It should be pointed out that there are truly moderate Muslims
and non-Muslims scattered throughout the Middle East who desire Western
freedoms. They are in the minority, however—just over 20 percent,
estimates Andrew McCarthy in his new book Spring Fever: The Illusion of
Islamic Democracy (2013, p. 55). But they are not the ones receiving
Western support—even in places where they have higher numbers.
Consider Tunisia, for example, long regarded as the most Westernized
of Arab nations. The Muslim Brotherhood's Ennahda Movement or
"Renaissance Party," which Western media wrongly paint as moderate, took
over the leadership of the country after the 2011 revolution but
captured only 42 percent of the popular vote. Though restrained by
having to govern through coalition with non-Islamists, the party still
pushes the Islamist agenda, and sharia is gaining ground. Two men have
even been sent to prison for posting cartoon images of the prophet
Muhammad on Facebook.
In interviewing actual moderates who advocate secular
government, Michael Totten hears the repeated complaint that they have
no support from the United States: "The Americans are with the Islamists. They support Ennahda in Tunisia and the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia.
I've heard this complaint from every single secular person I've
interviewed in this country without exception, from academics and
democratic activists to journalists and teachers.
"They seem to be unanimously shocked and dismayed and appalled. The
subject comes up again and again in conversation even when I ask about
other things. It's impossible to spend any time here whatsoever without
hearing about it" ("US Criticized by Tunisian Secularists for Backing
Islamists," World Affairs, March 21, 2012, emphasis in original).
This reflects a disturbing realignment in U.S. foreign policy. When
Lebanese-born Middle East expert Walid Phares was asked in a recent
interview to expand on his statement that "everyone in Washington knows
Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood," he offered this stunning
response:
"It is time to understand the policies of the Obama administration,
the ones that are public and those that are obvious. If you compare the
various Obama administration policies regarding the Middle East
uprisings, you'd clearly see that the positioning of Washington
regarding these demonstrations and protests is proportional to the
outcome of these revolts.
"When the rising masses are targeting Islamist regimes, the Obama
position abandons the uprising. When the revolt will end up with an
Islamist takeover, the US position swiftly sides with the revolt. These
are not theories, these are measurable realities.
"In June 2009, when millions of Iranians, mostly young (and female)
were demonstrating against the Ayatollahs, President Obama stated the US
'wouldn't meddle.' But when the demonstrations in Egypt exploded, the
Obama position evolved in two stages. As long as it was the youth and
seculars on the streets, Washington stayed in the middle. But when the
Muslim Brotherhood entered Tahrir Square en force, President Obama
meddled 'strongly by asking Mubarak to step down.'
"[The] same scenarios occurred in Tunisia and in Libya and seem to
be repeating itself in Syria. Observers and commentators in the region,
particularly in Egypt, aren't shy about this description. They clearly
state and provide evidence for an alignment of the Obama administration
with the Muslim Brotherhood. US lawmakers for the past few years have
been warning that the administration is favoring the Brotherhood fronts
in Washington and seeking their influence in national security and
foreign policy.
"Well, since the Arab Spring and particularly this year 2012 in
Egypt, this alignment has never been clearer. Ironically, the Obama
administration denies siding with the Brotherhood because the American
public wouldn't digest such an un-American positioning. It would be the
equivalent of an American partnership in the 1930s with the national
socialists [German Nazis] or the Italian fascists.
"Today, in the Arab media there are hundreds of articles, statements
and panels openly exposing and criticizing the Obama administration
support to the Islamists in general and the Brotherhood in particular"
(interview with Jennifer Hanin, "How Does Egypt Regain Its Once-Coveted
Status? . . . Part I," Breitbart.com, Dec. 17, 2012).
McCarthy likewise mentions "the stinging rebukes of Obama's
performance by authentic Egyptian democrats, demoralized over America's
infatuation with the Islamists. This, too, mirrored the Islamist
ascendancy in Turkey: the more unabashed Erdogan became in promoting
sharia and the Brotherhood's jihad against Israel, the closer Washington
drew to him" (p. xiv).
To illustrate how bizarre matters have gotten, in June 2012 the U.S.
administration hosted a delegation of Egypt's new leaders in Washington
that included new parliament member Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the
Islamic Group—the terrorist organization headed by the imprisoned Blind
Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, spiritual leader behind the first World Trade
Center terror attacks in 1993.
"The White House and State Department stonewalled media inquiries
about how a man well known to be a member of a formally designated
terrorist organization could conceivably have been issued, first, a visa
to enter the United States, and then, an invitation to consult with our
government's security and foreign policy officials in Washington" (p.
174). The matter was brushed off as no big deal since Nour was, after
all, democratically elected.
Then there are the recent claims of the Egyptian magazine Rose El-Youssef,
translated into English on the website of the Investigative Project on
Terrorism, that six American Muslim leaders working with the Obama
administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who are helping to
shape U.S. policies. Of course, while that may be, there's no proof that
anyone needed to steer the administration to where it is today.
Topping all this off is the fact that, despite the course Egypt is
now set on, the U.S. government is continuing to send it, the most
powerful Arab nation, billions of dollars in military aid and hardware
(including 20 advanced F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks)—equipment
that could end up being used against Israel or even American forces. We
need to open our eyes to the future that's being set up today.
No comments:
Post a Comment