02 February '11
http://justjournalism.com/media-analysis/the-muslim-brotherhood-on-israel-hezbollah-and-iran/
Today’s media coverage of the increasing scale of the protests in Egypt has raised the issue of how any radical change in government might impact on the longstanding peace treaty between the Arab state and Israel. In particular, greater attention has been given to the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, with corresponding attention given to the beliefs of the Islamist organisation.
Recent coverage
Many commentators have dismissed the threatening ideology of the group. For example, on Jan 31, 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.’
Since then, the article has been amended to remove the word ‘moderate’.
Similarly Ed Husain, writing in today’s Financial Times, downplayed the hostility of the Muslim Brotherhood towards Israel, and the threat it poses to Egypt’s neighbour:
‘Perhaps the most important issue remains the Brotherhood’s stance on Israel. Israel remains a regional superpower, with little to fear from Egypt’s shabby military. Even Mr ElHelbawi [a senior Muslim Brotherhood figure], often an apologist for suicide bombers, does not dismiss existing agreements between Israel and Egypt. Even if a post-Mubarak Egypt turned belligerent, Israel could protect itself.’
Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent today, argued that fears of the Muslim Brotherhood’s radical Islamism had been ‘encouraged’ by Israel:
‘And then there was the absence of the “Islamism” [at the protests] that haunts the darkest corners of the West, encouraged – as usual – by America and Israel. As my mobile phone vibrated again and again, it was the same old story. Every radio anchor, every announcer, every newsroom wanted to know if the Muslim Brotherhood was behind this epic demonstration. Would the Brotherhood take over Egypt? I told the truth. It was rubbish.’
‘Strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood 1928-2007’, published by the Hudson Institute’s Center on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World, gives a detailed overview of the evolution of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, describing how it has modified its strategies and methods over the decades, while still working towards its final goal of establishing an Islamist state in Egypt.
The report includes details of recent pronouncements by senior Muslim Brotherhood figures on the use of violence, the status of Israel, the legitimacy of Hezbollah and Iran’s nuclear programme. These statements raise questions about the viability of any long term peace-treaty between Israel and Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood were to gain any significant level of control.
Jihad and Israel
While the two most significant historical figures in Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna and Sayid Qutb, both directly advocated the use of military means to achieve their goals, by and large the Muslim Brotherhood today has renounced the use of violence, not least because of the threat to the organisation from Egypt’s security apparatus. However, the organisation still remains committed to ‘jihad’ (defined as a defensive war) against the ‘foreign occupation’ of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, as argued by Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akif, who headed the organisation between 2004 and 2010:
‘Addressing what he describes as the foreign occupation of Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan, the MB’s General Guide ‘Akif has been calling upon all Muslims to support the resistance (muqawamah) there. In a missive entitled “Jihad and Martyrdom [Istishhad] are the Way to Glory and Victory,” for example, he stated that Islam regards resistance against occupation “a jihad for God”.’
Further statements by ‘Akif suggest that all of Israel is regarded as a legitimate target:
‘‘Akif declared that Zionists, civilians and soldiers, should be killed, because the “Zionist people” as a whole is an armed military that occupies Palestine, and there is no difference between military Zionists and civilian ones.’
Hezbollah
While many Islamist organisations are hostile towards Hezbollah, due to their status as a Shia organisation in a predominantly Sunni region, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood openly supported them during the 2006 war against Israel, with ‘Akif declaring that:
‘Islam today regains its role in leading the struggle against the Zionist project.’
According to the report, ‘Akif also publicly announced ‘his preparedness to send ten thousand mujahidin [muslim fighters]’ to support Hezbollah, and condemned Arab leaders for not doing likewise. This criticism was supported by another Muslim Brotherhood leader:
‘A senior MB figure remarked that Hizbullah’s Secretary General, Hasan Nasrallah, could portray his son (who died fighting against an Israeli unit in 1997) as a martyr to the Muslim Nation, while others (meaning Egypt’s President Mubarak) present their sons as their heirs in power.’
Iran
The Muslim Brotherhood’s support for Hezbollah, irrespective of the Sunni-Shia divide, is reflected in statements about Iran and its potential nuclear weapons programme:
‘Deputy General Guide Muhammad Habib said that he believed that the Iranian nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, but if it were to have a military purpose, it would serve to balance the Israeli nuclear arsenal. “It will create a sort of a balance between the two sides, the Arab and Islamic side and the Israeli side.” He said that he had no problem with Iran’s having nuclear weapons, and that he believed most Egyptians held the same position.’
Conclusions
According to the report, these statements showcase the Muslim Brotherhood’s increased confidence and willingness to assert itself, especially at the expense of the Egyptian government:
‘Through their posturing as champions of the jihad against Israel, set in stark contrast to the inactivity of the Arab regimes and their implied collusion with the enemies of Arabs and Islam, the MB was thus positioning itself as offering leadership where the state has failed to offer it From substituting for the state in the area of social services it has been moving to the area of foreign affairs, hitherto the sacred domain of the state.’
See also: ‘Israel in the media narrative on Egypt‘, examining how Israel has been discussed in editorials on the unrest in Egypt.
See also: ‘BBC removes flattering profile of Muslim Brotherhood‘, which includes information on the ties between the group and Hamas.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment