Things I thought I’d never see: Egyptians supporting Israel against Hamas

July 14, 2014
Seal of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Seal of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What’s next, lambs lying down with lions? Obama embracing the writings of Thomas Sowell?

While Egypt is a land rife with antisemitism (for example), it seems many Egyptians have found someone to hate even more than the Israelis — Hamas:

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi has thus far turned down appeals from Palestinians and other Arabs to work toward achieving a new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas telephoned Sisi and urged him to intervene to achieve an “immediate ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas. Abbas later admitted that his appeal to Sisi and (other Arab leaders) had fallen on deaf ears.

Sisi’s decision not to intervene in the current crisis did not come as a surprise. In fact, Sisi and many Egyptians seem to be delighted that Hamas is being badly hurt.

Some Egyptians are even openly expressing hope that Israel will completely destroy Hamas, which they regard as the “armed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.”

Sisi’s Egypt has not forgiven Hamas for its alliance with Muslim Brotherhood and its involvement in terrorist attacks against Egyptian civilians and soldiers over the past year.

…and…

Egyptian ex-general Hamdi Bakhit was quoted as expressing hope that Israel would re-occupy the Gaza Strip. “This would be better than the Hamas rule,” he said.

…and…

[Egyptian TV presenter Amany al-Khayat’s] colleague, Azza Sami of the newspaper Al-Ahram, went as far as thanking Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for ordering the attack on Hamas. “Thank you Netanyahu and may God give us more [people] like you to destroy Hamas,” she wrote.

Emphases added. This is pretty amazing stuff, akin to us rooting for the Russians in a confrontation with the UK. But, on further thought, it’s not as surprising as one might think. Egyptians experienced a year or so under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, which spawned Hamas, after Muhammad Morsi replaced Hosni Mubarak as president. To say it was a miserable year for Egypt would be an understatement. The economic mismanagement and social disorder finally resulted in a coup d’etat by the army, an act that had massive support from the people. After the coup, the Brotherhood did nothing to redeem itself with Egyptians, attacking the army, a popular institution in Egypt, in a guerrilla war that continues to this day, especially in Sinai. And Hamas supported their fellow Brothers in this.

In addition Egypt has been an economic basket case for years, unable to feed itself without massive and expensive imports. (Skip down to “Wheat prices 101.”) The situation is only getting worse. With such problems, many Egyptians are understandably reluctant to give aid to a Brotherhood offshoot. As the Egyptian paper El-Bayasher wrote:

“The standard of living for a Gazan citizen is much higher than that of an Egyptian citizen. The poor in Egypt are more in need than the poor in the Gaza Strip. Let Qatar spend as much as it wants on the Gaza Strip. We should not send anything that Egyptians are in need of.”

I doubt a majority of Egyptians feel this way, but that so many feel free to speak publicly what would have been unthinkable just a few years ago is a remarkable change. Egypt is Hamas’ lifeline in the region; this is indicative of how thoroughly they’ve screwed up.

Darn.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


With friends like these: Was Egypt involved in the #Benghazi massacre?

June 2, 2013
US Consulate, Benghazi

“For Reasons of State”

The idea seems insane — Egypt participating in the assault on our consulate, when they desperately need outside help to keep their economy (barely) functioning? Sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories, and Egyptian society thrives on such, but journalist Cynthia Farahat presents enough interesting facts to make one go “hmmmm:”

The terrorist attack in Benghazi is far more disturbing than previously thought. Although it has not been reported in the U.S. media, the possibility exists that the Egyptian government may have played an operational role in the attack. YouTube videos of the terrorist strike raise a serious problem that only an Arabic speaker would detect: some of the terrorists are speaking in the Egyptian dialect of the Arabic language.

Indeed, one of the videos shot with a cell phone of one of the attackers emerged around the time four Americans were killed. It shows a mob approaching the American compound under siege, clearly telling the terrorists in the dialect of Upper Egypt: “Mahadesh, mahadesh yermi, Dr. Morsi ba’atna” —which translates to: “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”

The words “Mahadesh yermi” for “don’t shoot” are characteristically spoken in Egyptian Arabic, while Libyans from Benghazi would say, “Matermey” for “don’t shoot.”

“Dr. Morsi” refers, of course, to president Mohamed Morsi of Egypt. The name Morsi is Egyptian and does not exist in any other Arabic speaking country.

Farahat also draws an interesting connection to an event I had forgotten about: at a campaign rally a couple of days after the Benghazi massacre, Obama said Egypt is not an ally, an amazing statement of the deterioration in our relations, given the close cooperation between Egypt and the US over the prior 30 years.

Could it be that US intelligence had picked up on the same linguistic clues Farahat noticed and came to the same conclusion, and that Obama was sending a veiled message that “we know what you did?”

Later on, Farahat discusses a possible explanation for Egypt’s involvement (if they were) that makes the idea at least plausible for me: that Morsi needed to placate more radical Muslim Brotherhood factions and so sent some guys to Libya to establish his jihadi “street cred:”

According to the MB and Sunni doctrine, it’s only permissible for Islamist leaders to maintain a ten-year duration of hodna (Islamic truce) with an infidel nation. This raises the question of whether breaking the truce was the root of the Sep. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi. That attack against America was, according to Islamist doctrine, the only way the MB would be allowed to renew a truce. The MB also might have possibly needed to legitimize their Islamic rule among their jihadist followers through exercising jihad.

So, you see, if true, Morsi had to participate in the massacre of our people in order to keep the hotheads on his side happy.

Nothing personal, you know?

Except it was very “personal” for Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyone Woods.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Irony alert: Eyes finally open, liberals hope for military coup in Egypt

January 30, 2013

From Andy McCarthy’s post at NRO’s “The Corner” blog on commentators rising calls for the Egyptian military to intervene as that country starts to fall apart:

Here’s the really interesting part: The [Egyptian] Left does not have the numbers needed to defeat the Islamists at the ballot box. That is why the latter have won election after election, usually by overwhelming numbers, thus putting Islamists firmly in charge of the government and ensuring passage of the sharia constitution. So what has finally happened: the Left-leaning press in the West is suddenly discovering that maybe popular elections do not equal democracy after all. Maybe there really is something to the notion that democracy is not merely a procedural means by which majorities achieve power; maybe democracy, as us Islamophobes have been contending all along, really is a culture that is committed to equality and respect for such minority rights as freedom of conscience and speech.

The liberal left’s obsession with procedure, seeing elections as synonymous with democracy, is a good portion of what lead to the folly of the Obama administration’s support for democratic-in-name-only “Arab Spring” revolutions in the Sunni Arab world. Instead we cut the legs out from under a friendly but authoritarian regime in Egypt, in the process doing untold damage to 30 years of American policy in the region, and we removed a cruel, crazy, but nevertheless harmless to us dictator in Libya, creating chaos in North Africa. (c.f., Mali)

But, at least, they’d have elections, so all would be good. Majority rule, and all that.

Except that the majority is turning out to be the very groups most hostile to the democracy we hold dear. smiley d'oh!

And now that their Wilsonian unicorn dreams have turned into nightmarish reality, they want a military coup.

Welcome to the waking world, kiddies.

PS: Longtime readers will recall that I supported the liberation of Iraq under George W. Bush, including the effort to help democratic, constitutional government to take root there. I still think it was worth trying –for reasons local to Iraq, I felt it was the one country in the Arab world in which this might work– but, thanks to the Obama administration’s precipitous and premature bug-out from Iraq, my opinion of that country’s democratic future has become much bleaker.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obama administration arms Syrian Muslim Brotherhood?

December 13, 2012
Seal of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Seal of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I recommend reading all of Barry Rubin’s article on the factions in Syria, information that’s becoming more relevant as the civil war there seems to be entering its endgame as the battle for Damascus begins.

It’s this last part that jumps out at me, though:

The Libyan government gave 50 percent of the funds to finance the budget of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council (SNC) budget. Since Libya is very much a U.S. client, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Obama Administration encouraged this generosity. Yet this money was financing a Muslim Brotherhood front. A lot of arms have been flowing from Libya to Hamas and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip and to radical forces in Syria. Some claim that the U.S. government was coordinating that traffic though this has not yet been proven. But at least indirectly the U.S. government was helping to arm the Brotherhood by overseeing Qatar and Turkey delivering weapons to the Brotherhood’s militia without making any attempt to identify and arm moderate and non-Islamist forces instead.

This means the Obama Administration was using a barely disguised channel to pay for a revolutionary Islamist movement seeking to take over Syria. The fact that this group was also anti-American, antisemitic, and genocidal toward Jews seems significant.

The rest of the SNC budget came from Qatar (38 percent) and Saudi Arabia (12 percent).

If the administration thinks they can buy influence with Muslim Brotherhood groups –remember, the Brotherhood sees itself as waging “civilizational jihad” against us– then they’re either nuts, naive, or both. If the SNC comes to power, I advise all US Foreign Service staff there to carry weapons at all times.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) The Grand Jihad

February 3, 2012

Encounter Books recently published “The Grand Jihad: how Islam and the Left sabotage America,” by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. It’s a book I highly recommend as a study not of the threat of terrorism, per se, but of the assault on the Western liberal tradition of tolerant, pluralist politics. It is a battle waged by political, legal, and cultural means, in which jihadist Islam and the secular Left are allies.

The following video, narrated by Bill Whittle, looks at one aspect of this struggle: the Muslim Brotherhood and the feckless response of the Obama administration.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Friends and enemies: Muslim Brotherhood edition

May 4, 2011

In this episode, we learn to learn to tell friends from enemies by seeing what they say to each other in their own language.

Remember when our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said this about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

At a House Intelligence Committee hearing earlier in the day, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) questioned Clapper about the threat posed by the group. Clapper replied by suggesting that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

I wonder how DNI Clapper feels now, after the Muslim Brotherhood said this about Osama bin Laden’s death:

Statement from the Muslim Brotherhood on the assassination of Sheikh(1) Osama bin Laden

The whole world has lived and the especially the Muslims have suffered from a fierce media campaign to label Islam as terrorism and to describe the Muslims as violent, by attaching the September 11th attacks to al-Qaeda(2).

Today, the U.S. president has announced that a special task force of U.S. marines has succeeded in assassinating Sheikh Osama bin Laden, a woman, and one of his children, along with a number of his companions(3). [With this development], We find that we are facing a new situation.

The Muslim Brotherhood declares that they are against the use of violence generally, and against the methods of assassination, and they are with the fair trial of anyone accused of any crime, whatsoever(4).

The Muslim Brotherhood demands for the world (in general) and the Western world, as peoples and governments (particularly) to stop linking Islam with terrorism(5), and to deliberately correct the erroneous image which it has already promoted for a number of years.

The Muslim Brotherhood confirms that the legitimate resistance against foreign occupation for any country is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine law and international convention. Confusion [shuffling papers] between legitimate resistance and violence against innocent people was intended by the Zionist enemy in particular.(6)

And so long as the occupation remains, the legitimate resistance will remain. It is on America, the NATO pact, and the European Union to speedily end the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.(7)

The Muslim Brotherhood demands that the United States cease its intelligence operations(8) against the violators and to desist from interfering in the internal affairs of any Arab or Muslim country.

The Muslim Brotherhood

Cairo, on the 29 of Jumada 1 1432 A.H., corresponding to May 2, 2011

Translation by Sami al-Abasi at Pajamas Media, who notes that the English-language release was scrubbed for Western consumption. Be sure to read the whole thing. Meanwhile, I’ve highlighted some points above:

(1) The Brotherhood bestows an Arab title of honor and respect on bin Laden. Not quite what you’d expect of someone who’s been accused of perverting Islam, but then, really, the only difference between the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda is the point at which the resort to violence is acceptable. The Brotherhood thinks al-Qaeda went violent too soon, risking a Western backlash. Thus, their disagreement is over strategy and tactics, not goals. And, contrary to the multi-culti fluff we’re fed on TV, bin Laden understood Islam very well. As does the Brotherhood.

(2) Yeah, awfully unfair of us to do that, since it was only bin Laden himself who took credit for the attacks, and his Operations Chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted planning it. We really shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

(3) “Companions” is a deliberate allusion to the Companions of Muhammad, the original generation who took up Islam and fought alongside him. Thus the Brotherhood again honors and elevates the man who slaughtered nearly 3,000 Americans and countless Muslims.

(4) A “fair trial” under Sharia law, of course, since no trial held under laws created by Man can ever be fair or just. Remember, to the Brotherhood and other Salafis, democracy is a sham; something to be exploited with the eventual goal of implementing Allah’s divine law.

(5) Again, Islam is treated so unfairly. Just because Muhammad himself repeatedly invoked terror is no reason to associate the religion he created with terrorism. Or something. For example:

Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’ –Ishak 326

(6) Bear in mind that the Brotherhood, as does its offshoot Hamas, considers Israel to be an “illegal occupation,” which means all Israelis are fair game for legitimate resistance terrorism. Key point: when the author distinguishes between legitimate targets and innocent victims, no Jews or Christians in Israel are innocent. And, hey, if you happen to get a few innocent Muslims, too, well… fortunes of war, and all that.

(7) And by this the Muslim Brotherhood supports terror attacks against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, notwithstanding that those forces freed millions of Muslims from horrific tyrannies.

(8) By which the authors means the very kind of intelligence operations that allowed us to track down and kill bin Laden. Yeah, we’re going to jump right on that.

So here  we have an organization that, when speaking in its own language, sanctifies our deadliest enemy; demands that we fool ourselves about the nature of jihad and the role of terror in it, and that bin Laden himself was acting in that those traditions; and authorizes terror attacks against Americans and their allies. Oh, and tries to hide it with a sanitized English version.

I’d call that an enemy, wouldn’t you?

PS: Clapper is still an idiot.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


National Public Radio, or National Money-laundering Radio?

March 10, 2011

When James O’Keefe released his sting video of NPR executives trashing conservatives, Republicans, and Jews while currying favor with what they though were potential donors from a Muslim Brotherhood front group, he promised a follow up. I had a feeling he wasn’t just blowing smoke; a slow drip of explosive revelations is the style he honed while working under Andrew Breitbart.

But I never thought it would be this good. Offering to hide the source of a donation from the IRS?

In case you don’t want to watch the whole thing, here’s the key portion, via The Daily Caller:

New video released Thursday afternoon indicates National Public Radio intended to accept a $5 million donation from fictitious Muslim Brotherhood front group Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust – and that the publicly funded radio network might have helped MEAC make the donation anonymously to protect it from a federal government audit.

When a man posing as Ibrahim Kasaam asked, “It sounded like you were saying NPR would be able to shield us from a government audit, is that correct?” NPR’s senior director of institutional giving, Betsy Liley, responded, “I think that is the case, especially if you are anonymous. I can inquire about that.” According to conservative James O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas organization conducted the NPR sting organization, the man posing as Kasaam made two follow-up phone calls to Liley after their lunch.

Liley said a $5 million donation would amount to about “10 years of support.”

Kasaam follows up by asking: “The fact that NPR is not only a tax-exempt organization, but also receives direct contributions from the government — does that invite some sort of government oversight or government examination of contributions, et cetera?”

Liley answered: “They have audited our programs at times and, I think, as part of that, they can look at our audited financials. If you are concerned in any way about that, that’s one reason you might want to be an anonymous donor. And, we would certainly, if that was your interest, want to shield you from that.

Emphasis added.

Liley goes on to say the same anonymous-donor protection was afforded to universities and other donors, but, come on! There’s a difference between taking money from, say, Notre Dame and covering up a gift from a self-admitted front for the Ikhwan. You know, the organization whose motto is:

“Allah is our goal, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, the Jihad is our way, and the Death for Allah is our most exalted wish.”

But, don’t worry; NPR will make sure no one in the government knows the money came from the same group that founded Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist organization by the Department of State.

Forget cutting their funding — NPR will be lucky if the FBI doesn’t show up with search warrants.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,942 other followers