Sisi is not Mubarak and what it means for Israel by Caroline Glick

...Sisi became the first major leader to break with this consensus, as a result of actions Hamas took before and since his rise to power. He has brought Saudi Arabia and the UAE along on his intellectual journey. And this reassessment has had a profound impact on regional realities generally and on Israel’s strategic posture specifically. From Israel’s perspective, this is a watershed event.

Caroline Glick..
Column One/JPost..
02 December '14..

The Egyptian court’s decision last Saturday to acquit former president Hosni Mubarak, his sons and associates of all remaining charges against them caused most commentators to proclaim that current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi has turned back the clock. Under his leadership, they say, Egypt has restored Mubarak’s authoritarian regime under a new dictator.

While this may be how things appear on the surface, the fact of the matter is that at least as far as Israel is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth.

During his 30-year rule, Mubarak always assessed that threats against Israel were unrelated to threats against Egypt. Due to this view, despite continuous complaints from Jerusalem, Mubarak enabled jihadists to take root in Sinai. He allowed Egypt to be used as the major path for terrorist personnel and armaments to enter Gaza. He took only minor, sporadic action against the smuggling tunnels connecting Gaza to Sinai.

By 2005, it became apparent that forces from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and al-Qaida were operating in the Sinai and cooperating with one another.

Despite warnings from Israel, Mubarak took no effective action to break up the emerging alliance and convergence of forces.

It was due to Mubarak’s refusal to act that the Palestinians in Gaza were able to begin and massively expand their projectile war of mortars, rockets and missiles against Israel. From the first such attacks, carried out 14 years ago, the Palestinian projectile campaigns could never have happened without Egypt’s effective collaboration.

On countless occasions, Palestinian terrorist commanders were able to escape to Sinai and avoid arrest by Israeli forces, only to return to Gaza from Sinai and continue their operations.

Mubarak believed that Israel was his safety valve.

By facilitating jihadist operations against Israel from Egyptian territory, he assumed that he was securing Egypt from them. As he saw things, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran would be so satisfied with his cooperation in their jihad against the Jews that they would leave him alone.

It was only in 2009, when Egypt announced the unraveling of a terrorist ring in Sinai comprised of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hamas and Hezbollah operatives planning attacks against Israel and Egypt, and seeking the overthrow of the regime, that Mubarak began signaling he may have misjudged the situation. But even then, his actions against those forces were sporadic and half-hearted.

Hamas’s continued assaults against Israel in the years that followed, and the build-up of Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida forces in Sinai, were a clear sign that Mubarak was unwilling to contend with the unpleasant reality that the very forces attacking Israel were also seeking to overthrow his regime and destroy the Egyptian state.

In stark contrast, Sisi rose to power as those selfsame forces were poised to destroy the Egyptian state. The Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power owed in part to the support it received from Hamas.

The army’s regime

Tony Badran
NOW Lebanon
17 February '11
Posted before Shabbat

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=241354

When commenting on Hosni Mubarak’s resignation, President Obama spoke about the Egyptian people’s “hunger for change,” which “bent the arc of history toward justice.” Perhaps. But for now, Egypt’s military will continue to run the show. The feel-good references to the American civil rights movement mask a worrying uncertainty over how the policies upheld by Egypt for the last three decades might now change, profoundly impacting US interests. While most observers are focusing on the Muslim Brotherhood as the agent of such potential change, it is the Egyptian military, and the course it decides to chart, that will be of the utmost consequence.

It was interesting to see how Western jubilation over the Egyptian revolution was shared – albeit for very different reasons – by the Iranian alliance system. The so-called “Resistance Axis” painted the events in Egypt and President Mubarak’s resignation with the brush of Egypt’s return as a “confrontation state,” joining in “resistance” against Israel.

At the Hezbollah-organized festival of “Egyptian Arabism and the path of Resistance,” the tone was delirious as self-professed resisters and rejectionists began discussing the reopening of the “southern front,” and calling on Egypt to “follow the model of the Resistance” and restore its leadership position in the “nationalist jihad” against Israel.

Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah had called on the Egyptian military to join the people in embracing Resistance during the 2009 war in Gaza. This was in line with the Iranian doctrine of distinguishing between the region’s peoples and regimes, painting the former as natural and willing supporters of resistance, hindered only by oppressive pro-Western governments.

Of course, despite Mubarak’s departure, there has been no actual regime change in Egypt. The system has been dominated by the military for decades and looks poised to remain so. Therefore, the notion that, merely as a result of Mubarak’s resignation, the Egyptian military is on the verge of embracing the people’s allegedly natural resistance ethos, is overstated.

All propaganda aside, however, one must still seriously consider what the posture of the new Egyptian government will be toward its relationship with Israel – a main pillar of the US order in the eastern Mediterranean.

Peace Does Not Come from Pieces of Paper

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
14 February '11

For 33 years the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel were used as proof that negotiated accords could and would bring peace in the Middle East. But the peace accords could not outlast Sadat and his VP Mubarak. With Sadat assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Mubarak driven out by a Brotherhood-Leftist alliance, the peace accords have proven themselves to be every bit as useless as the critics said they were.

Ayman Nour, one of the leading liberal opposition politicians, has declared that the Camp David accords are over, and might be preserved only if Israel agrees to end the demilitarization of the Sinai. There is no reason for Egypt to keep troops in the Sinai, except in preparation for another war. Nour's call actually echoed a similar call by Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar. Which shouldn't come as a surprise.. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood's affiliate in Israel, and Ayman Nour has been coordinating his activities with the Muslim Brotherhood. He met with Mohammed Badie, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, at the end of last year to discuss forming a shadow parliament.

The argument that the overthrow of Mubarak would not lead to an Islamist state was based on the liberal secular figureheads like Nour and ElBaradei. But ElBaradei and Nour are allied with the Brotherhood. While the liberals have contending candidates and parties, the Muslim Brotherhood has a single chain of command. The Brotherhood couldn't beat Mubarak, but it's child's play for them to play divide and conquer, turning into kingmakers and eventually into kings. Chaos is in their interest. The Communists and Nazis didn't take power because they were the most popular choices, they were just the most organized movements in a chaotic political landscape. While Soros's sweethearts wrangle and agitate, the Brotherhood will form their coalitions and wait in the wings. Hezbollah outwaited the Cedar Revolution. The Brotherhood will outwait the Jan 25th uprising and sweep in when the ordinary Egyptian begins to long for someone to restore order. That someone will either be the military or the Brotherhood. There are no other choices.

For Israel these events should serve as a wake up call. Far too many have romanticized the Camp David accords as an agreement between two peoples, when it was actually an accord with a regime. Sadat did an excellent job of putting on a show, but it was always a hollow spectacle. Sadat did not want peace with Israel. He had wanted peace, the Yom Kippur War would have never taken place. It was only after he had taken his best shot at destroying Israel and failed, that the Accords became possible. The Camp David accords were not motivated by peace, but by trying to make the best of a bad situation. Egypt had fought four wars with Israel. Even with a surprise attack, high end equipment, superior numbers and arguably superior tactics-- it still lost.

(Read full "Peace Does Not Come from Pieces of Paper")

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.
.

Mubarak and Anti-Semitism: A Boomerang Effect?

American pundits say that the deposed Egyptian president fomented anti-Semitism in Egyptian society. But on closer examination, the charges again reveal the anti-Semitism of the opposition that toppled him.

John Rosenthal
pajamasmedia.com
13 February '11

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mubarak-and-anti-semitism-a-boomerang-effect/?singlepage=true

Mubarak is gone, chased from power by the pressure of the Egyptian “street,” but also by that of Western capitals and the Western media. The latter made itself virtually as a whole into the propaganda arm of the “revolution,” ceaselessly extolling its virtues, while steadfastly refusing to see, much less examine, its dark side.

As I showed in two previous PJM reports (see here and here), the evidence of anti-Semitic and/or anti-Israeli sentiment among the anti-Mubarak protests was extensive. Moreover, the evidence reveals not only the protestors’ hostility to Israel and/or Jews as such, but also that this hostility was inseparable from their opposition to Mubarak. Hence, the numerous portraits of Mubarak with a Star of David scrawled on his face or forehead. Arabic speakers have confirmed to me that many of the signs carried by protestors identified Mubarak as an Israeli “agent” or “spy.”

As such evidence began trickling out, a common response among supporters of the “revolution” was to suggest that the pro-Mubarak forces were also employing anti-Semitic insults against the protestors and/or foreign journalists. Such claims were typically unsupported by any evidence at all, let alone the mass of evidence revealing the anti-Semitic/“anti-Zionist” current among the protestors themselves. The ultimate source for the claims appears to have been Al Jazeera.

There is also, however, a more sophisticated variant of the same sort of argument. According to this variant, Mubarak has fallen victim to a kind of “boomerang effect.” He had himself been responsible for fomenting the widespread anti-Semitism in Egyptian society, and hence if he had now become the principal target of this anti-Semitism, he was merely reaping what he had sowed.

Now, there has been some evidence offered in support of the latter charge. Such evidence was gathered, notably, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Max Boot titled “Hosni Mubarak, Troublesome Ally.” Boot accuses Mubarak of “turning a blind eye to the rabid anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism that polluted Egypt’s state-controlled news media and mosques,” and he cites several examples culled from the Middle East media watchdog group MEMRI.

The problem, however, is that the evidence adduced by Boot is weak and highly ambiguous. Indeed, some of the supposedly “state-controlled media” from which the examples derive are not state-controlled at all. They are private media. More to the point, not only are they private media, but they are private media that are associated precisely with the opposition that brought down Mubarak.

Let us consider Boot’s examples one-by-one. Immediately after invoking Mubarak’s “state-controlled media,” Boot cites a sermon in which the Egyptian cleric Hussam Fawzi Jabar stated that “Hitler was right to do what he did to the Jews.” The sermon — in effect, an extended anti-Semitic tirade — was televised. Excerpts from it are available on the MEMRI website here. The sermon was not, however, broadcast on any “state-controlled” channel, but rather on the private religious channel Al-Nas.

The broadcast of Jabar’s sermon took place in July 2010. Just three months later, in October, the Mubarak government banned Al-Nas and several other religious channels, citing, among other things, their “incitement to religious hatred.” (See the report in the English edition of the Egyptian daily Al Masry Al Youm here.) This is hardly, then, a probative example of Mubarak “closing his eyes.” Ironically, the ban was mentioned in the Western media as evidence of the Mubarak government “cracking down” on press freedoms and attempting to “muzzle” the opposition. Combined with warnings issued to other religious channels, the ban prompted Muslim Brotherhood attorney Montasser Al Zayat to complain of “government harassment.”

From Israel: Really Fast Transition

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
13 February '11

Well, I wasn't off the mark when I wrote briefly on Friday. I acknowledged readily enough that the situation was very much in flux and that no one knew what was coming; I saw matters pointed in the direction of military control.

And yet...I did not imagine that by the time I had removed myself from computer and TV, and had lit my Shabbat candles, Mubarak would already be gone. Really fast, indeed!

~~~~~~~~~~

Thank G-d for Shabbat, which gives me rest and perspective, and nourishes my being.

By the time I had rejoined the on-going secular world last night, the army was firmly ensconced.

The military that had originally spoken about protecting Mubarak had (apparently) reversed itself and told him that he had to leave. (Perhaps the fact that this was coming accounts for the ambiguity of Mubarak's remarks last Thursday night.) Mubarak and family are said to be resting safely in Sharm el-Sheikh at the tip of the Sinai, where he hopes to live out his days; it may be in this respect that the army will "protect" him because young people who are part of the uprising would prefer to gather evidence against him with regard to his rule, and then prosecute or pursue him.

Mubarak's money is resting, presumably also "safely," out of the country -- I'm reading that he started sending his funds out of Egypt months ago. Whether this money will also be pursued as not legitimately his is yet another question.

~~~~~~~~~~

So, where are we, in this situation that is still so much in flux?

I would like to cite B. Raman, who is Former Head of the Counter-Terrorism Division of India’s Intelligence Agency. His material comes to me by e-mail from time to time (with appreciation to Judith N.) and I find it helpful.

You can find his comments here:

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/egypt-uncertain-transition.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Raman has provided not just an overview of the situation in Egypt, but some very specific details:

"Some have termed the departure of President Hosni Mubarak from office on February 11, 2011, as a resignation. Some others have called it waiving the office or powers of the President. The Egyptian Constitution provides for both contingencies. When a President resigns, the Constitution requires that he should address his letter of resignation to the [Speaker] of the Parliament.

"When he stops exercising the powers of the President, he addresses his letter to the Vice-President. Article 82 provides for this interesting contingency of the President leaving office without formally resigning. It says: “If on account of any temporary obstacle the President of the Republic is unable to carry out his functions, he shall delegate his powers to a vice-president.

"...Mubarak, while leaving office...did not inform the [Speaker] of the Parliament and submit a formal letter of resignation...Nor did he ask the Vice-President Omar Suleiman to take over. Instead, he asked the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to take over. It is a coup without seeming to be a coup." (Emphasis added)

~~~~~~~~~~

Continues Raman:

"Egypt is now in a state of transition under the leadership of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces," and he lists its members:

 - Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, Minister of Defense and commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces since 1991. He has been a Field Marshal since 1989. After the protests broke out...Mubarak promoted him to Deputy Prime Minister and asked him to continue to hold the defense portfolio. He is the Chairman of the Supreme Council.
 - Air Marshal Reda Mahmoud Hafez Mohamed, the chief of the Air Force since March 20,2008.
 - Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Anan, Chief of Staff of the Army.
 - Lt. Gen. Abd El Aziz Seif-Eldeen, Commander of Air Defense.
 - Vice Admiral Mohab Mamish, chief of Navy.

These are names we are likely to become familiar with.
Raman then asks,

"Is Lt. General Omar Suleiman, the Vice-President, who made the televised announcement regarding Mubarak leaving office...a member of the Supreme Council?

"The position is not clear. Al Jazeera says he is. Others do not say so. However, since he is only a Lt-General and...the Supreme Council is headed by a Field Marshal...Suleiman may have to work under the orders of the Supreme Council and not vice versa."

Not seeing a great deal about Suleiman at the moment.

~~~~~~~~~~

Raman explains that:

"The present Constitution has become untenable since the post-Mubarak transitional arrangements are not in accordance with the Constitution."

Then there is the question of duration of a transition. Originally the thought was that it would last until September, when elections for president are supposed to be held. But already there is talk about a transition that takes a year, and certainly it is more complicated if the transition includes parliamentary elections and a new constitution.

Raman cites El Baradei in this regard:

"...We will have a provisional constitution. We'll have a transitional government, hopefully a presidential council, including a person from the army and a couple of civilians. The main idea is that the army and the Egyptian people will work together in a systematic way for a year to reach the point where we can hold a genuine free and fair election, a parliamentary election and a presidential election. I think the people of Egypt, who have been suppressed for at least 30 years, are ready to wait for a year as they see things are going in the right direction."

~~~~~~~~~~

And indeed, what has now been announced by the army is that the parliament has been disbanded and the constitution has been suspended. The Supreme Council will remain in control for six months or "until elections are held," which makes it rather vague. The prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, while promising reforms that respond to the people's demands, declared that right now the Cabinet's main concern is security.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is said that the people trust the army.

But I have to ask, how often in history has it happened that there has been a military coup and that the military has then voluntarily relinquished power to a civilian government (democratic or quasi-democratic)? I'm having trouble thinking of any instances, which is why I consider a good deal of what is being promised moot.

~~~~~~~~~~

From Israel: Incredible

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
07 February '11

"Incredible"

President Obama was interviewed on Fox News yesterday. When asked if he thought the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt was a threat, he responded:

"I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don't have majority support in Egypt."

Pressed again on the subject of the Brotherhood as threat, he elaborated:

“They are well-organized, and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There's no doubt about it.

"But here's the thing that we have to understand, there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well. And it's important for us not to say that our only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people… What I want is a representative government in Egypt.”

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/docs/perspectives128.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~

That sound you hear is yours truly, banging her head against the wall.

Do I believe that Obama is that naive? Not any more.

There's a limit to how much I can attribute the president's positions to foolishness or genuine innocence. This is a faux-naive political stance, in my book. "A whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt"? Give me a break.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, there are secular people in Egypt who have been pushing, with merit, for political reform. But they are powerless -- without political organization or funding (as versus the Brotherhood which has both). What is more -- and this should be noted carefully -- many of those who are "secular" (read, not Islamist) are left wing radicals and not moderates at all.

I've previously shared statistics regarding the attitudes of Egyptians, including, we must assume, a good many of those whom Obama refers to as a "whole bunch of folks." But let's take a look again at information from Caroline Glick, provided just a few days ago:

"According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers...Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

"Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion."

Representative government in Egypt? If Muslim Brotherhood, which has been held at bay because it has been illegal, is legitimized as one part of a "representative government," exactly whom do you imagine is going to gain control?

~~~~~~~~~~

A piece by Dr. Jonathan Rynhold -- "US Policy Regarding the Upheaval in Egypt: Endangering the Strategic Foundations of Regional Stability" -- which just went up on the BESA website today sounds similar themes. Rynhold writes that:

"...although many of the demonstrators are driven by the demand for reform, the only real alternative to the current regime is Islamist. The Islamists are more popular and inestimably better organized than the reformers. (Emphasis added)

"...US policy can certainly influence the outcome. It is with this in mind that the Obama administration's call for the immediate' replacement of Mubarak and the inclusion of 'non-secular' groups in the new government is cause for grave concern. The administration, sensitive to its standing in Arab public opinion, wants to be seen to be supporting a popular movement. It wants to banish its unpopular image in the region as an 'imperialist' power that props up repressive governments...the administration seems to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is 'okay' because they believe that the Brotherhood has generally operated without violence in the domestic Egyptian arena... (Emphasis added)

"This emerging US policy is potentially very dangerous. The 'peaceful' Islamists would most likely hollow out any reformist government that they are part of. Their anti-Western stance is deeply ideological; it is not related to the specifics of American policy. Once released from the constraints imposed by the current regime, they are likely to become a lot less peaceful. In the meantime, the behavior of the US is straining America's relations with other key regional allies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, America's apparent willingness to abandon its allies and embrace the Islamists will damage American credibility, harm the standing of its Arab allies and strengthen anti-Western Islamists across the region. It is no good winning a popularity contest today, if you lose the region to Islamists tomorrow." (Emphasis added)

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/docs/perspectives127.pdf

Revolutions in the Middle East

IsraeliGirl
06 February '11

Every beginning has an end. As I witness the millions protesting in Egypt over the last 2 weeks this saying keeps resonating in my head. Where does this revolution leads Egypt and what will be the domino effect on its neighbors in the Middle East?

A revolution - power to the people - democracy, these are the core foundations of the free world. We all hope to make the world a better place - and the people in Egypt are no different.

All revolutions are blissful in the first days and the Egyptian revolution is greeted with euphoria by many in the world. PM Netanyahu acknowledged that saying: "These hopes are understandable. All those who cherish human liberty, including the people of Israel, are inspired by genuine calls for reform and by the possibility that it will take place."

But are all revolutions the same? In the last three decades images of revolution came from a range of autocracies under threat - from the Shah's Tehran, Deng Xiaoping's Beijing and Ceausescu's Bucharest to the uprisings of the last couple of years in Iran, Tunisia, and now Egypt. Some revolutions failed and some succeeded. The frightening concept of a revolution is that you know where you start but you don't know where you'll be when the revolution ends.

In Israel and every other democratic country we appreciate the significance of liberty. We enjoy independent courts that protect the rights of individuals and the rule of law, free press, and of a parliamentary system with a coalition and an opposition. One can only hope Egypt will come out of this revolution as a democratic state providing freedom to its people.

Anyone that believes that democracy is the likely option in Egypt, or the only option, has not done his homework on the recent history in the Middle East.

In 1979 the Iranians have rallied against an autocratic regime only to end up with an oppressive radical Islamic one. The West has lost a strong ally in the Gulf region and the Iranian people lost their freedom and human rights. The same radical regime in Iran is looking at the Egyptian revolution with glee. They have embraced the protesters, proclaiming an Islamic awakening is under way.The Mullahs in Iran are not interested in seeing democracy in Egypt that protects the rights of individuals, women, and minorities. They want Egypt to become another Gaza, run by radical forces that oppose everything that the democratic world stands for.

A few years ago, Hamas, a non democratic radical Islamic group, used democratic elections to gain control of Gaza. Hamas became the rulers of Gaza without demonstrating any commitment to democracy, and Palestinian society had no checks in place to prevent the outcome from being one man, one vote, one time.

Let's look at Lebanon - a fragile unstable democracy in which the terrorist group Hezbollah is now the dominant force in government. Radical Islam does not believe in democracy. It may use democracy to gain power but will not deliver democratic values.

Does Iran enjoy freedom? Is there a real democracy in Gaza? Does Hezbollah promote human rights?

The House of Mubarak is no more. He is 82 and not running for reelection. The only question is who fills the vacuum in Egypt. There are two principal possibilities: a provisional government of opposition forces or an interim government led by the military.

In the chaos created by a revolution all of us in Giyus.org hope peace and democracy will prevail but we must maintain watchful eyes that recognize reality.

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.
.

Weekly Commentary: Is President Obama another Yeshayahu Leibowitz?

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
03 February '11



Is President Obama another Yeshayahu Leibowitz?

Here’s the story:

Years ago I attended a local panel discussion in Raanana on the prospects for peace in the Middle East. The late Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz was one of the speakers. In the course of the discussion I cited the long history of conflict in our region, much of which has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and asked Leibowitz what he thought the long-term prospects were for peace in the Middle East.

Leibowitz replied that it was clear that peace, any peace, would not last forever, and that the most one could expect was peace for a few years, possibly decades. He added, though, that Israel must make every sacrifice and take every risk in order to get a state of peace, no matter how fleeting.

No matter how fleeting.

Is that President Obama’s view about bringing democracy to Egypt?

If it is then the warnings that Egypt’s first democratic elections could very well be its last as the "Hamir al Thawra" , "the donkeys of the revolution", are cast aside and a radical Islamic regime takes control of Egypt may not be relevant to Mr. Obama.

At this stage, with the Obama administration pushing for a quick resignation it isn’t clear that the American goal is even to bring democracy.

Instead of nation building we have pyromania.

It could have been different.

Mr. Obama could have dictated a “roadmap for the democratization of Egypt” with a timeline for various elements of legislation, freedom of the press and other elements that are the lifeblood of democracy in the fervent hope that this would not only facilitate free and open democratic elections but also insure that after a moment in the sunlight of democracy that Egypt isn't plunged into the darkness of a suppressive radical Islamic regime.

The timeline could have required some headline making immediate steps so that Mubarak’s opponents could claim success.

Instead Washington only spoke vaguely, leaving the impression that the immediate departure of Mubarak may be more important at this stage to the White House than the orderly transformation of Egypt to the democratic state that Mr. Obama claims it can become.

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.
.

A Mengele Moment - The Legacy of Mubarak: Peace Now, War Tomorrow

David Bedein
Israel Resource Review
01 February '11

http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=4279&q=1

A retiring Mossad official briefed our agency 20 years ago, saying that 90% of Israeli intelligence worries concern Egypt, where, he said, Egypt was producing more than 100,000 unemployed graduates every year from its Radical Islamic Universities, which flourished under Sadat and under Mubarak.

From notes of this meeting, the intelligence expert in 1991 concluded that: " 20 years from now,another 2 million educated radical Moslems will hit the streets in Egypt, join the Moslem Brotherhood and overthrow the regime".

20 years later, that assessment has come to fruition.

Mubarak did maintain a formal peace with Israel, which concentrated on intelligence cooperation and joint economic ventures. Mubarak's legacy, however, is that his regime prepared future generations of Egyptians for war with Israel.

His official Egyptian media ran daily editorials that continued to call for Jihad against the Jewish State. Virulent anti-semitism and anti Zionism dominate every aspect of Egyptian culture.

Egypt continued to host the Arab League, which maintained its declared state of war to exterminate the State of Israel, a stance unchanged since 1948.

An examination of Mubarak's official Egyptian gov't school curriculum reads like a manual for war on the Jews.http://impact-se.org/research/egypt/index.html .

The Moslem Brotherhood does not mince words about its Jihadist genocidal policy towards Israel. If the Moslem Brotherhood takes over, it will enter into a formal alliance with Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran.

The Camp David Accord, signed in 1979, delayed the next war with Egypt for 32 years.
That next round is around the corner.

The Israeli government information offices had always downplayed the fact that it is Egypt, NOT Iran, that supplied massive caches of munitions to the Hamas regime in Gaza to launch 12,000 aerial attacks on the Western Negev over the past decade.

This article would not be complete without a personal recollection

From Israel: Shifting Tides

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
02 February '11


It's still not possible to call with any measure of certainty what the end result of the unrest in Egypt will be, but the picture is looking different today.

What we see is that Mubarak and his military had decided at the beginning of the major protests not to be confrontational. It is for this reason that the ruthless and much-hated police were pulled back, and that the army took their place, with a pledge to not shoot at demonstrators. The plan was to let the demonstrations play themselves out peacefully -- the expectation being that at some point the people on the street would tire of yelling and go home.

Thus some 250,000 protestors (not a million) were able to come to Cairo's central Tahir Square yesterday, unimpeded in their gathering and in their vociferous demands.

~~~~~~~~~~

Last night, Mubarak gave his talk on Egyptian state TV. He said he would finish his term, which ends in September, and then step down.

“My priority now is for a peaceful transfer of power to whoever the people choose in the election,” he said, explaining that the law would be changed to allow for a more open competition for the presidency.

“In all sincerity, regardless of the current circumstances, I never intended to be a candidate for another term.” This might be interpreted as a defiant poke at the demands being made, but may well be the truth, as he is a sick old man.

Responding to the demand that he leave the country, he said, "I was born in Egypt, I defended Egypt, and I will die in Egypt."

~~~~~~~~~~

Obama then communicated that the transition had to start now. Clearly, he would like to see Mubarak step down tomorrow, and would be quite content to see El-Baradei moved into his place. He even says that the Muslim Brotherhood can have a place within the new "democratic government" of Egypt. (More on this below.)

The Foreign Ministry of Egypt has since responded with a statement that transition would not begin until the president's term was completed. The US and the EU were advised not to meddle.

As for El-Baradei, he said that Mubarak had 48 hours to leave the country, and that if he didn't he wouldn't just be a lame duck president, he would be a "dead man walking."

~~~~~~~~~~

Western folly in MidEast comes home to roost, but democracy in Egypt must be supported

Robin Shepherd
robinshepherdonline.com
02 February '11

Here are two sets of statistics that you have never been informed about by the BBC, and have never heard from the mouth of a senior official in the British Foreign Office: According to a major opinion poll survey conducted by Pew in 2006, 97 percent of Egyptians admitted to holding “somewhat unfavourable” or “very unfavourable” opinions about Jews while none (zero percent) said they had favourable opinions about Jews; in Jordan 98 percent said they had unfavourable opinions with one percent holding favourable opinions.

Those figures tell you much about why genuine, liberal democracy is going to be so difficult to achieve in Egypt (ditto Jordan), while also telling you just how harmful to the prospects of genuine MidEast peace have been the appeasement/stability-at-all-costs oriented policies of Western governments and the assumptions which have underpinned them.

This is a complex issue, and the key points are rarely spelled out. So let me think aloud in front of you. My thoughts, as you will see, are not yet fully formed on this. So, I welcome your contributions in the comment section. Here goes for starters, in question and answer form:

Q) Why is mass anti-Semitism incompatible with genuine liberal democracy?


A) Because anti-Semitism represents an emphatic rejection of the universalist principles which underpin liberal-democracy. This is why anti-Semitism can emerge as a mortal danger to non-Jews as well as Jews. The social, cultural and political forces unleashed by anti-Semitism are inherently antithetical to the classical liberal values of the Enlightenment. They are also antithetical to reason itself. All polities dominated by virulent anti-Semitism will therefore struggle to produce liberal-democratic outcomes. Some will produce extreme tyrannies. Christopher Hitchens was hinting at precisely these thoughts in the following remarks made in an article for Slate in February 2006: “…only a moral cretin thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews. The memory of the Third Reich is very vivid in Europe precisely because a racist German regime also succeeded in slaughtering millions of non-Jews, including countless Germans, under the demented pretext of extirpating a non-existent Jewish conspiracy.”

Q) So, given the presence of both mass anti-Semitism in Egypt and, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, a major political movement ready to hone down and exploit this anti-Semitism, is liberal-democracy impossible in Egypt?

A) It depends on whether and to what extent anti-Semitism becomes a dominant theme in the political discourse in the manner that it has long been a dominant theme in the cultural and religious discourse. But given the near ubiquity of anti-Semitism in mainstream society, the great danger is that anti-Semitism will become an ideological mainstay of whatever new regime emerges. Here’s how it might unfold: The Muslim Brotherhood becomes part of a government dominated (initially) by Egyptian nationalists. Anti-Semitism emerges as the common denominator holding these two forces together. In political terms this leads to a much more hostile approach to Israel. During a flashpoint, like Operation Cast Lead for example, the Islamists demand direct support for Hamas. The nationalist constituency opposes such a move thus handing the initiative to the Brotherhood which discredits its opponents by portraying them as agents of the US-Zionist conspiracy. At this point we get an Islamist takeover.

Clearly, all of this is scenario building. I do not have a crystal ball. But I challenge anyone to say that this is not one possible outcome of the process of change now underway in Egypt.

Israel is Not Responsible for the "Siege" on Gaza

Avi Tarengo/Translation Elad Benari
ShalomLife.com
19 January '10

Amnesty International has called on Israel to end “the siege on the Gaza Strip”. The problem with this is that one word, “Egypt”, is missing. According to Amnesty, the Gaza Strip has no opening to the world other than the border with Israel. The timing of the campaign is not coincidental: “The Mubarak Line” which is being established on the Egypt-Gaza Strip border is an excellent opportunity to place responsibilities towards the civilian population of Gaza on Israel’s shoulders.

Does Israel have any policy regarding the Gaza Strip? Meaningful policy is supposed to take into account Israel's long-term interests, including its perception by the world. Five years ago, Israel vacated its citizens and army and left Gazans a well-developed economical and agricultural infrastructure. Since the disengagement, Israeli “policy” towards the Gaza Strip has been outlined by a series of symbolic and random decisions, most of them contradicting one another. The indecision regarding Israel’s position in the Gaza Strip can be expressed by the lack of an answer to this simple question: Is Israel still the “occupying force” in the Gaza Strip? The lack of a clear policy is what allowed Judge Goldstone to place the responsibility on Israel as the “occupying force” which is supposed to take care of all the needs of the Strip’s residents.

Unlike Israel, Egypt administrates a clear policy, which slowly but consistently advances Egypt towards achieving its goals. “The Mubarak Line” is not meant to serve Israel’s interests nor is it meant to stop the smuggling of rockets to the Gaza Strip, as Egyptian ambassador Al Hadidi explained so well to the Turks (who complained of the difficulties in transferring aid to the Gaza Strip through Egypt): “Our goal is to prevent the detachment of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank. The Gaza Strip must remain under the status of Territory considered occupied by Israel, and the humanitarian aid must come from there - not from Egypt. Recognizing Gaza as an independent entity will damage Palestinian unity and will harm the Palestinians’ cause – remove it from the world’s agenda.”

(Read full article)
.

Egyptian Chutzpah

Herbert I. London
Hudson New York
11 January '10

How do you spell chutzpah in Arabic? The Egyptian government has railed against Israel for erecting a security fence in the West Bank for years, protesting, its construction in the United Nations and every other international body, and usually employing the phrase “apartheid wall.”

But now, mirabile dictu, Egypt is building a wall of its own along the border of the Gaza Strip -- and, as one might guess, will not entertain any criticism of this project.

The Israeli barrier was built to prevent suicide bombing and other terrorist activities against Israelis; by contrast, the Egyptian fence is designed to stop Palestinians living in Gaza from entering Egypt.

One might well ask why President Hosni Mubarak would want to keep his Arab brothers locked inside the poverty-stricken area of Gaza, among the most congested places on the globe.

He contends, with some legitimacy, that Hamas’s presence in Gaza could be a destabilizing factor in Egypt if the border were porous. Yet Hamas poses a threat to Israel even more formidable than its threat to Egypt. The stated Hamas goal is “Liberate Palestine,” not “Occupy Egypt.” Moreover, if Hamas were an existential threat to Egypt’s national security, why has Mubarak been negotiating with Hamas leaders for years, and why has he been at the center of talks over reconciliation with Fatah?

In fact, by keeping the border crossing into Egypt closed, Mubarak is sending the Palestinians to Israel for help. In the Byzantine world of Middle East politics Arab leaders want the Gaza Strip to remain exclusively an Israeli problem.

The irony, of course, is that the millions of dollars required to build the new fence could have been employed to build hospitals, schools and housing. Palestinians crossing the border generally do so in search of employment or to be reunited with families residing in Egypt. At the moment even medical and humanitarian aid cannot get through the Rafah border crossing and human rights activists are invariably stopped at the border as well.

(Read full article)
.

Terrorists Step Up Attacks on Israel as Peace Talks Begin

Meanwhile, Israel Tests New Anti-Rocket System

The Israel Project (TIP)
07 January '10

Posted before Shabbat

Palestinian terrorists have stepped up attacks on Israel just as diplomatic efforts to restart peace talks get underway in the Middle East and the United States. In addition to mortar shells fired at Israel from Gaza today (Jan. 7), 10 bombs likely planted by Iran-backed Hezbollah were found yesterday by UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon, and recently an Israeli man was killed in a shooting attack in the West Bank.[1]

In the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, terrorists who seek to destroy Israel have typically launched attacks during efforts for peace and a two-state solution. The new flurry of peace efforts began on Dec. 29, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Cairo to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to discuss how to resume negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. And Friday (Jan. 8), the Egyptian foreign minister, the Egyptian intelligence chief and Jordan’s foreign minister hope to move the peace process forward when they meet Obama administration officials in Washington.[2]

Recent Terrorist Activity

• The Popular Resistance Committees terrorist group fired at least 10 mortar shells today (Jan. 7) into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip. Three of the shells exploded close to the Kerem Shalom goods crossing, a major conduit for humanitarian aid transferred daily from Israel into Gaza.[3] As a result of the attacks, the Ministry of Defense was forced to close the crossing as dozens of aid trucks waited on the Israeli side to enter Gaza.[4]

(Read full article)
.

Shhh…Mubarak is building a wall

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
22 December 09

For years, the Egyptians have been strongly condemning Israel for erecting the security fence in the West Bank. But now Egypt is quietly building its own wall along its border with the Gaza Strip and does not want to hear any complaints.

The Israeli barrier was built with the chief goal of halting suicide bombings and other terror activities against Israelis. The Egyptian fence, on the other hand, is being constructed to stop Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip from entering Egypt.

Many Palestinians can still understand why Israel does not want to open its border with the Gaza Strip. But the majority cannot understand why Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the rest of the Arab leaders are keeping them locked inside the tiny, overcrowded and poverty-stricken area known as the Gaza Strip.

Israel does not want to reopen its borders with the Gaza Strip and that is regrettable and painful, but also understandable. But what one cannot understand is the negative attitude of the Egyptians and the rest of the Arab regimes toward the misery of their Palestinian brothers. Mubarak and the rest of the Arab dictators should be helping the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and not choking them.

By keeping the border crossings shut and now building the metal wall along the border with the Gaza Strip, Mubarak is in fact sending the Palestinians to knock on Israel’s door for help. By now it should be clear that the Arab rulers want the Gaza Strip to remain Israel’s problem alone.

The millions of dollars that are being invested in the construction of the new wall could have built hospitals and schools and created job opportunities for the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. Half a billion dollars could even have solved the severe housing crisis in that area.

(Full article)
.

Peeling Off J Street’s Invisibility Cloak: What the NY Times Magazine Won’t Tell You

Lenny Ben-David

I*Consult

17 September 09

There is no street in Washington named for the letter “J,” but that hasn’t stopped a group of critics of Israel from forming the “J Street” lobby. It’s like J. K. Rowling’s invisible Platform 9 ¾ at the King’s Cross Station. Befitting a Harry Potter character, J Street performs acts of illusion and deception such as cooking its polling data and presenting it as scientific truth. The “pro-Israel” J Street PAC has cloaked dozens of PAC contributors as plain citizens, when they are actually Arab-American, Palestinian, Islamic, and pro-Iranian activists. All the while, J Street hides the names of its directors and has never explained who makes its controversial decisions.

The adoring media audience gasps with uncritical wonderment at the amazing show of prestidigitation carried out so far by the upstart lobby. The J Street appreciation society was expanded today with a lengthy piece in the New York Times Magazine.

Breaking out of the media trance, a Jerusalem Post reporter recently revealed that the organization maintains a “finance committee” consisting of “50 members — with a $10,000 contribution threshold.” It’s members include, according to the report, “Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute, and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American Council board.”

The latest conjurer is Zahi Khouri, who contributed to J Street PAC this summer. The unfortunate man is listed [5] in Federal Election Committee records filed by J Street as “not employed” and living in Orlando, Florida.

Open the New York Times of September 9 to the Op-Ed section, however, and learn that he is the “chief executive of the Palestinian National Beverage Co.” The Times could have gone on to describe Khouri as a director of the Palestinian Development and Investment Company (PADICO) and CEO of Paltel, the Palestinian telecommunications company and cellular service provider. He also writes that he lives in the West Bank, [cue violins] having “left a comfortable life on Park Avenue in Manhattan” to open his Coke franchise.

In his New York Times article, Khouri decries Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s attempts to achieve an “economic peace” between the Palestinians and Israel. He dismisses the seven percent growth projected for the West Bank, fails to mention the crippling corruption that has plagued the Palestinian Authority, and ignores the Palestinian terrorism that wracked the West Bank and Gaza economies and forced Israel to build security barriers to protect its citizens. When the previous Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, offered almost all of the West Bank and sections of Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority’s Abu Abbas rejected the deal. But Khouri the conjurer lays the blame for the stalemate at Netanyahu’s feet.

In all fairness — and presumably with a straight stage face — Khouri told the Jerusalem Post that “he donated to the J Street PAC because ‘I believe that they are sincere about being pro-Israel and they are sincere about being pro-peace. And AIPAC I consider an enemy of Israel rather than a friend of Israel because they’re not helping it to achieve peace.’” Khouri’s definition of peace, of course, is not widely accepted, certainly not by Israelis and friends of Israel in the U.S.

Other JStreet PAC contributors include an “attorney” whom J Street doesn’t reveal as a board member of the hyper-critical-of-Israel Human Rights Watch, a “teacher” who was actually a founder of an Islamic school in Virginia, a “housing specialist” who is the national co-chairman of Middle East Network of United Methodists, another serial defamer of Israel, a Washington lawyer who actually works for the Saudi Embassy, and many more.

Does the Sphinx answer another riddle?

On July 13, J Street was invited to meet with President Obama as part of a delegation of national Jewish organizations. Some eyebrows should have been raised again when it was invited to a small meeting of Jewish organizations with Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak in Washington on August 17. Perhaps it’s logical that President Obama’s favorite Jewish organization would be invited by an Egyptian leader seeking to score points with the White House.

But a closer look at J Street’s supporters may explain how it got its ticket to the show. The organization has several prominent Egyptophiles on its board of advisors and among its financial supporters.

The Jerusalem Post recent exposé revealed that the head of the Egyptian desk at the State Department, Nicole D. Shampaine at the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, contributed $1,000 to J Street’s political action committee last year.

Sitting on J Street’s advisory council are a couple of former U.S. ambassadors to Egypt, and one of them, Robert Pelletreau, was also registered at the U.S. Justice Department as a foreign agent for Egypt, working for the firm of Afridi, Angel & Pelletreau.

Another J Street advisor, Judith Barnett, once served as the deputy assistant secretary of commerce for the Middle East and Africa. Upon leaving government service, she set up her own consulting firm and affiliated with the international PA Consulting Group where she worked for the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Trade. In her own words, she “created Egypt, Inc., a major initiative to increase trade and investment for the Ministry … which included a worldwide assessment of Egypt’s commercial services for its companies, a commercial website, and a series of national outreach programs in the U.S.”

After writing a sycophantic piece in the Washington Post in 2004 about the changing role of women in Saudi Arabia [“I found … that the role of Saudi women is changing far more quickly than most in the West realize.”], Ms. Barnett went on to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for Saudi Arabia, as well.

So it should be no mystery why J Street was invited to meet with President Mubarak. Would that the organization have such prominent advocates for another Middle East country, one called Israel.

Related: Protecting the QB in the Whitehouse

The Soros-Axelrod Axis

.

Obama's Main Man In The Middle East?

Eytan Gilboa
JPost
19 August 09

The writer is professor of Political Studies and Communication and senior research associate specializing in US-Israeli relations at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.

US President Barack Obama's Middle Eastern strategy isn't working, but his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday was unlikely to help him understand why and what was needed to be done to achieve better results.

Obama and Mubarak designed the visit to demonstrate the central place Egypt currently occupies in the US's strategy. Obama delivered his address to the Muslim world in Cairo in June and has already met Mubarak three times since taking office.

Mubarak shares many of Obama's convictions and assumptions about the conditions needed to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Yet, while Obama has called upon the pro-American Arab states, including Egypt, to adopt new confidence-building measures towards Israel such as allowing Israeli airlines to fly over their territories, establishing semi-diplomatic and commercial offices and opening their borders for tourists, Mubarak said that these measure would come only after Israel signs peace agreements with all of its Arab neighbors.

IF THE Arab states don't offer any reciprocal gestures and concessions, Obama's continuing insistence on a settlement freeze will be seen as excessive, one-sided and unfounded.

Obama's Cairo speech and his obsession with the settlements issue to the point of exclusion of all other obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution, led the Arabs to believe that they don't have to contribute anything to the process and that the US will do all the work for them.

Israelis in turn believe that either Obama doesn't understand Middle Eastern politics or that he is seeking a highly-visible confrontation with Israel in order to improve America's image in the Muslim world.

Mubarak carefully rescheduled his visit to Washington in mid-August when Congress is in recess. He probably wanted to avoid sensitive questions about the internal conditions in Egypt, primarily the succession issue and human rights.

Mubarak has ruled Egypt since 1981 and his health is poor. No less than five American presidents have served in the White House during his term. His son, Gamal, is expected to succeed him and this why he was a prominent member of the Egyptian delegation to Washington. The purpose was to reassure the US about stability and policy continuity in post-Mubarak Egypt. Yet, there is substantial opposition to family succession and to Gamal.

The two presidents emphasized the need to resolve the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the next two years as Obama is looking for a major success in foreign policy to ensure his reelection in 2012. But this timetable fits the clock of American politics, not the clock of Middle Eastern realities.

The two presidents however, conveniently ignored one of the most serious obstacles to resolving the conflict: Hamas. The challenge is how to ensure that a Palestinian state in the West Bank will not be ruled by an Iranian extremist and fundamentalist terror proxy.

Their solution: a Fatah-Hamas national unity government. They probably assume that such a government would be dominated by Fatah, but the reality is likely to be the exact opposite.

SOURCES THAT Obama needs to consult about his strategy are right in his backyard: public opinion and congress. American public opinion doesn't support Obama's promotion of Egypt as the key US ally in the Middle East, and Mubarak's visit in Washington is unlikely to alter this view.

A poll taken by the renown Rasmussen organization between August 5 and 8 found that only 39 percent of the American public consider Egypt a US ally while nine percent view this state as an enemy. For the other 42%, Egypt falls somewhere in between.

In striking contrast, 70% of the respondents consider Israel a US ally. Only a fourth of the public believes that US relations with the Arab world will improve in the next year, and 81% agree with Netanyahu that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as part of a peace agreement.

Seventy one senators politely wrote Obama on August 10 that he needs to better balance his strategy: they disagreed with his one-sided pressure on Israel, they praised the Netanyahu government for taking positive steps towards peace, and told Obama to obtain similar concessions from the Arab states. Obama has been praising Mubarak but the Egyptian president will have to work much harder to gain credibility and support both in Israel and with the American public.

Obama's intention to formulate and announce yet another American blue print for Arab-Israeli peace would be better served if he listened to American public opinion and to what seventy one senators wrote him just a few weeks ago.

While Mubarak and the officials are reinforcing Obama's failing outlook, the senators, including the most influential from his own party, advised him to rethink and revise his approach.
.