Brotherhood and
radical Islamism. Besides, the regime will pick and choose the generals
it will put in charge of those weapons to
ensure they will follow its orders. We know, of course, that
congressional efforts will fail to stop the arms' supply, that any
conditions placed upon it can be easily disregarded, and that the
transfer of weaponry will go through.
So
to sum up, the U.S. government will provide arms, money, and diplomatic
support to a regime whose ruling forces
openly evince hysterical antisemitism and call for genocide against
their neighbor based on the belief that they don't really mean it.
Perhaps one day somebody in the American mass media will publish some of
the things Muslim Brotherhood leaders say in Arabic about the United
States, including explicit support for anti-American terrorism. No
doubt, Carney could explain that away as well.
Footnotes: Check out Samuel Tadros's excellent analysis of Muslim Brotherhood strategy here and Eric Trager's excellent lecture on the Brotherhood's structure.
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 book, Israel:
An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
.
No comments:
Post a Comment