This analysis by IPT and Barry Rubin Reports on the Syrian and Egyptian situation It’s no wonder world leaders don’t know what to make of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group’s leaders can’t even reach consensus amongst themselves.
Amidst the chaos of what is being dubbed the Papyrus Revolution, the leaders of Egypt’s primary opposition party are taking to the airwaves worldwide in droves. From the United States to the United Kingdom, and Russia to Japan, senior Brotherhood members are being questioned about how they would manage the Egyptian state should they accede to power in the aftermath of President Mubarak and the ruling National Democratic Party. Of primary concern to many is the Brotherhood’s stance on women’s rights, the implementation of Islamic law, policies toward Egypt’s sizeable Coptic Christian minority, and its projected plan for relations (or a lack thereof) with its neighbor, Israel.
On that last issue, the Brothers just can’t seem to project a unified message.
On Monday, shock headlines made their way around the web that, when in power, the Brotherhood planned to scrap Egypt’s more than 30-year peace treaty with Israel. The Egyptian people “should be prepared for war against Israel,” senior London-based MB leader Muhammad Ghanem said to Iran’s Arabic-language news station, Al-Alam.
Backing Ghanem’s stance, Brotherhood deputy leader Rashad al-Bayoumi later told Japan’s NHK TV that a new provisional government—likely to include a Brotherhood presence regardless of recent claims that the group has no interest in a leadership role in a post-Mubarak government—should “dissolve the peace treaty with Israel.” Unlike Ghanem, who is a part of the group’s mysterious international organization, Bayoumi is a central leader of the movement’s domestic presence in Egypt.
However, the group’s public stance on Israel and the longstanding peace treaty does not appear to be based upon geographic location. Speaking on a BBC panel about the recent events in Egypt and the prospects for the future, former spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, Kamal Helbawy told host Andrew Neil pointedly that, if in a position of power, the Brotherhood would uphold Egypt’s treaty with Israel:
NEIL: Would you adhere—if you party came to power in free and fair elections—would you adhere to the 1979 peace treaties with Israel.
HELBAWY: We will. But I’ll tell you something…
NEIL: But that’s not what your party says. Are you representing the Muslim Brotherhood this morning?
HELBAWY: I am not speaking in their name, but I am a senior member now…
NEIL: of the party?
HELBAWY: Yes, of course.
NEIL: Well it is clear, the documents—every document coming out from the Muslim Brotherhood— says to rip up the 1979 [UI] treaty.
HELBAWY: Which ones? You asked me one question but you didn’t give me one minute to answer.
NEIL: Ok, so answer it because…
HELBAWY: Yes, I am telling you. We will adhere by any political or peace process but it should be reviewed to bring justice in. We cannot accept occupation. We cannot accept brutalities. Whether it comes from Mubarak, or from a Muslim, or from a Jew, or from a Christian…
When pressed further about his stance’s apparent conflict with Ghanem, Helbawy struck back, that the comments did not sound like those of a Muslim Brother:
NEIL: Do you here agree with a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Ghanem, who, in an interview with Iranian news outlets, said the Egyptian people should prepare for war against Israel, the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and the flow of gas to Israel should be cut off…
[Crosstalk]
HELBAWY: This is Ghanem? This is Nasser-y speak. It’s Nasser is speaking again.
NEIL: Do you agree with that?
HELBAWY: I don’t think he is representing the Muslim Brotherhood and I don’t think this is the idea or opinion of Muslim Brotherhood.
NEIL: Are you aware of the widespread suspicion—sometimes not with all gullible Western journalists—but a widespread suspicion among a lot of people in the West that the Muslim Brotherhood puts up people like you to sound and look moderate and to cover the fact that you’re a highly extremist and Islamist organization.
HELBAWY: That is your accusation, that is your suspicion, but it is not reality.
Not representing the Muslim Brotherhood? It seems Helbawy’s tune has changed. Now banned from entering the United States, Helbawy spoke in Oklahoma City at the 1992 joint conference of the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA) and the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)—a now-defunct Hamas propaganda arm in the United States—about how Jews and Christians are the enemies of Muslims and how the now-designated terrorist group, Hamas, was holding the mantle for Muslims in “an absolute clash of civilization” against the them. Hamas, founded in 1987 as a splinter from the Muslim Brotherhood, has long been committed to violent jihad against Israel, and has, from the outset, denied the state’s very existence.
Ghanem’s comments do, in fact, fit perfectly in line with the Brotherhood’s traditional policy line. While the Brotherhood’s official releases have shied away from directly tackling the issue of relations with Israel, former and current leaders have been more forthright in their pronouncements. As noted in a 2007 article on the group, then-Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said that the “‘Brotherhood has not recognized Camp David from the very first day it was signed,’ explaining not only that the group rejects all agreements with Israel but that Arabs and Muslims should ‘resist the enemy [Israel] with armed jihad.'” This theme of “resistance”—aka armed violence—against the “Zionist occupier” and their “Anglo-American” supporters has been a common one coming from the Brotherhood over the years, and was explained at great length in a draft of the group’s 2007 party platform.
That year, Akef slapped down another leading Muslim Brotherhood official who had been quoted saying the group “would recognize Israel and accept the treaties” if it ever came to power. Essam El-Erian was quoted in the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat saying “we will not declare war on Israel” and that the Brotherhood would seek to revise the Camp David treaty, not renounce it.
Days later, Akef made it clear El-Erian was off base. “The Brotherhood,” he said, “does not and will never recognize Israel … Israel does not exist in the Brotherhood’s dictionary.” El-Erian claimed he was misquoted.
Also outlined in the 2007 platform—a so-called blueprint for Egypt under Brotherhood-rule—was a general Islamization of Egyptian society, with a determination made that women and Copts could not rise to become Egypt’s head of state. When asked on the BBC about these troubling conclusions, Helbawi went on the defensive, declaring the document null and void:
NEIL: But your program—the most comprehensive one published 4 years ago, specifically excludes a woman as head of state.
HELBAWY: It is not a program, it was not published, it was a draft…
NEIL: But it did exclude her, didn’t it?
HELBAWY: No, no. it excluded completely at the time, but this was a draft and a proposal, and now it is off.
NEIL: You say that’s not Muslim Brotherhood policy because I…
HELBAWY: Yes it is.
NEIL: It is part of Muslim Brotherhood policy?
HELBAWY: Not to seclude women and Copts. It was a proposal—they sent it to many thinkers and writers. And the feedback came—we did many seminars, one of them in Westminster here, and we declared completely that this is nonsense.
NEIL: Alright, well I have not seen this…
HELBAWY: …and that this is out of Islam.
Helbawi is not alone in his flip-flopping. In an interview with CBS News Tuesday, Brotherhood spokesman and former Secretary-General Mahmoud Ezzat claimed his group wants “peace with all the world.” As part of this, “we will respect the peace treaty with Israel as long as Israel shows real progress on improving the lot of the Palestinians.”
Ezzat struck a very different tone in 2007 when interviewed by the Brotherhood’s English-language website, IkhwanWeb:
“As for international treaties, specially [sic.] Camp David, the Muslim Brotherhood’s attitude towards the treaty hasn’t changed, and that Palestine is not owned by the Palestinian people alone, but it is owned by all the Arab and Muslim World. No one is allowed to concede even single span from it. As for all treaties, we respect them, and Camp David can, like other treaties, be amendment or even cancelled according to the international law.”
And Thursday, Mohamed Morsy, the Brotherhood’s media spokesman, told CNN that his group was “not against the Jews…[but] against Zionism…[and] torturing the Palestinian people.” Morsy also told the cable news channel that the Brotherhood rejects “violence against anyone.” Try telling that to Helbawy circa-1992 and a host of other Brotherhood leaders over the years who have spoken of a war between Muslims and Jews, of severing ties between Israel and Egypt as soon as possible, and of armed jihad.
The numerous and conflicting statements make the Brotherhood’s true position somewhat of a mystery.
As Barry Rubin notes, senior Brotherhood members seem to finally be coordinating on a unified public message that “avoid[s] extremist statements as [the Brotherhood] tries to sell itself to the Western audience and (insert adjective) media as moderate and cuddly.” For this reason, many Brotherhood leaders in interviews with the West are now changing their tone to say they support all treaties that uphold “justice.”. As Rubin concludes, because the Brotherhood considers Israel’s existence to be an “occupation” of Muslim lands, Israel cannot, in and of itself, be just. Thus, “paradoxically…the only way Israel could have a peace treaty with Egypt is not to exist at all.”
With this in mind, Americans should be wary about taking the Muslim Brotherhood at its word with regard to Israel—or anything else for that matter. And while any group has its uncontrollable elements who don’t like to toe the party line, it seems many of the Muslim Brothers have now gotten the memo to proceed with caution and to tout a line that Americans are more comfortable with—”justice.”
One former radical-turned-moderate author and current Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Senior Fellow, is reassured by the change in tone, signaling a transformation from a group whose motto included “death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes” to one that is simply seeking “justice.” At a CFR panel on February 2nd entitled “Ramifications Of Egypt’s Political Upheaval,” Ed Husain told a U.S. audience:
“[We should]…believe the Muslim Brotherhood when it says it wants to uphold the peace agreement – that’s something that Kamal Helbawy said last weekend, but they want to ensure that it’s just. That’s a huge advance from where they were five years ago, saying they don’t recognize Israel or the peace agreement.”
Clearly it’s not easy to tell U.S. officials which side of the Brotherhood mouth to listen to.
But Ian Johnson, author of A Mosque in Munich, in an interview with IPT News warns that we should not be fooled by the Brotherhood’s new public persona, and should choose our partners in that region carefully.
“In foreign policy, governments should never rule out dealing with anyone if it advances our national interests, but we need to do so cautiously and with a long-term view, not just asking ourselves, how can we get rid of Mubarak ASAP and come out looking like the good guys?” Johnson said. “We need a more strategic view of who we really want as partners in the Mideast. Mubarak and that generation of strongmen was the wrong choice, but that doesn’t make their enemies the right choice.”
| Syrian Authorities Break Up Protest, Maintain Full Control
Posted: 04 Feb 2011 09:41 AM PST By Barry Rubin
Why are moderate Arab regimes–even if dictatorships–shaken by protest while hardline ones aren’t? Because at the least sign of trouble the radical governments crack down. Knowing that punishment will be harsh and that the West won’t be interested few dare to do anything. And so in Damascus a silent vigil in support of the Egyptian protesters was quickly broken up. One attacker snarled, “[Bashar al] Assad is your president, and if you don’t like it in Syria, you should move to Egypt.” Demonstrators were told they were Israeli agents committing treason. According to a source, there were 200 demonstrators and 1000 police and security personnel. One Syrian said sadly, “Why are the revolutions taking place in Tunisia and Egypt instead of here?” That question, of course, cannot be answered definitively but aside from repression and belief that the government is strong (young Bashar, not old Husni), there are social factors. The regime has a built-in backing from the Alawites who form much of the ruling class. Though this is a controversial issue, my view is that Alawites are not really Muslims. They would not fair well in an Islamist revolution. The large Christian community looks at the regime as its protector from persecution by Islamists. The largest segment of the population, Sunni Muslims, have been bought off by the regime’s militant demagoguery, hatred of Israel, and support for Sunni Muslim Islamists abroad. In short, whether or not the old Arab nationalist methods work in Egypt, they certainly still work in Syria. One target of the protest was corruption, for example the fact that communications companies entirely controlled by Rami Makhlouf, President Assad’s cousin, charge sky-high prices. How much attention will the U.S. government give to events in Syria? Might it call for Bashar to resign and threaten to end its “engagement” with Syria if he doesn’t leave or grant more rights? Of course not. In fact a U.S. ambassador has just arrived, an action that the Syrian regime sees as a concession, and Syria is generally flattered in the Western media. Any wonder why America’s enemies multiply in number while its friends shrink?  |
| Briefly, What Could the U.S. Government Have Done in Egypt?
Posted: 03 Feb 2011 03:06 PM PST By Barry Rubin
I’m not judging right now between these alternatives but want to make clear that many alternatives did exist. 1. The U.S. government could have waited to assess the situation rather than leap in immediately. Avoiding involvement altogether was a serious option, retaining the option to act if the conflict went on a long time or seemed to spiral toward civil war. During many previous cases of internal unrest in allied Arab states–though, of course, this was larger–the United States has not previously intervened without being asked to do so. And in cases where hostile states used massive repression, it remained passive. 2. It could have expressed support for the Mubarak government while urging it to ease conditions. Private pressure in the context of support would have been more effective. The easing of repression, economic benefits, and other steps to ensure fair elections might have been taken with U.S. encouragement. Working with members of the leadership to ensure the retirement of an 82-year-old president is more likely to succeed than threatening the position of all regime officials causing them to circle the wagons and hang tough. 3. By staying “neutral” the U.S. government could have given the Mubarak government an incentive to be flexible since it would hope to retain, perhaps even increase, U.S. support. This approach could also have made the opposition more cautious since it wanted to gain U.S. support and felt that it had less leverage. 4. But by choosing the side of the opposition publicly, it threw away its leverage. Why should the Egyptian government listen to it and why should the opposition stop short of total victory? When Mubarak said that Obama does not understand Egyptian culture, in part he meant that by taking sides the U.S. government further enflamed the crisis. One could argue that the revolt would have inevitably triumphed (though the word “inevitably” is usually a mistake in such circumstances) but as long as Mubarak has support of the army there is no way the opposition could win. 5. By publicly treating the Egyptian government in an insulting way, the U.S. government sent bad signals to every ally. They could only conclude that not only might Washington treat them the same way but that it was not a reliable protector against enemies foreign and domestic. 6. By unilaterally saying it would accept the Muslim Brotherhood in government–on the basis of very flimsy and unenforcable conditions–the U.S. government raised the status of the Brotherhood and, again, threw away leverage. It could have simply remained silent. 7. By expressing excessive optimism that everything would be all right, that threats were low or nonexistent, that the Brotherhood was not dangerous, and so on, the government misled public opinion and lulled itself into a false sense of security. It was then caught by surprise as Mubarak rejected Obama’s “orders.” I’d be happy to add more or refine these points based on readers’ suggestions. I have also prepared a longer, more detailed article on this subject to publish soon.  |
| Scoop: Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Explains How It Will Get Rid of Peace Treaty with Israel
Posted: 03 Feb 2011 04:14 PM PST By Barry Rubin
We have been repeatedly assured in the media–on the basis of no evidence–that if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in a coalition or even directly that the radical Islamist group would keep the peace treaty with Israel. On Russian television, one Brotherhood leader, Rashad al-Bayoumi, said that when they came to power they will abolish the treaty altogether. Another, former spokesman Doctor Kamel Helbaoui, explains one way they might get out of it. It is also a good example of how they avoid embarassing questions, and usually get away with it. Clearly, Brotherhood leaders have been warned to avoid extremist statements as it tries to sell itself to the Western audience and (insert adjective) media as moderate and cuddly. In an interview on French television, he says (1:40-2:12 on the show): Interviewer: “And would you revoke the peace treaty with Israel?” So while trying to avoid admitting it, he explains that Egypt would demand changes and not accept the existing treaty. But what you also have to know–and most journalists would miss–is that the Muslim Brotherhood regards Israel’s existence as “occupation” and the denial of Muslim rights. Paradoxically, then, the only way Israel could have a peace treaty with Egypt is not to exist at all. Other Brotherhood spokesmen have said that if the group comes to power there will be a referendum on the treaty, and of course it will be rejected. This has been said many times in Arabic though the Western media seem completely unaware of it, as with many other things about the Brotherhood. You have to understand the bizarre situation here. Every speech in Arabic of Brotherhood leaders and cadre and articles in their publications are full of anti-Jewish hatred, anti-American hatred, and support for violence. Yet in the Western media all of this simply is never mentioned, in part because reporters take the group’s word on its credentials. In other words, the Brotherhood will end the peace with Israel and return to a state of war. This would not necessarily mean going to war, since Egypt’s army might well be unwilling to do so, considering the consequences and not liking the Brotherhood. In contrast, though, it is easy to make Egypt into a safe haven from which terrorists could attack across the border and any weapons Hamas wanted would come from Egyptian arsenals (or if the army blocked that, just be freely imported into the Gaza Strip. Eventually, this would lead to renewed war between Israel and Hamas, or even Israel and Egypt, in which thousands of people would die. Some would call that speculation. I would prefer that they didn’t get to see it proven to be accurate.  |
| Who’s Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? Answer: Sensible People
Posted: 03 Feb 2011 07:29 PM PST  Cartoon by Martin Berman-Gorvine (www.martinbermangorvine.com) for Rubin Reports By Barry Rubin I guess we need a new word. Suppose you have no problem with Islam but are afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood. Soon we will be hearing that you and I have Ikhwanophobia (Ikhwan being the Arabic word often used for that group.) But (un)fortunately the Western media is deluged with a wave of unmerited Ikhwanophilia. Some of this is beyond belief. Such is a New York Times article, “As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear.” Of course, everyone interviewed in the article thinks that it isn’t so bad. Who isn’t quoted? Why the Brotherhood’s own leaders and publications! How about quoting the speeches in which the group’s leader calls for Jihad against the United States? The usual whitewash is done on the Brotherhood’s history, its support for American-killing terrorists in Iraq is left out as is its collaboration with the Nazis, and so on. Here, for example, is the call by Brotherhood representative Muhammad Ghaneim to prepare for war with Israel. Some of this material in the Times article is really funny: “The Brotherhood hates Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda hates the Brotherhood,” said Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “So if we’re talking about counterterrorism, engaging with the Brotherhood will advance our interests in the region.” I mean, what can you say? The Brotherhood hates al-Qaida and loves Hamas. It loves the terrorist Iraqi insurgents who kill Americans. It loves terrorists in Egypt who murder domestic secularists. Incidentally, if this is the kind of person who directs the Brookings Institution research in the Middle East what do the “non-moderates” think? Naturally, Hamid’s statement is left unchallenged by the reporter. But this one, from the author himself, is the real prize: “As the Roman Catholic Church encompasses leftist liberation theology and conservative anti-abortion advocacy, so the Brotherhood includes both practical reformers and firebrand ideologues.” OK. I’m speechless. And of course it wouldn’t have been enough to publish only one article whitewashing the Brotherhood. Oh, no! So the Times also had an op-ed on what a bumbling, silly group they are. This one is full of laughs but the basic message is that the Brotherhood is not a menace because it hasn’t already transformed Egypt into an Islamist state. Of course, someone writing a few years ago about Khomeini, Hamas, Hizballah, or the Taliban could have made similar claims. Critiquing it could have been a lot of fun. But then I was given an interesting challenge by a reader. What should he say to a liberal friend who says the Brotherhood is not going to be any problem because it will sell-out to get U.S. aid. One might say that as a liberal he might disapprove of a group that wants to treat women like property, kill gays, tear up free speech, and a whole raft of what we used to call anti-liberal measures. How would he like to live in such a society? Also, that is precisely what they said about Iran. And Ayatollah Khomeini replied: “This revolution isn’t about the price of watermelons.” Not everyone can be bought off. Some people really believe in their ideas. Creatively, I suggested the following line of explanation: Ask him how he would feel if the Tea Party gets 30-40 percent of the vote and then is the main partner in the government coalition. Now imagine they want to attack Canada, wipe it off the map, and kill all of its people, starting wars in which millions died. Then imagine that they have a long record of assassinations, suspend the Bill of Rights, indoctrinate all the children, and institute religious courts ruling along the lines of their strict interpretations. No doubt he already thinks the Tea Party is horrible, so what should he think about the Muslim Brotherhood which might be even more horrible than he thinks Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are? By the way, the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen wrote: “Unlike the jihadis, [the Muslim Brotherhood] does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative, moderate and non-violent. But it is highly critical of Western policy in the Middle East.” Funny, why then does the group’s supreme leader–translation by MEMRI, which deserves your financial support–talk in these terms: –Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims. –All Muslims are required by their religion to fight: “They crucially 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 the enemies pursue life.” Notice that jihad here is not interpreted as so often happens by liars, apologists, and the merely ignorant in the West as spiritual striving. The clear meaning is one of armed struggle. –The United States is immoral, doomed to collapse, and “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise.” –Palestinians should back Hamas in overthrowing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and unite in waging war on Israel. Later, Bowen’s article was amended to remove the word “moderate.” Maybe the BBC and New York Times should be amended to remove all of the apologists for the Muslim Brotherhood. 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 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 GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org/ and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
 |
| Thinking About Egypt’s Future
By Barry Rubin
Here’s a question worth investigating. The two main “secular” figures on the steering committee of the opposition are the last two opposition candidates for president: Ayman Nur and Muhammad ElBaraidi. As of now, if there is going to be a moderate, secular regime in Egypt these two men are the great hope. But both of them are very much tied to the Brotherhood and dependent on it. In short, the real threat is not that the Brotherhood would stage a coup and seek direct and open power but that it would dominate a government to some extent and that government would be a radical regime tied to countries hostile to the United States, Syria and Hamas more than Iran. Let’s suppose–this is speculation but reasonable–that the Brotherhood were to receive 30 percent in the election and radical nationalist parties got another 5-10 percent. How much power would that give them against a possibly divided bloc of various moderates who on certain issues wouldn’t be so moderate? In a coalition, the Brotherhood would get certain ministries. Obviously not defense or foreign affairs but ones that carry money, patronage, and the ability to influence public opinion like religion, education, and social welfare. The United States has already agreed to Brotherhood participation, before being asked. Remember the 22 Hizballah terrorists caught trying to carry out attacks in Egypt? They’ve escaped from prison. In the future Egypt they’d be able to enter freely and go into the Gaza Strip in order to “help out” there. Isn’t it reasonable for Israel, already facing would-be genocidal forces on two borders (Gaza and Lebanon), to be concerned about the renewed hostility of the region’s single most-powerful Arab country, armed with modern U.S. weapons? Shouldn’t the United States worry about the fact that it is now likely to face eight hostile states in the region (Egypt, Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon’s government, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Turkey’s government) and only has four significant allies left (Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia)? How should Americans and American leaders feel about the reality that its enemies know the United States will not harm them, while its allies know the United States will not help them? Even worse, its allies have to fear being thrown under the bus at any moment. In light of these simple points, is warning about these things alarmist or, rather, is not admitting them alarming?  |
