Author Archives: jimmy
02/14/11
* Gaddafi tells Palestinians: revolt against Israel Libyan leader says refugees should mass on Israel’s shores
* Hamas Chief: China, India to Replace Failing US as Superpowers The US empire is in decline and will fall because of the country’s immorality, promotion of open sexuality, and political injustice, says Mahmoud al-Zahar.
* Iran clamps down ahead of planned pro-Egypt rally Thousands gather in central Tehran, chant “death to the dictator”; 2 opposition leaders under house arrest; police out in heavy numbers to prevent rallies; SMS service reportedly cut.
* Western intel: Post-Mubarak Egypt is ripe for Islamic takeover With the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, the military is mulling the prospect of a partnership with the Islamic opposition.
* China overtakes Japan as world’s second-biggest economy Japan has been hit by a drop in exports and consumer demand, while China has enjoyed a manufacturing boom.
* A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History As protesters in Tahrir Square faced off against pro-government forces, they drew a lesson from their counterparts in Tunisia.
* Israel Ponders Google Street View Risks Israel is considering whether to allow the powerful Google search engine to send its photographers out to snap photos for its Street View service in major cities in the country.
* Friedman: White House disgusted with Israel Senior New York Times columnist describes Israeli cabinet as “out-of-touch, in-bred, unimaginative and cliché-driven”.
* Thousands flood Cairo square as army struggles to halt rallies Egypt police march on Tahrir in unusual show of solidarity: We and the people are one.
* Egypt presidential hopeful: Peace treaty with Israel is over Dr. Ayman Nur, a secular and liberal member of the opposition, tells Egypt radio that it would behoove the new government to renegotiate the terms of the Camp David accord.
02/12/11
Column One: Israel and Arab democracy
Over the past week, Israel has been criticized for being insufficiently supportive of democratic change in Egypt. While Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been careful to praise the cause of democracy while warning against the dangers of an Islamic takeover of the most populous Arab state, many Israelis have not been so diplomatic.
To understand why, it is necessary to take a little tour of the Arab world.
In the midst of Tunisia’s revolution last month, the Jewish Agency mobilized to evacuate any members of the country’s Jewish community who wished to leave. Until the end of French colonial rule in 1956, Tunisia’s Jewish community numbered 100,000 members. But like for all Jewish communities in the Arab world, the advent of Arab nationalism in the mid-20th century forced the overwhelming majority of Tunisia’s Jews to leave the country. Today, with between 1,500 and 3,000 members, Tunisia’s tiny Jewish community is among the largest in the Arab world.
So far, six families have left for Israel. Many more may follow. Two weeks ago, Daniel Cohen from Tunis’s Jewish community told Haaretz, “If the situation continues as it is now, we will definitely have to leave or immigrate to Israel.”
Since then, Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia’s Islamist party Ennahda, has returned to Tunisia after 22 years living in exile in London. He was sentenced to life in prison in absentia on terrorism charges by the regime of ousted president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
Then on Monday night, unidentified assailants set fire to a synagogue in the town of Ghabes and burned the Torah scrolls. In an interview with AFP, Trabelsi Perez, president of the Ghriba synagogue, said the crime was made all the more shocking by the fact that it occurred as police were stationed close by.
The day after the attack, Roger Bismuth, president of Tunisia’s Jewish community, disputed the view that the scorching of Torah scrolls had anything to do with anti-Semitism. The man responsible for representing Tunisia’s Jewish community before the evolving new regime told The Jerusalem Post that the attack was the fault of the Jews themselves, “because they left [the synagogue] open… This is not an attack on the Jewish community.”
The fear now gripping the Jews of Tunisia is not surprising. The same fear gripped the much smaller Iraqi Jewish community after the US and Britain toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. The Iraqi community was the oldest, and arguably the most successful, Jewish community in the Arab world until World War II. Its 150,000 members were leading businessmen and civil servants during the period of British rule.
Following the establishment of Israel, the Iraqi government revoked the citizenship of the country’s Jews, forced them to flee and stole their property down to their wedding rings. The expropriated property of Iraqi Jewry is valued today at more than $4 billion.
Only 7,000 Jews remained in Iraq after the mass aliya of 1951. By the time Saddam was toppled in 2003, only 32 Jews remained. They were mainly elderly, and impoverished. And owing to al-Qaida threats and government harassment, they were all forced to flee.
Shortly after they overthrew Saddam, US forces found the archives of the Jewish community submerged in a flooded basement of a secret police building in Baghdad. The archive was dried and frozen and sent to the US for preservation. Last year, despite the fact that Saddam’s secret police only had the archive because they stole it from the Jews, the Iraqi government demanded its return as a national treasure.
As embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak began his counteroffensive against the anti-regime protesters, his mouthpieces began alleging that the protesters were incited by the Mossad.
For their part, the anti-regime protesters claim that Mubarak is an Israeli puppet. The protesters brandish placards with Mubarak’s image plastered with Stars of David. A photo of an effigy of newly appointed vice president, and intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman burned in Tahrir Square showed him portrayed as a Jew.
ON WEDNESDAY night, Channel 10’s Arab affairs commentator Zvi Yehezkeli ran a depressing report on the status of the graves of Jewish sages buried in the Muslim world. The report chronicled the travels of Rabbi Yisrael Gabbai, an ultra-Orthodox rabbi who has taken upon himself to travel to save these important shrines. As Yehezkeli reported, last week Gabbai traveled to Iran and visited the graves of Purim heroes Queen Esther and Mordechai the Jew, and the prophets Daniel and Habbakuk.
He was moved to travel to Iran after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered Esther and Mordechai’s tomb destroyed. The Iranian media followed up Ahmadinejad’s edict with a campaign claiming that Esther and Mordechai were responsible for the murder of 170,000 Iranians.
Gabbai’s travels have brought him to Iran, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and beyond. And throughout the Arab and Muslim world, like the dwindling Jewish communities, Jewish cemeteries are targets for anti-Semitic attacks. “We’re talking about thousands of cemeteries throughout the Arab world. It’s the same problem everywhere,” he said.
Israelis have been overwhelmingly outspoken in our criticism of Western support for the antiregime forces in Egypt due to our deep-seated concern that the current regime will be replaced by one dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Representing a minimum of 30 percent of Egyptians, the Muslim Brotherhood is the only well organized political force in the country outside the regime.The Muslim Brothers’ organizational prowess and willingness to use violence to achieve their aims was likely demonstrated within hours of the start of the unrest. Shortly after the demonstrations began, operatives from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood branch in Gaza – that is Hamas – knew to cross the border into Sinai. And last Thursday, a police station in Suez was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and firebombs.
Hamas has a long history of operations in Sinai.
It also has close ties with Beduin gangs in the area that were reportedly involved in attacking another police station in northern Sinai.
Western – and particularly American – willingness to pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood is anything other than a totalitarian movement has been greeted by disbelief and astonishment by Israelis from across the political spectrum.
It is the likelihood that the Muslim Brotherhood will rise to power, not an aversion to Arab democracy, that has caused Israel to fear the popular revolt against Mubarak’s regime. If the Muslim Brotherhood were not a factor in Egypt, then Israel would probably have simply been indifferent to events there, as it has been to the development of democracy in Iraq and to the popular revolt in Tunisia.
ISRAEL’S INDIFFERENCE to democratization of the Arab world has been a cause of consternation for some of its traditional supporters in conservative circles in the US and Europe. Israelis are accused of provincialism. As citizens of the only democracy in the Middle East, we are admonished for not supporting democracy among our neighbors.
The fact is that Israeli indifference to democratic currents in Arab societies is not due to provincialism.
Israelis are indifferent because we realize that whether under authoritarian rule or democracy, anti-Semitism is the unifying sentiment of the Arab world. Fractured along socioeconomic, tribal, religious, political, ethnic and other lines, the glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews.
A Pew Research Center opinion survey of Arab attitudes towards Jews from June 2009 makes this clear. Ninety-five percent of Egyptians, 97% of Jordanians and Palestinians and 98% of Lebanese expressed unfavorable opinions of Jews. Threequarters of Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians also expressed hostile views of Jews.
Throughout the Arab and Muslim world, genocidal anti-Semitic propaganda is all-pervasive. And as Prof. Robert Wistrich has written, “The ubiquity of the hate and prejudice exemplified by this hard-core anti-Semitism undoubtedly exceeds the demonization of earlier historical periods – whether the Christian Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dreyfus Affair in France, or the Judeophobia of Tsarist Russia. The only comparable example would be that of Nazi Germany in which we can also speak of an ‘eliminationist anti- Semitism’ of genocidal dimensions, which ultimately culminated in the Holocaust.”
That is why for most Israelis, the issue of how Arabs are governed is as irrelevant as the results of the 1852 US presidential elections were for American blacks. Since both parties excluded them, they were indifferent to who was in power.
What these numbers, and the anti-Semitic behavior of Arabs, show Israelis is that it makes no difference which regime rules where. As long as the Arab peoples hate Jews, there will be no peace between their countries and Israel. No one will be better for Israel than Mubarak. They can only be the same or worse.
This is why no one expected for the democratically elected Iraqi government to sign a peace treaty with Israel or even end Iraq’s official state of war with the Jewish state. Indeed, Iraq remains in an official state of war with Israel. And after independent lawmaker Mithal al-Alusi visited Israel in 2008, two of his sons were murdered. Alusi’s life remains under constant threat.
One of the more troubling aspects of the Western media coverage of the tumult in Egypt over the past two weeks has been the media’s move to airbrush out all evidence of the protesters’ anti- Semitism.
As John Rosenthal pointed out this week at The Weekly Standard, Germany’s Die Welt ran a frontpage photo that featured a poster of Mubarak with a Star of David across his forehead in the background. The photo caption made no mention of the anti-Semitic image. And its online edition did not run the picture.
And as author Bruce Bawer noted at the Pajamas Media website, Jeanne Moos of CNN scanned the protesters’ signs, noting how authentic and heartwarming their misspelled English messages were, yet failed to mention that one of the signs she showed portrayed Mubarak as a Jew.
Given the Western media’s obsessive coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict, at first blush it seems odd that they would ignore the prevalence of anti-Semitism among the presumably prodemocracy protesters. But on second thought, it isn’t that surprising.
If the media reported on the overwhelming Jew hatred in the Arab world generally and in Egypt specifically, it would ruin the narrative of the Arab conflict with Israel. That narrative explains the roots of the conflict as frustrated Arab-Palestinian nationalism. It steadfastly denies any more deeply seated antipathy of Jews that is projected onto the Jewish state. The fact that the one Jewish state stands alone against 23 Arab states and 57 Muslim states whose populations are united in their hatred of Jews necessarily requires a revision of the narrative. And so their hatred is ignored.
But Israelis don’t need CNN to tell us how our neighbors feel about us. We know already. And because we know, while we wish them the best of luck with their democracy movements, and would welcome the advent of a tolerant society in Egypt, we recognize that that tolerance will end when it comes to the Jews. And so whether they are democrats or autocrats, we fully expect they will continue to hate us.
02/11/11
02/10/11
Muslim Brotherhood text reveals scope of radical creed
One of the greatest beneficiaries of the unrest in Egypt has been the Muslim Brotherhood.
Banned but tolerated for decades by successive Egyptian regimes, the Islamist movement is now emerging as a central player in the country’s resurgent opposition.
On Tuesday, two Brotherhood representatives participated in an opposition delegation that met with Vice President Omar Suleiman for the first set of talks over implementing political reforms.
Pundits have portrayed the Brotherhood as uncompromising zealots or beneficent providers of social services that long-deprived Egyptians desperately need.
But a translation released Tuesday of a 1995 book by the movement’s fifth official leader sheds light on just how Egypt’s Brotherhood views itself and its mission. Jihad is the Way is the last of a five-volume work, The Laws of Da’wa by Mustafa Mashhur, who headed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996-2002.
The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday saw excerpts of the text, compiled by Palestinian Media Watch founder Itamar Marcus and analyst Nan Jacques Zilberdik.
They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel.
The full text, translated by PMW, will be posted Wednesday on the organization’s website, Palwatch.org.
“The Islamic ummah,” it says, referring to the supranational community of Muslims, “can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men, as the leaders of humanity.”
Elsewhere, it exhorts Muslims, “Know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation.”
Marcus spoke to the Post about what he views as the danger of downplaying the Brotherhood’s ideology, or expecting it to moderate its objectives after being allowed into the political process. The movement differs from international terror groups like Al-Qaida, he said, only in tactics, not in its goals.
Marcus cited passages in the text that urge Muslims to wage jihad only when circumstances are ripe.
“The Brotherhood is not rushed by youth’s enthusiasm into immature and unplanned action which will not alter the bad reality and may even harm the Islamic activity, and will benefit the people of falsehood,” Mashhur wrote.
“One should know that it is not necessary that the Muslims repel every attack or damage caused by the enemies of Allah immediately, but [only] when ability and the circumstances are fit to it.”
Jihad is the Way explicitly endorses the reinstatement of a worldwide Islamic regime.
“It should be known that jihad and preparation towards jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world.”
“Jihad for Allah,” Mashhur wrote, “is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, and the State of Islam established.”
Hassan al-Banna, the movement’s founder, “felt the grave danger overshadowing the Muslims and the urgent need and obligation which Islam places on every Muslim, man and woman, to act in order to restore the Islamic Caliphate and to reestablish the Islamic state on strong foundations.”
Despite its universal message, the book attaches particular significance to the Holy Land.
“Honorable brothers have achieved shahada [martyrdom] on the soil of beloved Palestine, during the years ’47 and ’48, in their jihad against the criminal, thieving, gangs of Zion,” it says.
“Still today, memory of them horrifies the Jews and the name of the Muslim Brotherhood terrifies them.”
Elsewhere, Mushhar wrote, “The imam and shahid Hassan Al-Banna is considered as a martyr of Palestine, even if he was not killed on its soil … in all his writings and conversations, he always urged towards jihad and aroused the desire for seeking martyrdom … he did not content himself only with speech and writing, and when the opportunity arrived for jihad in Palestine, he hurried and seized it.”
Wielding a broader brush, Mashhur wrote, “The problems of the Islamic world – such as in Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea or the Philippines – are not issues of territories and nations, but of faith and religion.
They are the problems of Islam and all Muslims, and their resolution cannot be negotiated and bargained by recognizing the enemy’s right to the Islamic land he stole, and therefore there is no other option but jihad for Allah, and this is why jihad is the way.”
02/09/11
02/08/11
Arab World: Crossroads for Cairo
Events in Egypt have now entered a new phase. The regime has made the compromise it intends to make. There will be no republican monarchy.
Gamal Mubarak will not be president of Egypt. The de facto ruler is now former intelligence chief Omar Suleiman.
It will be Suleiman’s responsibility to navigate the dangerous transition period under way toward a revised constitution and new parliamentary and presidential elections.
What comes next is not yet certain.
But it may be said with confidence that there are currently two serious, organized political forces in Egypt. These are the leadership of the armed forces, and the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The political process now opening up will be a veiled or open contest for domination between these forces.
The Al Jazeera version of the events in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere has been that they constitute the rising up of long suppressed peoples against sclerotic, authoritarian governments. For fairly obvious reasons, Al Jazeera, which is the creation and instrument of an unelected, increasingly pro-Iranian monarch, leaves out a large part of the picture.
Popular uprisings in the Middle East must be understood in the context of this larger regional strategic picture.
THE MIDDLE East is divided into two camps. The camp of which Egypt currently forms a part consists mainly of authoritarian countries, ranging from fairly benign autocracies (Jordan) to deeply repressive ones (Saudi Arabia).
This camp also includes the region’s only functioning democracy (Israel) and is backed by the US.
It is ranged against an Iran-led camp of uniformly authoritarian states and Islamist movements.
The US-led camp is currently on the retreat across the region. It has suffered a series of defeats in the last half-decade.
The rival pro-Iranian camp now dominates Lebanon through force of arms. It has split the Palestinian national movement in two, and has established a Palestinian Islamist statelet in Gaza. It looks set to dominate a post-US Iraq.
These events represented gains in the frontier areas between the two camps, in which each vied for influence. The events in Egypt, however, raise the prospect of a further gain of infinitely greater significance to the anti-Western element. If the transition period is mismanaged, it will stand to make a play for power within one of the main bulwarks of the pro-US regional alliance.
EGYPT IS not only the most populous state of the Arab world, it is also located in a place of key geostrategic importance, containing within it the vital Suez Canal. The possibility of Muslim Brotherhood influence, or worse, power would represent, without hyperbole, a disaster for pro-US regional forces.
The Brotherhood is the prototype Sunni Islamist organization, in existence since 1928. Many of the most famous, or infamous figures of Islamist terrorism began their careers within its ranks. Abdulla Azzam, joint founder of al-Qaida, emerged from the Brotherhood’s ranks, as did Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The ideology of the movement is jihadist in nature, and where relevant, it supports political violence. Where this is neither relevant nor possible, as in Europe and latterly in Egypt, the movement also engages in social, political and educational activity.
Current “supreme guide” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Badi, in a sermon given in September 2010, said that Muslims “need to understand that 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 its enemies pursue life.”
What has been in evidence over the last half decade is the contrasting nature of the two regional camps. The latest events in Egypt have confirmed the differences.
The pro-Iranian, Islamist camp is at a distinct, indeed enormous disadvantage when it comes to power measured in physical terms – in economic capability and conventional military prowess.
Yet it continues to make gains.
This is because this camp possesses an implacable will and a belief in itself and its future. When Iranians rose up in mid- 2009 to protest the results of the presidential elections, the regime’s counterreaction was swift and fierce. They had read their Machiavelli well, and knew that to defeat the uprising, it was vital to offer no concessions whatsoever. And contrary to the hopes and predictions of sundry Western commentators, the rising was swiftly and brutally crushed.
Iran and its allies are authoritarians with a clear will to power and a clear, if simplistic unifying idea. The countries which they control are large prisons, in which no hint of dissent is permitted. Yet it may be asserted with some confidence that they are in no danger of being toppled by popular uprisings or forced to share power or reform any time soon.
Should such risings be attempted, the anti-US camp would have no hesitation in drowning them swiftly in the blood of their participants.
BY CONTRAST, the US threw their its ally Hosni Mubarak to the wolves, following the demonstrations, with scarcely a shot fired. This is not the way to project strength or make oneself trusted. The possibility now exists of US pressure on the new Egyptian government to invite the disciples of Sayed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna to participate in democratic politics.
Should the heartland of the pro-Western part of the Arab world be breached – by invitation – by the enemies of this camp, this would be seen throughout the region as a major triumph for the Islamists and a defeat for the US and its allies.
There is every reason to suppose that Omar Suleiman will argue for a very different approach to the Muslim Brotherhood.
He too has evidently read his Machiavelli. It is to be hoped that Washington will now grasp the cardinal importance in the Middle East of standing by friends and identifying enemies. If so, it will allow him to deal with the threat to fledgling representative government represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, and a better political dispensation in Egypt may even stand a chance.