The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark

[SlowwHand]

I have to be honest, I have absolutely no problem with lopping off the hand of a thief.

[Docfeelgood]

She is a purty women.

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, and in many countries, including the USA, kids are being used to do murder. So they all get a pass? Only adult males face punishment? That's what they're counting on.

[Zevico]

By Barry Rubin

The Egyptian political situation has now entered a new phase. The first order of business is to write a new constitution, a process that should take months (some military spokesmen have said two months). Who is going to be assembling this new governing document and what are the parameters? Nobody knows.*But this is the first point at which the joyous consensus that the tyrant is gone, everyone agrees, and all is new may begin to erode.

It isn’t possible to say much about the constitutional process but the other major process, the election of a new president, is more possible to analyze. I’d guess that these elections will be held in September and the military will rule until then.

The army does not want to rule the country. But it does want to have a major role in designing the new system, trying to ensure that Islamists don’t take over and that Egypt does not sink into chaos. In this respect, it will probably want—with backing from the establishment—a strong presidency, say along the French model, with relatively limited power for parliament.

Mission number one for the army, behind the scenes, is to prevent Muhammad ElBaradei from becoming president and help find someone who can satisfy wide-ranging aspirations without doing anything too extreme. This is especially important because, although we don’t know for sure, it seems quite possible that the constitution will create a very strong presidency, more like France than the British or U.S. system.

Why does the army not like ElBaradei? Because he is an unknown quantity, having been out of the country for thirty years and is in their eyes too close to the Americans. He also has no political experience at all. But most of all he is the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate and that is enough to taint him in their eyes. The Brotherhood would never run a candidate of its own openly for president.

Fortunately for the military—and for Egyptians generally—ElBaradei is not very popular for many of the above-mentioned reasons plus the fact that he is too westernized for the tastes of many Egyptians. Remember, despite his prominence in the Western media he was never the opposition leader.

So who else is there? One candidate who already seems to be mounting a behind-the-scenes campaign is Amr Moussa, former Egyptian foreign minister and Arab League secretary-general. If ElBaradei is dangerous because of his connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, radical impulses, and lack of experience, Moussa is dangerous because of his mercurial personality and very radical views.

There must be other possibilities politicians who have had experience of high office as prime minister or cabinet members in past governments yet have avoided being tainted by corruption or repression. We will no doubt soon be hearing a number of such names.

Regarding the emergent political blocs, they should be four main ones, though each of these could be split into many factions and rival forces.

"Establishment" Reformers: Muhammad ElBaradei has been practically coronated by foreign observers yet his appeal is untested and his organization almost non-existent. One of the most important "secrets" of Egypt today is the degree of his dependence on the Brotherhood. Indeed, of all the possible opposition candidates he is about the closest to the Brotherhood. That's no coincidence: that's precisely why he has flourished. And the Brotherhood will run on a joint ticket with him.

Incidentally, the previous opposition candidate for president, Ayman Nour, has similar problems. And he also now says the Egypt-Israel peace treaty should be amended or voted on in a referendum, which would surely abrogate the agreement. Remember that Nour's Kefaya group was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood who put Egypt's leading antisemite*as its leader, though he has*died.

The idealistic democracy advocates of the April 6 and other movements are already split over*whether or not to trust the army. It is unlikely that they will be able to build a major party.

Another question is whether a reformist candidate could emerge independent of association with the Brotherhood. The “Catch-22” here is how would such an urbanized, westernized, figure without an organization appeal to massive numbers of Egyptians? If the man is found it might happen.

The Islamist Party:*The Muslim Brotherhood will not take power and Egypt will not become an Islamist state overnight. The Brotherhood is not stupid. While wealthy, secularized, urban Egyptians may look at them as a peasant rabble—just as the equivalent Iranians viewed their Islamists and such Lebanese saw Hizballah--this group has maneuvered very skillfully in the past.

It will seek a front man for president and then either form its own sheep’s clothing party or*dominate another party from behind the scenes.* But that is also its weakness: it has probably chosen the wrong man for its presidential candidate.

Nevertheless, it will be a very important factor in any future parliament, a drive beginning with the Brotherhood starting to discuss plans to become a political party. At the barest minimum the Brotherhood can expect 15 percent in a very divided parliament and perhaps double that amount. They will be a player and a force to be courted by anyone who would want to rule, meaning concessions to its demands.

Incidentally, does anyone else think it rather strange that after ridiculing the point I and others have been making about the Muslim Brotherhood being strong and radical, the New York Times just drops this sentence into the middle of an article:
"Egypt’s revolution is far from decided, and the Muslim Brotherhood remains the most popular and best-organized opposition forces in the country, poised to play a crucial role in the transition and its aftermath." (emphasis added).

An Establishment party. The ruling NDP, even if it changes its name or appears in a totally new guise, might get no support at all, tainted as it is by association with the old regime. But there will doubtless be a new party of the establishment. Enjoying backing from existing institutions and wealthier segments of society, this party could win if it finds the right candidate.

The Left: Quasi-Marxists and extreme nationalists who may fragment or produce a joint ticket. These parties might not run a presidential candidate, yet they will be a factor in parliamentary politics. They could never take power in their own right but could be important in a coalition with nationalists and the Brotherhood. Don’t assume such a partnership couldn’t happen.

The nationalists: Ironically, despite the apparent repudiation of the regime, these are people who want a return to the regime, not of Mubarak but of a romanticized Nasserist era, which most of the population is too young to remember. Of course, this would be different from the historic Arab nationalism, a blend of Arabism, Egyptian patriotism, with anti-American and anti-Israel flavorings.

This is the kind of thing Moussa represents. He's more popular than ElBaradei, knows how to be a demagogue, is familiar to Egyptians, and seems more of a known quantity, and is anti-Israel and anti-American enough to galvanize the masses.

The problem is that both outcomes are bad: with ElBaradei you get the possibility of growing Islamism; with Moussa there is an updated form of radical nationalism. The idea of some idealistic, good government reformer winning seems slim at best, partly because it is hard to find someone like that and it is hard for someone like that to appeal to the masses.

And here’s a possible paradox. If the Muslim Brotherhood was going to take over the government altogether and make Egypt an Islamist republic, the army would take action but that does not apply to a radical nationalist Egypt, with which many younger officers would sympathize.

But the situation favors demagoguery. Already, Egyptians are demanding pay raises*and higher subsidies. Where's the money going to come from? The situation is ripe for someone to say: loot the rich, undo privatization, create plenty of useless government jobs, hate the Americans who are exploiting us, and*it's all Israel's fault.

You can start worrying because the Washington Post has just declared Amr Moussa to be a moderate.

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 books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

[C0ckney]

oh what a surprise, jewish commentator barry rubin sees the whole thing through israeli eyes. the theme of the article is that things will be bad in the future, why? because the new eygpt will be less friendly towards israel.

[Zevico]

That comment is racist.

[C0ckney]

that post is pathetic.

[Egbert]

That comment is racist.

It was not racist.

[SpencerH]

I have a strong feeling this whole buisness will not end well for the Copts or Egyptians in general. I would say there is a distinct possibility we will see a Islamic Republic in the country in the next decade. There is very little hope of a secular society coming out of this.

You do realize that the Copts (or any christian) are not apostate.

[Zevico]

In your view the author is either intellectually blinded or dishonest because he is a jew. Either view is sheer idiocy. If you think his opinions are wrong then state why. "because he is a jew" is not answer.

[SpencerH]

oh what a surprise, jewish commentator barry rubin sees the whole thing through israeli eyes. the theme of the article is that things will be bad in the future, why? because the new eygpt will be less friendly towards israel.

What perspective shold he have written from, if not Israeli? As for his theme, only the naive expect this "revolution" to end well for the Israelis (or us). At best, I anticipate a shift back to the tense military positions that were in place prior to the 73 war.

[C0ckney]

he can write from whatever perspective he likes, i am merely stating the obvious fact that he sees the situation through israeli eyes and that his words should be seen in that context. i don't agree with his analysis of the situation, his treatment of the muslim brotherhood is simply scaremongering with little basis in reality. the whole tone of the article makes it hard to take it seriously.

israeli interests, western interests and the interests of the eygptian people are not same thing here. personally i think the interests of the latter are paramount here. i think that whatever government emerges from this will probably be somewhat less friendly towards israel, but i don't see why anyone (outside of israel) should think that a tragedy. of course, it's hard to know what will happen at this stage, 6 months is a long time and a lot can happen between and then.

[Zevico]

If reliance on the brotherhood's own statements to its supporters is fearmongering, what is the truth?
From memri-- a translation service

This report presents an overview of the positions of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, as expressed by its general guide, Muhammad Badi', since his nomination in January 2010, and as set out in its proposed political platform, which was drafted in the era of Badi's predecessor, Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef, and was leaked to the media in August 2007. The translations are taken from reports published by MEMRI over recent years.[1]
Badi': The U.S. Is on the Verge of Collapse
In a Friday sermon in September 2010, Badi' said that the U.S. was already on the threshold of collapse and would soon fall, like other immoral societies before it: "The Soviet Union fell dramatically, but the factors that will lead to the collapse of the U.S. are much more powerful than those that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire – for a nation that does not champion moral and human values cannot lead humanity, and its wealth will not avail it once Allah has had His say, as happened with [powerful] nations in the past. The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise..."
In the same sermon, Badi' said that the Muslims would soon emerge victorious over their enemies, as promised by Allah in the Koran: "Allah said: 'The hosts will all be routed and will turn and flee [Koran 54:45].' This verse is a promise to the believers that they shall defeat their enemies, and [that the enemies] shall withdraw. The Companions of the Prophet received this Koranic promise in Mecca, when they were weak... and a little more than nine years after the Hijra, Allah fulfilled his promise in the Battle of Badr... Can we compare that to what happened in Gaza?"
He called on the Muslims to unite against their enemies, whose "oppression and tyranny" they need not fear: "Today we see how much the [Muslim] nation needs unity... O Muslim nation, unite! O sons of Palestine, unite, all of you, in the face of the enemies who scheme against you, and know that Allah is the best of schemers, and that though Him you shall triumph. [Know that] Islam is capable of confronting oppression and tyranny, and that the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah."[2]
In a March 2010 sermon, Badi' said that Allah promised to destroy nations guilty of "oppression, aggression, and tyranny" in the Koran: "Allah says about the destruction of nations because of their oppression, aggression, and tyranny: 'Of the wrongdoers the last remnant was cut off. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds [Koran 6:45]'; 'And [as for] these towns, We destroyed them when they acted unjustly, and We have appointed a time for their destruction' [Koran 18:59]..."[3]
Badi': Jihad – The Only Path to Restoring the Muslim Ummah to Its Former Glory
Badi' has repeatedly called on Muslim leaders to encourage and support jihad, which he considers a duty incumbent on Muslims and the only path to restoring the Muslim ummah to its former glory. In a weekly Friday sermon in April 2010, he said: "Muslim leaders, Islam, to which you belong, advocates jihad as the only means for setting the Ummah's situation aright, as Allah says: 'O you believers! When you are told to go forth in Allah's way, why should you incline heavily to earth? Are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter?' [Koran 9:38] Our revival, majesty, and glory depend on the return to righteousness, which will only be achieved through resistance and the support of [resistance] in every way – with money, arms, information, and self[-sacrifice]..."[4]
Badi' has called on Muslims peoples to wage jihad in whatever way they can, whether through personal self-sacrifice or through contributions. For instance, in the March 2010 sermon mentioned above, he said: "A nation cannot live, a state cannot be founded, rights cannot be protected, and land, property and money cannot be preserved but by means of jihad for the sake of Allah. [Therefore], 'stand up and strive in His cause as you ought to strive [Koran 22:78]'... Our only way to repel the vicious attack on our land and restore our honor and glory is to sacrifice our souls, our money, our time, our lives and anything else for the sake of our noble cause."[5]
In the same sermon, Badi' rejected definitions of jihad as terrorism, insisting that jihad is legitimate, and calling the occupation of land by foreign elements terrorism: "...Jihad must not be likened to terror. Jihad means making sacrifices in order to restore what has been stolen, defend one's property, expel the occupier, and make Allah's word supreme, while terror is occupying someone else's land..."[6]
In the abovementioned September 2010 sermon, Badi' said: "Today the Muslims desperately need a mentality of honor and means of power [that will enable them] to confront global Zionism. [This movement] knows nothing but the language of force, so [the Muslims] must meet iron with iron, and winds with [even more powerful] storms. 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."[7]
"It is your obligation to stop the absurd negotiations, whether direct or indirect, and to support all forms of resistance for the sake of liberating every occupied piece of land in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all [other] parts of our Muslim world. The sources of your authority, as all religious scholars have agreed, are the Koran and the Sunna, and not U.N. resolutions or the dictates of the Zionists or Americans. This can be achieved if you declare the Palestine cause and the causes of the [other] occupied Islamic nations your primary concern. You must stand behind your free peoples and their various institutions in their repeated calls for boycotts, an end to normalization, and support for the resistance and its representatives... You must revoke all the agreements of capitulation.... especially the Camp David Accords... which go against the Egyptian constitution and U.N. resolutions, and do not therefore obligate Egyptian senior officials..."[8]
Badi': The Koran Is the Constitution
In his September 23, 2010 Friday sermon, Badi' said: "The noble Koran is the constitution that sets out the laws of Islam. It is the fountainhead of all virtue and wisdom in the hearts of the believers, and it is the best [way] for the believers to become closer to Allah... The Holy Koran includes all the tenets of faith, laws of worship, principles of public good [and] legal concepts [pertaining to] this world, including duties and prohibitions, and they are for the benefit of all humanity, without distinctions of religion, [skin] color, gender, [social] status or language..."
Badi' added that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Bana had considered it the duty of the Muslims to establish the Koran as the basis for the laws of this world and to implement these laws. Al-Bana, Badi' said, believed that "the Muslim Brotherhood... [must] urge the public to obey the edicts [of the Koran] and to join them in achieving this goal, which is the loftiest goal a Muslim [has] in his life, so that the Koran may rightly become our constitution and the constitution of the entire Muslim ummah..."
Badi' added that the Koran must continue to be a way of life for every Muslim and his family, and that, at the state level, countries whose official religion is Islam must establish the Koran as "the basis for the constitution and the first source of legislation, the scales of justice in the courtrooms and one of the bases of the [school] curricula at all levels [of education]... All clauses of the [state] constitution which Islam and its precepts do not permit must be removed..."[9]
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Discussions of Political Platform
In January 2007, Badi's predecessor, former Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood supreme guide Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef declared that, for the first time in its history, the Muslim Brotherhood movement would publicize its political platform. Since then, the official platform has not been released,[10]*but a draft of the platform – sent by the movement to some 50 Egyptian intellectuals for review – was leaked to the media in August 2007.[11]
Following is a translation of the platform as it appeared on the website Islam Online:
The President and Legislative Branch Will Be Advised by the Supreme Council of Clerics
The religious character of the state is an issue dealt with extensively in the platform. The draft states: "We present this reform plan to all sectors of the Egyptian people... in accordance with the constitution and with the [principle of] freedom of expression, opinion and thought, and in accordance with the second article of the constitution, which states that Islam is the official state religion and that the Islamic*shari'a*is the main source for legislation... [p. 5]. The Islamic state is, by its very nature, a civil state, because appointments to [public] office are made on the basis of qualifications, experience, and expertise, while the [holders of] political positions are elected by the people... [p. 14])"
The draft platform states further: "The authority of the*shari'a*will be implemented in a manner that conforms to the [will of the] nation, by means of a parliamentary majority elected in free, clean, and transparent [elections]. The legislative branch must consult with the nation's Supreme Council of Clerics, which will likewise be freely and directly elected from among the clerics, and will be completely independent of the executive branch – procedurally, financially and administratively. It will be assisted by neutral and reliable committees and advisors with knowledge and experience, including in the secular sciences. [The duty of consulting with the Supreme Council of Clerics] will also apply to the president when he wishes to implement decisions based on law and in the absence of the legislative branch. In these circumstances, the Supreme Council of Clerics decision will be final and will best serve the interests of the public.
"In the case of controversial [questions] which are not unambiguously [settled] by*shari'a*laws based directly on clear and applicable texts [from the Koran or*hadith], the final decision will be made by the legislative branch. Such decisions, if [approved by] the legislative branch by absolute majority, will be valid even if they contradict the opinion of the Supreme Council of Clerics. In such cases, before the legislative branch makes its final decision, it must appeal to [the Supreme Council of Clerics] and present its position, which it believes better serves the interests of the public.
"The criteria for electing the members of the Supreme Council of Clerics, and the standards they will be required to meet, will be stipulated by law... [p. 10]"
Non-Muslims Are Barred From the Presidency
Another clause that evoked criticism deals with the treatment of Egypt's non-Muslim population. The draft states: "A state is predicated on the principle of citizenship. Egypt is the state of all those who hold Egyptian citizenship, who by law have equal rights and duties in accordance with the principles of equality and equality of opportunity... [p. 12]. The principles of equality and equality of opportunity are essential in obtaining justice and in deepening [the sense of] belonging to the homeland; they can be implemented by avoiding discrimination, in both rights and duties, on the basis of religion, gender, and race, and by granting all citizens an [equal] opportunity to express their opinions; to run for political organizations, to join [such organizations] and to move [freely] from one to another; [and] to study and to work - [providing] that they observe the basic values of society... [p. 23]."
On the other hand, the draft included the following: "There are basic religious offices in the country whose [function] is to protect religion. An Islamic state must protect non-Muslim [citizens] in all things concerning faith, ritual, etc.; at the same time, it must preserve Islam and all matters related to it, ensuring that no ritual, propaganda, or pilgrimage contradicting Islamic activities are carried out. These religious offices include that of the president or prime minister, depending on the political regime [in the country]. Accordingly, we believe that the duty of the president or prime minister - depending on the political regime - runs against the beliefs of non-Muslims. Consequently, a non-Muslim is exempt from this position, based on the Islamic*shari'a, which does not obligate a non-Muslim to perform functions that contradict his faith... [p. 15]"
The Role of President Is Unsuitable For Women
According to the draft platform, women, too, are barred from running for president. The document stipulates that one way of ensuring citizens' equality and equality of opportunity is "to grant the woman all rights due to her in a way that does not undermine basic values in society. [p. 23]" It further states: "Women constitute half the population, and they balance the family roles (as wives, mothers, and house owners). Islam has [always] treated woman as man's sister. As for the woman's role with regard to employment, [Islam] stipulates that it should be balanced against the woman's lofty mission at home, with her children, so as to strengthen the basic units of society.
"Our worldview presupposes complete equality in human dignity between man and woman, while at the same time assigning crucial importance to distinguishing their social and humanitarian roles, without affecting the status of either gender. The woman's role in the family invests her with primary responsibility for educating the next generation and for ensuring that the family in our Egyptian Arabic Muslim culture serves as the basic social unit. Our national revival is predicated on the reestablishment of the family unit. Accordingly, we attribute supreme importance to the balance in the woman's roles, [including] the enhancement of her roles within the family and in public life; she should not be burdened with obligations that contradict her nature or her role within the family.
"We believe that offices occupied by women are determined by social consensus that rests on the authority of the Islamic culture. The debate over several offices and the possibility for a woman to occupy them (e.g., as judges) must be carried out as part of the social and religious dialogue with the aim of attaining social consensus, so that both women and men have a chance to participate in the decision-making process. On our part, we believe that the burdens of presidency must not be placed on a woman's shoulders – any more than supervising and leading the army – since they contradict her nature and the rest of her social and humanitarian roles... [p. 103]."
The Peace Treaty with Israel Will Be Reexamined
Another controversial aspect of the draft platform concerns honoring ratified international peace agreements, meaning in particular the peace agreements with Israel. The document states: "We honor unwritten laws and treaties, international contracts and agreements, as well all agreements that call for cooperation between the peoples to attain justice and equality... [p. 7] The principle of honoring international treaties and agreements ensures the stability of relations between the countries, and creates a legal framework for settling conflicts between different sides. International law, as well as international treaties and agreements, offers ways to probe the extent of commitment of the sides, while at the same times providing avenues for their revision should any of the sides feel that the agreement in question discriminates against it, harms its status, or undermines its security. Revising bilateral agreements and treaties is [an accepted] practice in international relations, anchored in [special] clauses of these agreements – and is regarded as a routine procedure... [p. 29]"
Tourists Visiting Egypt Must Respect Islamic Laws
The clause dealing with tourists in Egypt is equally controversial. The draft states: "Tourist services comprise religious tourism, scientific tourism, tourism to attend conferences, tourism for [medical] treatment, commercial tourism, and holiday tourism. All activities related to these aspects of tourism must be in line with Islamic principles, values, and laws. A tourist must familiarize himself with Muslim religious boundaries, so as not to transgress them in public during his stay [in Egypt]. As an Islamic state, Egypt must adhere to the Islamic values...Shari'a*permits a non-Muslim to do things that are forbidden to a Muslim, albeit not in public but only in the private sphere – and this [regulation] also applies to a tourist... [p. 57]"
This clause infuriated Egypt's tourist agencies, which claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood's aim was to sabotage the Egyptian economy. The director of one such company said in response to the release of the draft: "How can we request that tourists in our country fulfill the demands of the Brotherhood's platform – is that reasonable? Doesn't our Islamic faith prompt us to honor [other] religions, [according to the verse] 'You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion [6:109]'? How can we force our religious precepts and principles on them? Every free individual [should have the right to choose] his faith… The Brotherhood's platform, if implemented, would cause great losses and harm to Egypt's tourism. A tourist travels to enjoy his freedom, and it is not wise to impose constraints – indeed, what, then, is the meaning of the word 'tourism?'..."[12]

http://m.memri.org/14499/show/0b5b63f3c2b8120123666c5cd4149fe1&t=20320d97cb30b6845cb6422bedb5dfbe

[Zevico]

To add insult to injury, a brotherhood leader praised Iran's "good government" on bbc persian. Democracy, here we come! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNOCUcXQ8Q0
And for holocaust denial, turn here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4554986.stm

[germanos]

Well, since the west supports Israeli governments with Shas and Liebermann (who spout equal ****) there is no reason to get into a sissi fit.