Consider
one fact that demolishes the apparatus of nonsense about moderate
Islamists and the credibility of those claiming there is nothing to
worry about. These are the same people who have been declaring for more
than a year that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate. Yet now the
Brotherhood's presidential campaign has shown it to be extraordinarily
radical, openly demanding a caliphate and Egypt being a Sharia state.
Suddenly
the subject is changed. Nobody acknowledges that they were wrong about
the Brotherhood. They focus now on a different candidate who we are told
is the true moderate Islamist, as if their previous favorite "moderate
Islamist" movement has now thrown off its camouflage.
“Democracy, as Western democracies have long known,” wrote Shadi
Hamid, in predicting a Brotherhood majority in the parliamentary
election some months ago, “is about the right to make the wrong choice.”
True. But foreign policy, as everyone has long known, is about dealing
with the consequences of wrong outcomes and trying to prevent them if
possible.
We
are told that Abdul Moniem Abul Fotouh is the “moderate Islamist”
candidate for president of Egypt whom the West should support. He
promises that Egypt will be an Islamic but civil state with equality for
all of its citizens. The problem is that Abul Fotouh keeps making
statements that belie that image, statements never mentioned by those
who ridicule fears about Egypt’s new government.
One
ignorant neoconservative wrote in a Canadian newspaper as his main
argument for there being no problem that the regime couldn’t be
dangerous because in the presidential debate the question of Israel was
only raised near the end. Naturally, the debate structure wasn’t
determined by Fotouh and what he said about Israel was quite
threatening, namely that it is a racist enemy based on occupation and
threatening Muslims with 200 nuclear weapons. At any rate, the main
problem is not what the new regime will do to Israel but what it will do
to Egypt, eventually followed by what it will do to Israel.
This follows, of course, the national security editor of the National Journal explaining
that there's no danger of a radical Islamist Egypt because he could
find one (neo)conservative who agreed with him on that issue. What's
truly funny here is that I'm not exaggerating in describing their best
arguments.
Here is a new statement by
Abul Fotouh. In an interview on an Egyptian television station, Abul
Fotouh said he was against “terrorism” but then explained that Usama bin
Ladin was not a terrorist, that the United States only called him one
in order to “hit Muslim interests,” and that the killing of bin Ladin
was an “act of state terrorism.” In other words, he’s saying September
11 wasn't an act of terrorism but that Obama’s policy is anti-Muslim and
terrorist.
I’d
agree that he’s better than the official Muslim Brotherhood candidate
but there are lots of other problems with this “moderate Islamist”:
--Does he mean to keep liberal promises that contradict his previous (and current) statements on many issues?
--Can
he deliver on these promises even if he wanted to do so? The Islamist
non-moderate parliament and the Constitution it will write is unlikely
to be along the lines he claims to advocate.
--While
the other leading candidate, Amr Moussa, would resist Islamization of
Egyptian society and policy, Abul Fotouh would support it, believing he
can stop at a certain point, having both Sharia rule and a tolerant
liberal approach.
Yet
what he would actually be doing is to preside--whatever his
intentions--over the Islamization process that cannot be easily stopped
or reversed. --If he does resist the radical parliament it will just
limit his power in the Constitution. Remember that the role of the
president has not yet been defined and Abul Fotouh will have no rule in
legally defining it.
--How
many supporters does Abul Fotouh have in parliament? Answer: Zero. Yes,
the Salafists (25 percent of parliament) support his candidacy but they
are more extreme than the Brotherhood. Will he alienate this base so
that every Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist in parliament votes against
him on every issue?
--Can
a civil state be run under Islamic law. He says that he will give
equality to women and Christians, to liberals and socialists. Is he
going to appoint such people to high offices? Remember that non-Islamist
regimes found a way to balance on this issue by appeasing the Islamists
and traditionalist clerics up to a point but then using their
dictatorial powers to do other things (grant more a bit more rights to
women; ally with the United States and make peace with Israel; implement
civil law imported from Europe, etc). A democratic state dependent on a
pro-Islamist electorate cannot do that.
--What
would he do when Salafists--the people who voted for him—attack
churches, women not wearing “proper” clothing, and secularists? Call out
the army and repress them? Remember what is key is not just what the
government does itself but what it allows others to do.Click here to read more
No comments:
Post a Comment