Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts

Monday, March 9, 2015

The Al-Sisi Interview


Bret Baer: How do you, and how do America's other Arab allies view U.S. leadership in the region now?

Egyptian President al-Sisi: [Pause] . . . Difficult questions . . . .

Fox News Special Report, Interview of Egypt's President al-Sisi, 9 March 2015

The exchange above tells you everything you need to know about Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East. In the language of diplomacy, that is the equivalent of saying "it is completely screwed." And it is.

The Arab nations are under attack from the Wahhabi purists who dream of a caliphate as well as Iran's mad mullahs who dream of exporting the Khomeinist revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. Everything the Obama administration has done has, on one hand, allowed the growth of the Wahhabist Sunni threat, and on the hand, strengthened the hand of the mad mullahs. Morevover, as to Egypt, Obama has suspended most, if not all, military support, including equipment transfers, since the radical Muslim Brotherhood regime of Morsi was overthrown in 2013.

According to Fox News, in another portion of the interview, not shown in the portion posted below, President Sisi "addressed the need for what he called a religious "revolution," urging moderate Muslims around the world to "stand up" against terrorists twisting their religion." It bears repeating that President al-Sisi is the only national leader to call for Islam to reform itself, to do away with the doctrines that are today inspiring Islamic terrorism. (You can see his speech to the clerics at al Azhar University here.) President al-Sisi deserves our full support, not the back of Obama's hand.

Here is the portion of the interview already posted to the net:



Update: Much more on President Sisi's attempts to change how Islam is taught in Egypt at American Thinker.






Read More...

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Egypt Designates Hamas A Terrorist Organization

A tiny bit of good news for the forces of civilization. An Egyptian Court has declared Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot currently in control of the Gaza strip, a "terrorist organization." This from al-Jazeera:

A judicial source told AFP news agency that the court issued the verdict on Saturday, a ruling seen as keeping with a systematic crackdown on Islamist groups by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. . . .

Egyptian authorities have accused Hamas of aiding armed groups, who have waged a string of deadly attacks on security forces in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

In January, an Egyptian court also declared Hamas' armed wing al-Qassam Brigades a "terrorist" group. . . .

Armed groups in Sinai have killed scores of policemen and soldiers since Morsi's overthrow, vowing revenge for a crackdown on his supporters that has left more than 1,400 people dead. Most of the attacks however have been claimed by the armed group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, which has pledged its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

There has been no word yet on whether Egypt acknowledges Hamas to be associated with Islam (sarcasm).

The Obama administration has been at odds with Egypt's current administration under President al Sisi since it came to power in a coup in 2013, overthrowing a Muslim Brotherhood administration and Obama ally that was intent on making Egypt into a permanent theocracy. In striking comparison to Obama, President al Sisi is the only politician on a national stage who has had the courage to openly charge that Islamic teachings motivate and cause terrorism. He did so at the same time he challenged the supreme religious council in Egypt to address and correct these teachings.





Read More...

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Obama, Syria, & A Foreign Policy Somewhere Between Wrong, God-Awful Wrong, & Disastrous

My impression is that we are aiming the barrels of our guns at Syria for no other reason than Obama has discovered that talking tough about a red line then doing nothing about it does not play well politically.  This most recent use of chemical weapons by Assad is not the first or even the second time he has used them since Obama announced a red line on chemical weapons - its the sixth time Assad has used them.  Moreover, according to Obama and all the leaks coming from the White House, Obama plans to do nothing that will have any impact on the Syrian civil war.  In other words, there is no discernible objective to this other than for Obama to say that he did something to "punish" Assad for using chemical weapons.  This is as James Tarranto has described it in the WSJ, a Show Of Farce which defies satire.

Should Congress vote in favor of such a strike?  First, let's look at Obama's foreign policy before keying in on Syria.

Obama has no discernible foreign policy in the Middle East.  He reacts to events, inevitably taking a position on the hard issues only when forced, and even then taking a position that proves somewhere between wrong, god awful wrong, and disastrous.  Let's go down the list. [Update: Instapundit takes a look at Obama's foreign policy at the USA Today, from the infamous reset with Russia all the way to the coalition building Obama has done on Syria. Instapundit finds Obama's foreign policy to be "inept" - which is probably an overly kind description of the acts Instapundit memorializes.]

In Iran, he let the Green Revolution go by without doing a thing to assist - even from the bully pulpit.  He was golfing while young women were being shot by government snipers on the streets of Terhan.  For all of Obama's talk of being tough with Iran, the mad mullahs move closer every day to a nuclear arsenal and Obama does nothing to stop them.  Oh, he tried to slow them down with the now well publicized STUXNET, but he has done nothing to change their trajectory.  This is a sleeper at the moment, but every day it goes on, it will eventually cost our nation ever more in gold and blood on the day we have to face it.

In Iraq, Obama merely had to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement, so that we could leave troops there to stabilize the nation and, indeed, threaten Iran.  He failed at that - and I would not be surprised to find, in the years to come, that it was deliberately so.  The Iraq War is what the traitorous left, led by Obama, was using as a political tool between 2005 and 2008.  They tried as hard as they could to legislate defeat in Iraq and paint that war as a complete failure.  When that failed, Obama did not want to do anything other than leave.  All the blood and gold we spent to try and create something akin to a functioning republic has been wasted, and Iraq now daily devolves ever more back into violence and the sphere of Iran.  It is obscene.

In Afghanistan, Obama authorized a partial "surge," while at the same time announcing a date certain for our withdrawal.  Could there be any more counter productive way to conduct a war?

In Egypt, Obama gave support to pushing out our ally, Honsi Mubarak, when the strongest force in the nation was the Muslim Brotherhood - the progenitors of al Qaeda.  Obama then followed a policy of fully supporting the Brotherhood government even as they road roughshod over democracy in an attempt to form a decidedly non-democratic Islamic theocracy. And now, even after the people of Egypt spearheaded a coup against the Brotherhood, Obama has led calls to re-establish a civilian government immediately and to stop any government use of force against the Brotherhood as they try to conduct their own counterrevolution.

In Libya, the U.S. had next to no national interests.  Qaddafi, once a promoter of terrorism, had renounced it and, indeed, offered to stop his nuclear program years before.  He was no threat to the U.S. and, indeed, while many of his people supported al Qaeda, he was a bulwark against a theocracy in his tribal country.  And yet, Obama saw fit to insinuate himself into a civil war there on wholly humanitarian grounds.  Obama announced a doctrine that required U.S. intervention when a leader threatened to kill his own people.  Obama set out the moral high ground and planted his flag.  He also unleashed the radicals in Libya, and it is an open question whether they will, in the end, take over the country.

The Obama doctrine lasted about six months, until the Syrian civil war began.  And it was truly a civil war, with the grass roots at war with the government.  Obama could have stepped in to help them - and it very much would have been in our interests to do so.  Syria is key Iran, if for nothing else then as a passage way to Lebanon and the West Bank.  But Obama dithered, doing nothing, and Syria became a Mecca for the radical Sunnis who dream of establishing their own theocracy.  And it is unclear at the moment, should Syria fall, that the country would not emerge in the hands of the al Qaeda types.  What a mess.

Still and all, in judging between the threats posed by Iran and al Qaeda, the greater threat is that posed by Iran.  Their losing Syria as an ally would be a serious loss, and war with Iran is a certainty unless something is done to stop their march to a nuclear arsenal.  Thus, I would roll the dice in favor of supporting Syrian rebels now, and try to straighten out the Sunni mess later.

That said, under no circumstances should the U.S. spend an ounce of its gold or a drop of the blood of its sons and daughters merely to allow Obama a way to save face.  Unless he agrees to take actions that in fact will impact the civil war in Syria - that will truly hurt Assad with a goal of driving him from the country - none of our representatives should vote in favor of attacking Syria.

Moreover, even if Obama agrees to decisive action, the right should not let him or the traitorous left off the hook by failing to point out that --

1.  This action is being taken without the support of the UN.  You will recall how the left howled about taking any action without full approval of that body.

2.  This action is being taken without virtually any coalition of the willing.  You will recall how the left howled about the U.S. acting "unilaterally" when Bush had put together an alliance of some forty nations.

3.  That President Bush took no military actions without the full consent of Congress.  Obama, on the other hand, took us into Libya without either Congressional authorization or any threat to our national security.  The only reason he has come to Congress now is because he lacks anything approaching a legitimate mandate to attack Syria.


4.  That we are where we are today because Obama has not had anything approaching a coherent foreign policy.  He has neither attacked enemies who threaten our national interest nor given support to those who would support our national interest.  He did not intervene during the Green Revolution, yet he saw fit to intervene in Libya.  He did not help the Syrians at the start of their civil war, but he did support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  Can this joker - or the left as a whole - get anything right?

That is a rhetorical question, but let me answer it anyway - I don't think so.  The left seem to see pursuing our national interest as something that is immoral.  On the other hand, they see intervening in places where our national interest is not at stake as somehow moral.  It is the bizarre brand of self hate that grew from the pen of Karl Marx and has spread like a cancer throughout the West ever since.  God help this nation.






Read More...

Monday, December 26, 2011

A Moment Of Perfect Clarity - The Centrality Of Political Islam Is To Conquer All


If there is a recurring theme within political Islam it is the permanent jihad to wipe out any trace of non-Muslim civilization. Once you appreciate that you’ll begin to see the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Mosque built over the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands and the spread of “no-go” neighborhoods in Europe in an entirely new light.

What a brilliant observation. It gets to the very centrality of "political" Islam. The observation was made by "Dan From NY" commenting at Doug Ross's site on the Islamist's burning and looting of the famous L’Institut d’Egypte but a few days ago in Cairo. His observation brings perfect clarity. It boils down the real threat of political Islam to the world in a few short sentences. Islam cannot co-exist. It's adherents have little to no time to waste with engaging in the realm of ideas to spread their message. They seek to impose Islam on everyone, and they keep all adherents in line with the very real threat of the sword. Islam must conquer - and part and parcel of that effort is to "wipe out any trace of non-Muslim civilization." And it explains why, if there is no moderation of Islam, then it will never be compatible with the rest of the world. It presages death, murder and mayhem on a grand scale forced upon us before an eventual winner take all.

Unfortunately, it seems all too common in the West, where Christianity dominates, to project a benign nature on Islam, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. And our political leaders have long encouraged that view, refusing to be honest and engage in the war of ideas. It is a dangerous and suicidal game that we play in the West with "political" Islam. I would note as an aside that at least one of the Republican candidates for the nomination understands that. Whether or not he wins the nomination, I hope that he becomes our "Geert Wilders," willing to speak out much more on this reality. On a final note, consider Dan from NY's paradigm for analysis of political Islam as you read this from today's news:


Islamists kill dozens in Nigeria Christmas bombs

Islamist militants set off bombs across Nigeria on Christmas Day - three targeting churches including one that killed at least 27 people - raising fears that they are trying to ignite sectarian civil war.

The Boko Haram Islamist sect, which aims to impose sharia law across the country, claimed responsibility for the three church bombs, the second Christmas in a row the group has caused mass carnage with deadly bombings of churches. Security forces also blamed the sect for two other blasts in the north.

St Theresa's Catholic Church in Madala, a satellite town about 40 km (25 miles) from the centre of the capital Abuja, was packed when the bomb exploded just outside. . . .

Boko Haram - which in the Hausa language spoken in northern Nigeria means "Western education is sinful" - is loosely modelled on the Taliban movement . . .

It has emerged as the biggest security threat in Nigeria, a country of 160 million split evenly between Christians and Muslims, who for the most part live side by side in peace.

Its low level insurgency used to be largely confined to northeastern Nigeria, but it has struck several parts of the north, centre and the capital Abuja this year.

Last Christmas Eve, a series of bomb blasts around Jos killed 32 people, and other people died in attacks on two churches in the northeast. . . .

The White House condemned "this senseless violence and tragic loss of life on Christmas Day."

"Senseless violence?" That is why we invite ever greater violence from the political Islamists. The violence was not senseless at all. It was purposeful.  Our President - not this one, because that is not possible, but the next - needs to stands up and repeat Dan From NY's observation.  That is step one in ending the violence before it eventually escalates to cataclysmic proportions.

Update: You will find memorialized many more acts of violence and persecution of Christians at the hands of Muslims during this month at Powerline. Update: Linked by Theo Spark, home of the best hot toddy's on the net.

Read More...

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Obama, Revolution & The Promotion of Democracy

Mubarak hasn't been out office 24 hours, and already the left is making their paean's to Obama's leadership as being one of the decisive factors in motivating the Egyptian revolution and bringing down Mubarak. Wolf Blitzer pondered on CNN whether "Obama’s Cairo speech had something to do with this." Chris Matthews, apparently with tingles up both legs, stated that, "in a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen." And one unnamed Dem operative e-mailed to Politico:

Great news for the administration/president. People will remember , despite some fumbles yesterday, that the President played an excellent hand, walked the right line and that his statement last night was potentially decisive in bringing this issue to a close. The situation remains complicated and delicate going forward, but this is a huge affirmation of the President's leadership on the international stage.

This is historical revisionism on a scale with writing today that the South won the Civil War. First off, Obama's Cairo speech wasn't a call for democracy. It wasn't even a walk back from promoting democracy in the Middle East. It was a run back from it. Condi Rice, at a speech in Cairo in 2005, called for democracy. This is what it sounded like:

For 60 years, . . . the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the [Middle East]. And we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of the people.

What Obama did in Cairo was pay lip service to human rights and democracy after announcing that "no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other." If there was any ambiguity in that statement, it should have been clarified in 2009 when Obama cut funding for promoting democracy throughout the Middle East.

As to Iran, as I wrote back when the Green Movement was dying in the streets while Obama played golf:

Obama defunded all the programs to promote democracy in Iran and has not reinstated their funding. Obama actively prevented other countries from imposing sanctions on Iran, and as recently as two months ago, cut off funding to an organization documenting human rights abuses in Iran. He has given legitimacy to the regime by reaching out to them, even after they brutally repressed demonstrations. And, of paramount importance, he has been all but silent when he should have been using the bully pulpit to excoriate the bloody mad mullahs for their murderous acts at every opportunity. When the world needs a Churchill, we instead have a Chamberlain.

And Obama did essentially the same with funding for promotion of democracy in Egypt. Bush left office with a budget of $45 million for promoting democracy in Egypt. In 2009, Obama not only slashed that amount to $7 million, but in a tip of the hat to Mubarak, he limited its dispersion only to civil groups that were approved by the Egyptian government. This from Jake Tapper at ABC News:

The Obama Administration has not done what they should have in terms of support for civil society,” said Jennifer Windsor, associate dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, who served for ten years as the executive director of Freedom House, an independent group dedicated to the advance of freedom. . . .

Says Windsor: “The attitude of Obama administration toward the pro-democracy movement was to put them at arm’s length, and make sure that US interaction with the pro-democracy movement did not in any way ruffle the feathers of a dictatorial regime.” . . .

So anyone that suggests that Obama played a unique role in motivating the revolution in Egypt is being far less than honest. As to Obama's performance during the past eighteen days of the revolution, this from Jennifer Rubin:

One can scarcely imagine how the U.S. in its handling of the Egyptian revolution could look more inept and less effective. If the stakes were not so high the last few weeks would be material for high farce. (And indeed, a recounting of events by a faux "Joe Biden" does just that.)

Initial caution was followed by insistence that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak "transition now." That, in turn, morphed into agreement to a very gradual transition. . . .

Ross Kaminsky at American Spectator is equally as critical of the Obama administration's performance during the 18 days of revolution. I am inclined to cut the Obama administration far more slack in this difficult situation, but perhaps that is only be because of how the situation ended. This from the WSJ yesterday, prior to the coup, gives a bit more insight into the pressures the administration was under and how difficult it was to influence events:

. . . The White House is now squeezed between Arab and Israeli allies, who have complained that Mr. Obama was pushing Mr. Mubarak too hard to step down, and lawmakers who accuse the White House of not pushing hard enough. Now, the White House finds itself largely a bystander.

"This is really bad," a senior U.S. official said after Mr. Mubarak's address. "We need to push harder—if not, the protests will get violent."
The official advocated raising U.S. pressure to force Mr. Mubarak from power, though other officials acknowledge Washington had little clout in Cairo. . . .

In the White House, frustration is giving way to a sense of powerlessness.

"The mystique of America's superpower status has been shattered," said Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation, who has attended two meetings with the National Security Council on Egypt.

At a meeting with outside advisers Monday, four National Security Council officials were pressed on what U.S. diplomacy had accomplished. The officials said their efforts had helped avoid "catastrophic" bloodshed by helping to restrain Egyptian security forces, two participants said.

Possibly the real lesson of the Egyptian Revolution is that we need to reinstate the Bush policy of aggressively promoting democracy throughout the Middle East. That would likely leave us in a much stronger position than we find ourselves in Egypt, where there the secular parties are disorganized and we have very limited influence over the events.

All of that said, the Obama administration, from Sec. of State Clinton calling Mubarak stable to Biden stating that Mubarak was "not a dictator," were clearly caught flat footed when the massive demonstrations began in Egypt on January 23. And between Gibbs suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood needed to be included in a "reform government" and the DNI portraying the Brotherhood as peaceful and "largely secular," it was clear that the administration was not exactly on top of the events in Egypt. Indeed, those latter two examples suggest that the Obama administration was considering pushing a contingency that would have proven disastrous.

In the end, the school solution to this revolution was, as I wrote from day one, a military coup that could then oversee time for secular parties to organize. That is what seems to have happened - and indeed, it was the most likely outcome from the day the Army replaced the police on the streets, then refused to act against the protesters. I saw nothing to suggest that Obama was anything more than following these events, rather than leading them. That said, he didn't get in their way, and that has to count for something. Thus while I am far less critical of the administration than Jennifer Rubin, I think anyone who credits the Obama administration for a successful conclusion to this stage of Egypt's revolution is being disingenuous in the least.

Read More...

Friday, February 11, 2011

Obama On Egypt

The crowds go wild in Egypt when the news spread that Mubarak had stepped down



And this was Obama's remarks on the revolution today.



(H/T Hot Air)

I found Obama's paean to "non-violence" troubling:

This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they've done so by putting the eye to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt it was the moral force of nonviolence, not terrorism, not mindless killing, but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more. And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can't help but hear the echoes of history, echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path justice. As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana while trying to perfect his own, there's something in the soul that cries out for freedom.

It is a good thing that Egypt's revolution was relatively bloodless. But that is only because the army, unlike in China or Iran, refused to fire on the protestors. Moral force is not the trump card.

Political power comes from the end of a gun. Every one of the Middle East autocracies, from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Syria, et al., sits on a river of blood. Iran saw a nonviolent movement to end their theocracy with the Green Movement last summer. Why didn't Obama mention them? Quite simply, Obama has been behind the power curve on this since he stepped into office. He virtually ignored the Green Movement and Iran's brutal response. And when it became apparent that Mubarak's days were numbered - that was the day the army refused to fire on the protesters - Obama was still behind the power curve. I don't find his acts in regard to Egypt to have been particularly incompetent, but that is more a function of Obama getting lucky and following events, not his getting out in front of events and leading. More on that in another post.

Expect that we will be hearing many on the left trying to credit Obama with the fall of Mubarak. See here and here.

Read More...

Going, Going, Gone - The Army Completes The Coup

This is the best possible outcome, not just for the West, but for Egypt and the Middle East. Mubarak's fall was inevitable when the Army refused to fire on the demonstrators well over a week ago.

It is coming across the news now that Mubarak has stepped down. The Pharoh is gone. A military panel is now in control, along with Suliman. This from the NYT:

The Egyptian military issued a communiqué pledging to carry out a variety of constitutional reforms in a statement notable for its commanding tone. The military’s statement alluded to the delegation of power to Vice President Omar Suleiman and it suggested that the military would supervise implementation of the reforms.

The mob in Cairo is celebrating like its New Year's Eve and the apple just dropped. The real work begins tomorrow. To keep Egypt from going the way of Iran (see here), real economic and political reforms need to occur, and Obama needs to work with Egypt's military to buy enough time for secular opposition to organize itself in Egypt. Perhaps as important, the doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood need to be fully exposed throughout Egypt. Whether this will be enough will take a decade to answer.

Read More...

The Iranian Revolution, DNI Clapper & The Muslim Brotherhood


Update: After 18 days of demonstrations, the military executed a coup in Egypt today. This is the best possible news for Egypt and the West.

Today, our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as a "peaceful" and a "largely secular organization". Really. On a related note, today is "Islamic Revolution's Victory Day" in Iran. It was this day in 1979 that the last of the Shah's forces fell. As we ponder the Obama administrations apparent willingness to countenance the Muslim Brotherhood as a benign organization and potential partner for the U.S. in Egypt, it would do well to remember just a few of the highlights from the Iranian Revolution.

Like the Muslim Brotherhood (see, e.g., here, here, here), Khomeini left a long paper trail of books setting forth his true radical Islamist views:

In the 1960s and 70s Khomeini had already talked about almost everything he did. Even in 1944 he talked about how evil democracy and modernity are, how evil the rule of law is. He talked about the establishment of Velayat-e faqih, the rule of Islamic jurists.

Yet, like the Brotherhood of today, as the opportunity to take power presented itself, Khomeini articulated a very benign viewpoint, portraying himself as a freedom lover, willing to tolerate complete freedom of speech, and expressly disavowing any role for himself or the Shia clergy in the government. For example:

"In Iran's Islamic government the media have the freedom to express all Iran's realities and events, and people have the freedom to form any form of political parties and gatherings that they like." Interview with the Italian newspaper Paese Sera, Paris, November 2, 1978

"In the Islamic government all people have complete freedom to have any kind of opinion." Interview with Human Rights Watch, Paris, November 10, 1978

"In Islamic Iran the clergy themselves will not govern but only observe and support the government's leaders. The government of the country at all levels will be observed, evaluated, and publicly criticized." -- Interview with Reuters news agency, Paris, October 26, 1978

The secular opposition to the Shah was disorganized in Iran, but it was widespread, from liberal democrats to labour. "Khomeini worked to unite this opposition behind him by focusing on the socio-economic problems of the Shah's regime (corruption and unequal income and development), while avoiding specifics among the general public that might divide the factions — particularly his plan for clerical rule . . ." And while the Khomeinists were significantly outnumbered amongst many protesters against the Shah, they were by far the most organized.

Khomeini did not reveal his true colors until after taking power, when he became hyper-militant in stamping out all opposition to his theocracy. For example, in his own words:

"Those who are trying to bring corruption and destruction to our country in the name of democracy will be oppressed. They are worse than Bani-Ghorizeh Jews, and they must be hanged. We will oppress them by God's order and God's call to prayer." -- In a talk at the Fayzieah School, Qom, August 30, 1979

"Those who have not voted for the Islamic Republic, it means that they want the previous system. Those who boycott the election so no one votes for the Islamic Republic are seditious. We will treat them like enemies, and we will oppress them. You are enemies that you want to cause trouble. You are enemies that you are conspiring against Islam and against the country. Your comings and goings are controlled. We have been informed that you are in contact with those who want to bring our country back to its previous system. Now that your conspiracy has been proven, we will destroy you all. If you don't stop your evilness, we will mobilize an even higher mobilization, and we will clean out all of you. We will not allow you groups of corrupt people to remain and continue your activities. -- In a message at the end of the month-long Islamic fasting celebration, September 3, 1979

As one observer put it, in terms that parallel the situation in Egypt today:

What began as an authentic and anti-dictatorial popular revolution based on a broad coalition of all anti-Shah forces was soon transformed into an Islamic fundamentalist power-grab," that significant support came from Khomeini's non-theocratic allies who had thought he intended to be more a spiritual guide than a ruler — Khomeini being in his mid-70s, having never held public office, been out of Iran for more than a decade, and having told questioners things like "the religious dignitaries do not want to rule."

Khomeini's consolidation of power between 1979 and 1982 was bloody and deliberate. Khomeini initially threw his entire authority behind secular moderate Mehdi Bazargan as the new head of state while he built up his own, separate revolutionary apparatus loyal only to him. On March 30, 1980, Khomeini arranged for a national vote on whether to replace the monarchy with an "Islamic Republic." The term "Islamic Republic" was left undefined, and it was only after winning the vote with a 98% majority vote did Khomeini have a Constitution drawn up - for a theocracy. And before the next vote on the Constitution, Khomeini moved into full force, crushing the opposition, murdering thousands once associated with the shah, closing down newspapers opposed to a theocracy, and threatening with death any who would vote against him. In the end, it was Khomeini and his "radicals who won. Because they were the most ruthless. They were the most brutal."

Given the organization and popularity of the Brotherhood today in Egypt, there is little reason to think that they could not achieve similar results over time. We should have no misconceptions. As to the nature of the Brotherhood, this from Zhudi Jasser, issued today after DNI Clapper's dangerously ridiculous characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood:

"The Muslim Brotherhood is the antithesis of a secular organization as asserted today by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Clapper's statement presents a significant concern that our primary Intelligence officer has a complete lack of understanding of an organization that presents the greatest threat to the security of the United States. The Director of Intelligence is either grossly naïve or covering up for an ideology that is in an ideological war with the United States and western society.

The Muslim Brotherhood is built on the ideology of political Islam which adheres to a belief in Islamic Supremacy. To be a secular organization the Brotherhood would have to completely disavow the very beliefs that define the organization.

Further, the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the political process in a post-Mubarak Egypt and throughout the middle-east. Thugs like Mubarak have created an atmosphere that has allowed the Brotherhood to thrive. The United States needs to be active within the country of Egypt countering the ideology of the Brotherhood helping the people of Egypt develop liberty-minded, democratic infrastructure to secure the country's future. We need to demonstrate to Egyptians that freedom does not come in the form of Islamic law or in the rule of theocratic clerics.

Our Intelligence community cannot afford to allow political correctness or this severally mistaken understanding of the Brotherhood to enter the conversation of how we will confront the changes in Egypt."

As we deal with political Islam domestically and abroad it has hundreds of permutations from the most violent (Al Qaeda) to the non-violent (Islamist groups in the west). They all are pursuing the same goal which is the Islamic state based in Sharia Law. This is because they all share the same roots - The Muslim Brotherhood. This very conflict is what defines our American Islamic Forum for Democracy. If America gets this conflict wrong we are doomed to become accomplices in the ascendancy of Islamic theocracy throughout the world which ultimately threatens our national security.

As I wrote below, Mubarak's decision today, refusing to step down, makes a violent revolution exponentially more likely - and nothing would more favor the Brotherhood. Obama should be doing all in his power to encourage a coup by the military that would forestall such an event, and that would allow time for secular opposition to organize prior to elections. Hopefully that would be enough to prevent a repeat of Iran.

Read More...

Thursday, February 10, 2011

The Last Refuge Of An Egyptian Scoundrel

President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, with Egypt convulsed by riots, addressed his fellow Egyptians today. Many expected that he would be announcing that he would step down, and that the military would step in - that would have been the school solution. Instead, our good friend Hosni adopted to drape himself in the last refuge of a Middle Eastern scoundrel. He played the America card, saying that he intended to stay in power and refused to bow to "foreign interference" in Egyptian government. He accompanied that announcement with a promise to capture and punish law breakers.

This makes a true revolution in Egypt ever more likely - and that is the worst possible scenario for the West, not to mention Israel. It is past time for the Obama administration to be discussing a military takeover with the Egyptian Chief of Staff. I hope that they are. And it is past time that the Obama administration come out unconditionally in support of demands for a transition to democracy with respect for individual rights and with time for secular opposition parties to coallesce. We provide a significant amount of foreign aid to Egypt and the Egyptian military. That is a card the administration needs to be playing.

What worries me is not just that the Muslim Brotherhood might take power in Egypt, but that if the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, is any indication, that the Obama administration will be enablers.

Read More...

How Suicidally Clueless Is The Obama Administration



The above video shows Director of National Intelligence James Clapper this morning telling a House hearing that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a "secular" organization that eschews violence. Who's briefing this idiot, Tariq Ramadan and CAIR? This organization is dedicated to imposing a world wide caliphate. They have as recently as a week ago advocated the formation of a govenment like Iran's. Virtually every Sunni terrorist organization is an offshoot of the Brotherhood. They were calling for war with Israel a week ago. Any of that sound secular and peaceful to you? This joker needs to go. He is either lying to America or a fool of immense proportions. In either event, occupying the position of DNI, he presents a danger to our nation.

What further chaffed was when FBI Director Mueller offered to brief the Congress critters on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood - in a closed hearing. Bullshit. The people of America have a right to know the answers about the Brotherhood, particularly after the suicidal fantasy woven by Clapper this morning.

Update: The administration is trying to explain away the utterly ridiculous comments of Clapper. This Jake Tapper at ABC News:

The Muslim Brotherhood is quite obviously not a secular organization.

Jamie Smith, director of the office of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence later said in a statement to ABC News: “To clarify Director Clapper’s point - in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak’s rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation – he is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization.”

How much the Muslim Brotherhood has eschewed violence and decried al Qaeda is subject to debate. Critics of the group point to its ties with Hamas, a terrorist organization according to the US State Department, for instance.

A Council on Foreign Relations background on the Muslim Brotherhood recently stated that “like other mass social movements, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is hardly a monolith; it comprises hardliners, reformers, and centrists, notes terrorism expert Lydia Khalil. And some hardline leaders have voiced support for al-Qaeda or use of violent jihad. For instance, as recently as 2006, Khalil points out, a member of Brotherhood elected to parliament, Ragib Hilal Hamida, voiced support for terrorism in the face of Western occupation. Instances like these raise questions over the group's commitment to nonviolence.”

Yeah, well, its the hardliners that have had me nervous since 1979 - when they ended up hijacking the Iranian Revolution. As to Clapper, his statement this morning was clear. To claim otherwise now beggars belief. If Obama has any sense of self-preservation, it is time to toss Clapper under the bus.

Read More...

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Democracy versus Democracy Founded Upon Individual Rights

When you come down to it, for as much as we laud it, democracy is, by itself, nothing more than mob rule. Lots of places have democracy, many of which are far removed indeed from a "liberal democracy." From Villagers With Torches, an insightful post pointing out that it is not "democracy" that we should be pushing, or at least not democracy alone:

It MAY be too late for Egypt. It may be impossible in Islamic majority nations (and if so the sooner we know the better), but someone in the USA in leadership or potential leadership positions had better speak up so that we have a 30 second sound byte as to the difference between a mob intimidation rule of the masses, and a democracy whose PURPOSE is the protection of the individual while having majority rule.

Very well put. We pushed in 2005 for elections in Gaza and ended up with Hamas. It is quite possible that we could see the same in Egypt unless the call for democracy is irrevocably coupled with an even stronger call for individual rights.

Read More...

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Today's Reading: Totten on Egypt

Michael Totten is one of our most astute observers of the Middle East. He has two articles of note that shed a great deal of light on the situation in Egypt. The first, written in 2005, is Nassar's Biggest Crime wherein he discusses why the Muslim Brotherhood is the dominant opposition in Egypt today and the ramifications thereof, while secular political parties are nascent and disorganized. And do note the parallels between Sadat's strategy and that of el-Baradei, who is today championing the Muslim Brotherhood:

“When Nasser took over,” Big Pharaoh said, “people were angry at Britain and Israel. He nationalized all the industry. He banned political parties. He stifled everything. Banned the Muslim Brotherhood. Banned the Communists. Banned all. When Sadat took over in 1970, he had two enemies: the Communists and the Nasser remnants. So to counter these threats, he did what the United States did in Afghanistan during the Cold War – he made an alliance with the Islamists. He brought back the Muslim Brotherhood which had fled to Saudi Arabia when Nasser was around. He used them to destroy the left.”

“That was part of it,” he continued. “During the oil boom of 1973 a lot of Egyptians went to Saudi Arabia to work. Then in the 1990s, two important things happened. After the first Gulf War, Saudi Arabia began to Saudize its economy and said they no longer needed Egyptian workers. When the Egyptians came home they were contaminated with Wahhabism. Egypt’s economy kept getting worse. Unemployed members of the middle class either sat around and smoked shisha or got more religious. That was when Islamism moved from the lower class to the middle class. Now it is moving even to the upper class.”

“Egypt will get over it after a while,” I said, “just like Iran is getting over it now.”

“That will take 25 years! I don’t have 25 years!”

The Iranian theocracy has been in power for 26 years.

And here is Michael Totten today in PJM, interviewing Abbas Milani, Prof. of Iranian studies at Stanford, about the parallels between Egypt of today and the Iranian revolution of three decades ago:

MJT: I find this very disturbing. Iran in the 1970s—and I guess today, too—was much more liberal and modern than Egypt.

Abbas Milani: Oh, absolutely.

MJT: And yet Iran got this government. If it can happen in Iran, it can certainly happen in Egypt where the middle class is very small and people are not nearly as well educated.

Abbas Milani: And there are a lot more Islamists, and they are much better organized.

MJT: The liberals in Egypt are, what, ten percent of the population?

Abbas Milani: I’m not sure about that, but I do know something about the Muslim Brotherhood.

MJT: Okay, so what do you know?

Abbas Milani: They are extremely well organized.

MJT: Are they moderate? Many experts are saying so now, but I’m skeptical.

Abbas Milani: There are moderate elements within the Muslim Brotherhood. But if the Muslim Brotherhood still stands behind Sayyid Qutb, then no. He, along with Hassan al Banna, was one of its founding fathers. You should read him. He was absolutely uncompromising.

MJT: What about the guys running it now? There is all this talk about how they’re no longer as dangerous as they used to be, that they’ve renounced violence and want a democracy. I don’t really buy it, but some people insist this is the case, that the Muslim Brothers have gone mainstream and we have nothing to worry about.

Abbas Milani: I don’t know the Egyptian scene as well as Iran, so let’s look at the Iranian case. If you look at the whole Islamic movement you can see that there were moderate forces in the early part. There were quietist ayatollahs who took part in the revolution, including some who were senior to Khomeini in clerical status. They had an enormous popular base. They were truly moderate and they truly understood the dangers of Khomeini.

Within this movement was also Fadayan-e Islam, the Islamic terrorist group founded by Navvab Safavi who was very much enamored of the Muslim Brotherhood. He even met with Sayyid Qutb. If you look at how this vast network, that included moderates and radicals, evolved once the revolution came, it was the radicals who won. Because they were the most ruthless. They were the most brutal.

Everything I’ve seen indicates that there are moderate Muslim Brothers, but if the society goes into a protracted struggle, I have no doubt that the radicals would win.

Almost every radical group in the Middle East is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. . . .

Do read both articles in full as they contain a ton of insightful material. My take away, from reading both, is that I am even more convinced that our government should be doing all they can to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of the government while buying time for secular opposition parties to develop and gain a following. It is our last and best hope. But if yesterday's report in the LA Times is accurate, however, the point is moot, and Obama is making a huge mistake.

Read More...

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

While El-Baradie Dissimulates, Obama Fantasizes About A Peaceful Muslim Brotherhood

Here is what being fed to America by our MSM and El Baradei:



Yet here is what is being said by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in interviews to Iranian News, as reported in the Jerusalem Post today:

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”

In my initial post on Egypt, A 3 A.M. Phone Call From Egypt, I said that Obama needed to get out in front events by calling on Mubarak to institute specific democratic and economic reforms on a short time table or to step down and let a caretaker government formed from the military to do it, and that Obama's entire focus needed to be on allowing time for secular opposition groups sufficient time and space to form.

I would add today that events have already gone too far too fast for Obama to do anything other than to call for Mubarak to make a quick exit and the military to form the transitional government until September elections. If Obama vacillates further, even that option will likely disappear. Allowing the deeply disingenuous Islamic snake, el-Baradei, tool of Iran and partner with the Muslim Brotherhood, to form part of a transitional government would be a catastrophic mistake, yet one that becomes ever more likely as Obama vacillates in the White House.

Update: Now this is what I would expect from the man serving out Jimmy Carter's second term. This from Hot Air:

In order to stay ahead of the crisis in Egypt, the Obama administration yesterday signaled that it supports the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics as long as they renounce violence and commit to democracy:

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

The organization must reject violence and recognize democratic goals if the U.S. is to be comfortable with it taking part in the government, the White House said. But by even setting conditions for the involvement of such nonsecular groups, the administration took a surprise step in the midst of the crisis that has enveloped Egypt for the last week. . . .

About that renouncing violence bit - somebody needs to point out to Obama that Ghannem's remarks about "preparing for war" with Israel ought to be a clue as to the Muslim Brotherhood's take on violence. And these are the same people who advocated that Egypt go to war against Israel during Israel's war with Gaza in 2007. For Obama to say he will support the Muslim Brotherhood as part of a transitional government if they will only "renounce violence" is pure fantasy.

Why is Obama asking Egypt to violate its constitutional separation between Mosque and State at this point? Whether or not that makes sense in Egypt down the road, for now, Obama is repeating the mistakes of Carter in allowing the radical Islamists to get their foot in the door while the secular opposition parties are nascent and disorganized. As I said from Day 1, Obama should be focused like a laser on buying the time and space for Egypt's secular parties to develop, even if that means just buying them time until the September elections scheduled to be held in Egypt.

Hot Air later quotes NRO's Duncan Currie, who states

“I fully expect the Muslim Brotherhood to do well in any election,” Gerecht tells me. “They have a fairly substantial following.” He has no illusions about the group’s Islamist agenda, or about its virulent anti-Americanism, or about its hatred of Israel. In his view, calling for U.S. “engagement” with the Brotherhood is like calling for engagement with Ayatollah Khamenei. But Gerecht insists that allowing Brotherhood members to participate in a democratic process is the sine qua non of Egyptian political maturation. The country will never achieve real progress, he says, without first creating the political space necessary for a momentous debate over God and man. Indeed, Egypt’s secular liberals must defeat the Islamists in the public square, rather than through military repression. They must win the battle of ideas. …

If Egyptians voted the Brotherhood into a position of serious power, that would generate a kaleidoscope of problems for America and Israel (and Egypt). No serious analyst should pretend otherwise. But Gerecht’s logic is inescapable: You can’t have authentic Egyptian democracy while disenfranchising the country’s largest opposition movement. If you aren’t willing to countenance Brotherhood electoral participation, you shouldn’t be demanding representative government.

All well and good. I don't disagree with any of that. But if there is no organized secular opposition, then what we will see is a repeat of Iran circa 1979, with a well organized radical Islamist movement eventually instituting a democracy of "one vote, one time."

Update II: As over a million protesters line Cairo's streets, it appears Mubarak will be announcing that he will not run for another term. That point is moot now, I think. I doubt he will last out the week, with the question being who or what replaces him. It seems not everyone is enamored of El-Baradei leading up a transitional government. This from a French news agency: "The intellectual community of Egypt calls on Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, and Sami Enan, Chief of the Egyptian armed forces, to act as leaders of the opposition." These individuals are apparently even getting the thumbs up from the Brotherhood. I would assume that is tactical, as they hope to see all restrictions on religious organizations removed prior to the September elections. But as I said above, that would be about the best situation we could hope for.

Read More...

Monday, January 31, 2011

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Calling For War With Israel?

The cable news division of Fox News reported on air yesterday that a senior member of the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, during an interview today with Iranian News, stated that Egypt needs to turn off gas supplies to Israel and to prepare for war against Israel.

More from the Jerusalem Post today:

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”

Yet here is what being fed to America by our MSM and El Baradei:



Sounds like a myth, doesn't it.

Read More...

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Bolton On Egypt





(H/T Ex-Dissident)

Read More...

Friday, January 28, 2011

Egypt's El Baradie Not An Option

With Egypt in flames and the rioters calling for the head of their dictator, Hosni Mubarak, the question becomes who will replace him should he fall. We all know that the Muslim Brotherhood would be a disaster for both Egypt, Israel and the West. But what about Mohammed El-Baradei, the former head of the IAEA who has entered Egyptian politics as an opponent of Mubarak. While El-Baradei seems to be on friendly terms with Obama, the truth is that he is an Islamist tied directly to the Brotherhood and Iran and, further, that he possesses a distinct animus towards Israel.

To understand El-Baradie's danger to a secular, democratic Egypt, a little background on Egyptian politics and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is necessary for context.

Egyptian Politics:

Egypt has been ruled by a series of dictators since gaining independence from Britain in 1956. The current dictator, Hosni Mubarak, took over following the assassination of Anwar Sadat by militant Islamists in 1981.

Egypt is ruled by a Constitution that technically allows opposition political parties. There are today, at least 18 political parties in Egypt. Most are of recent origin and with little popular following as opposition has been little tolerated during the decades of Mubarak's rule. The Constitution, as amended in 2007, strictly prohibits religiously based political parties - thus nominally putting a wall between mosque and state. That amendment was aimed directly at the ever more influential Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt has been ruled under a decree of martial law since 1967 that suspends portions of the Constitution. Martial law gives military courts the power to try civilians and allows the government to detain for renewable 45-day periods and without court orders anyone deemed to be threatening state security. Public demonstrations are banned under the decree.

The Muslim Brotherhood

The largest opposition group in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, its motto is:

Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
The Qur'an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

For a detailed discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood, see here. The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical organization that differs from al Qaeda - one of its offshoots - only in tactics. Its ideology is and has always been virulently anti-Western and, more particularly, anti-American. Virtually all Islamic terrorist organizations can trace their origins directly to - or within one or two degrees of separation to - the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was itself a terrorist organization for much of its existence, but then opted to forgo violence as a tactic. Its goals, to achieve political dominance and create Islamic states ruled by Sharia law, have never changed.

To gain traction amongst the populace of Egypt, the Brotherhood has followed the tactics of Hamas, developing an extensive social services network at the local level. It has made the Brotherhood extremely popular.

This from Wiki showing the reach of the Egyptian Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood:

. . . The Brotherhood now dominates the professional and student associations of Egypt and is famous for its network of social services in neighborhoods and villages. In order to quell the Brotherhood's renewed influence, the government again resorted to repressive measures starting in 1992. . . .

In the 2005 parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood's candidates, who can only stand as independents, won 88 seats (20% of the total) to form the largest opposition bloc, despite many violations of the electoral process, including the arrest of hundreds of Brotherhood members. Meanwhile, the legally approved opposition parties won only 14 seats. . . .

A 2009 WSJ article here throws further light on what Egypt could expect were the Brotherhood to take control:

The Brotherhood has long insisted it holds no prejudice against Christians. Yet an Islamic state -- based on faith, not citizenship rights -- remains the group's core belief. . . .

Later in 2007, the Brotherhood attempted to clarify its vision by distributing a draft program for a political party it aims to establish. The document stated that a woman or a Christian cannot become Egypt's president, and called for the creation of a special council of Islamic clerics to vet legislation. . . .

The latest controversy surrounding the Brotherhood stemmed from its behavior during Israel's Gaza war, a campaign initially seen as a boon to the Islamist movement. Harnessing widespread popular feelings of sympathy with the Palestinian cause, the Brotherhood organized two massive street demonstrations in Alexandria and Cairo during the war, attacking President Mubarak's regime for failing to help Gaza's Hamas rulers.

But these protests soon fizzled. Calls by some Brotherhood leaders to send fighters to Gaza alienated many Egyptians who have no desire to see their own country, at peace with Israel since 1979, embroiled in war once again. . . .

So in short, should the Muslim Brotherhood attain power in Egypt, one could reasonably expect that they would try to create something akin to Iran's theocracy and that they would take an aggressive, military posture against Israel. It would be a disaster.

Mohammed El-Baradei

El-Baradei came to international prominence when he was elected head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1997. The mission of the IAEA is, in part, to "verify that safeguarded nuclear material and activities are not used for military purposes." Laughably, El-Baradei won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for his efforts. But the reality of his tenure was insidious. He abused his position to provide cover for Iran while denouncing the logic of non-proliferation. This Feb. 2008 article in the WSJ provides a good summary:

On Friday, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei submitted a report on Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA's Board of Governors. It concluded that, barring "one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran's nuclear programme," . . . Iran's explanations of its suspicious nuclear activities "are consistent with [the IAEA's] findings [or at least] not inconsistent."

The report represents Mr. ElBaradei's best effort to whitewash Tehran's record. Earlier this month, on Iranian television, he made clear his purpose, announcing that he expected "the issue would be solved this year." And if doing so required that he do battle against the IAEA's technical experts, reverse previous conclusions about suspect programs, and allow designees of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an unprecedented role in crafting a "work plan" that would allow the regime to receive a cleaner bill of health from the IAEA — so be it.

. . . [El Baradei] has used his Nobel Prize to cultivate an image of a technocratic lawyer interested in peace and justice and above politics. In reality, he is a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation. . . .

The IAEA's mission is to verify that "States comply with their commitments, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements, to use nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful purposes." Yet in 2004 Mr. ElBaradei wrote in the New York Times that, "We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security."

IAEA technical experts have complained anonymously to the press that the latest report on Iran was revamped to suit the director's political goals. In 2004, Mr. ElBaradei sought to purge mention of Iranian attempts to purchase beryllium metal, an important component in a nuclear charge, from IAEA documents. He also left unmentioned Tehran's refusal to grant IAEA inspectors access to the Parchin military complex, where satellite imagery showed a facility seemingly designed to test and produce nuclear weapons.

The IAEA's latest report leaves unmentioned allegations by an Iranian opposition group of North Korean work on nuclear warheads at Khojir, a military research site near Tehran. It also amends previous conclusions and closes the book on questions about Iran's work on polonium 210 — which nuclear experts suspect Iran experimented with for use as an initiator for nuclear weapons, but which the regime claims was research on radioisotope batteries. In 2004, the IAEA declared itself "somewhat uncertain regarding the plausibility of the stated purpose of the [polonium] experiments." Today it finds these explanations "consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available."

The IAEA director seems intent on undercutting Security Council diplomacy. Just weeks after President George Bush toured the Middle East to build Arab support for pressure on Tehran, Mr. ElBaradei appeared on Egyptian television on Feb. 5 to urge Arabs in the opposite direction, insisting Iran was cooperating and should not be pressured. And as he grows more and more isolated from Western powers intent on disarming Iran, Mr. ElBaradei has found champions in the developing and Arab world. They cheer his self-imposed mission — to hamstring U.S. efforts to constrain Iran's program, whether or not the regime is violating its non-proliferation obligations or pursuing nuclear weapons. . . .

El-Baradei's deep favoritism shown to Iran has paid off for him - literally. After he left the IAEA to enter politics, MEMRI reports that Iran funnelled $7 million to him in order to bankroll his political opposition to Mubarak. Evidently the ties between El-Baradei and Iran run deep.

But it is not just Iran with whom El-Baradei has very troubling ties. He is also in partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood. On Feb. 26, 2010, after a meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood among others, El-Baradei announced the formation of a new political movement, the National Association for Change. Chief among its stated concerns was repeal of the law preventing the Muslim Brotherhood from nominating religiously based candidates for office. El-Baradei repeated that call in a Der Spiegel interview days ago, while wholly sidestepping the question of what a Muslim Brotherhood rise to power in Egypt would mean for Israel:

SPIEGEL: Israel fears a revolution in Egypt. Many people in Jerusalem believe that the Muslim Brotherhood would then come to power and declare war on the Jewish state.

ElBaradei: We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. It is incorrect that our only choice is between oppression under Mubarak and the chaos of religious extremists. I have many differences with the Muslim Brotherhood. But they have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them.

El-Baradei, in 2009, stated that he viewed "Israel as the greatest threat to the Middle East." Caroline Glick, for her part, views the above and sees in El-Baradei an Islamist in sheep's clothing and a clear threat to Israel. That too is my conclusion. If as seems possible, Obama should soon have a decision to make regarding whether to support El-Baradei for a position in a post-Mubarak government, he should know that doing so would run completely counter to our nation's interests.

Read More...

Egypt Update I



This is an update to my post on Egypt and Obama's response to the nascent revolution occurring there, A 3 A.M. Phone Call From Egypt.

Egypt's dictator Honsi Mubarak appeared on Egyptian television a few moments ago, declaring that he was replacing his cabinet, promising to improve the economy, and that he would restore security. Walid Phares commented afterwards on Fox that he doubted it would be enough to quell the uprising. I concur. Listening to the list of particulars being expressed by the rioters, their passion and numbers, and noting the utter economic basket case that is Egypt, it is safe to forecast that this will have no impact on the rioting.

Moreover, the seminal issue in any modern grass-roots revolution is what will the security forces and the military do. There is a report coming out of Egypt of at least some police changing sides, but it does not yet appear widespread.

According to the Telegraph:

The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011. . . .

Fair enough, but "secret" promotion of democracy is not enough. As I pointed out below, Obama backed off promoting democracy throughout the Middle East when he took over the presidency. It was a mistake then, and Obama's silent impotence is a mistake now. He needs to get in front of the unrest in Egypt - and more particularly the Muslim Brotherhood - and act with more boldness if he is to have any impact on the situation. Instead, the only thing of note to come from the administration is an announcement that it would review the U.S. aid package for Egypt. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. The President is supposed to issue a statement shortly. We will see if he is going to be impotent or important to the resolution of this Egyptian uprising.

And here is Obama now. First concern is loss of life - don't use force against the protesters. Mubarak must reopen means of communication and internet. Protesters have a right to assemble but need to be peaceful. Now Obama is claiming that he has always been strongly for Democratic reforms in Egypt. I guess that is why he dismantled Bush's programs for promoting democracy there. Obama is now offering to "work with" the government and the protesters over the next several days. The sum of his statement is that Obama is staying the course with Mubarak. This is a mistake, and it means that Obama is impotent.

Read More...

A 3 A.M. Phone Call From Egypt


The Middle East is on fire. The Tunisian dictatorship fell to revolution days ago, and that has rippled throughout the Middle East, with the most immediate concern being the ripples in Egypt. There, Honsi Mubarak's regime is facing riots of sufficient seriousness that his family has fled the nation.

Egypt has been ruled as a dictatorship by Mubarak since the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar al-Sadat in 1981. And like all nations ruled by a dictatorship, Egypt has suffered. According to the CIA World Factbook, per capita GDP is just over $6,000, 20% of the nation lives below the poverty line, inflation is in double digits, and corruption pervades the nation. This from the Washington Post:

[F]or many [of the people rioting], it came down to this: a pervasive sense that the world has passed Egypt by, that money and power have become hopelessly entrenched in the hands of the few and that if the country is ever going to change, it has to do it now.

"There's a suffocating atmosphere in Egypt, and I'm tired of it," said Dandarwi, a lawyer dressed impeccably in a dark blue pinstriped suit, who quietly sipped coffee Thursday afternoon as he waited for the next protest to begin. "The elections are fraudulent. The people in power monopolize all the resources. There are no jobs. There's no health care. And I can't afford good schools for my children."

Like in Tunisia, the riots in Egypt are a grass roots phenomena and are motivated by bread and butter issues - jobs, inflation, corruption, and democracy. - not religion. The rioters are leaderless, though the April 6 Youth Movement, a facebook organization, appears to have been an important element in initiating the riots, as may have been coverage of the Tunisian riots by Al Jazeera.

The Bush Administration pushed for democratic reforms in Egypt, with the most famous call being made by Sec. of State Rice in her 2005 speech in Cairo. Bush significantly expanded programs to promote democracy in Egypt. But Obama, in his 2009 Cairo speech, completely backed off the effort to promote democracy in the Middle East, stating that he "would not presume to know what is best" for each nation. Further, while Obama continued financial support for the Mubarak regime, he "dramatically cut funds to promote democracy in Egypt."

Between the dictatorial bent of Mubarak and Obama's determination not to promote democratic reforms, the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as the most organized and largest opposition group in Egypt. The Brotherhood is the progenitor of virtually all radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda. And the Brotherhood now sees a golden opportunity to co-op these riots and attempt to ride them to power. They will officially join the riots tomorrow, according to the NYT. If the Brotherhood succeeds, it will create a second Iran, Egyptians would have traded a dictatorship for an even more repressive theocracy, and the Western world will have to face a second enemy dedicated to its overthrow.

This nascent revolution in Egypt has caught Obama completely flat-footed. On Tuesday, with the riots on-going, Sec. of State Clinton stated that "Egypt's government is stable." By Thursday, it was clear that Clinton was clueless and that has left Obama struggling to find a policy:

Obama and his aides are performing a delicate balancing act as political upheaval rocks the Middle East, from Egypt to Tunisia to Lebanon to Yemen, catching his administration off-guard and showing the limits of U.S. influence.

While making a point of describing Mubarak as "very helpful on a range of tough issues," Obama sent him a blunt message to heed the demands of anti-government protesters for broader democratic rights after decades of authoritarian rule. . . .

The State Department expressed concern over reports that access to Internet and social networking websites was being blocked in Egypt.

"We are concerned that communication services, including the Internet, social media and even this #tweet, are being blocked in #Egypt," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley tweeted late on Thursday.

Facebook and Twitter have been key means of communication for protesters in Egypt. Twitter said on Wednesday the government had been blocking its service for the second consecutive day and had "greatly diminished traffic."

Obama urged the government and protesters to show restraint, saying violence was not the answer. "It is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances," he said, citing freedom of expression and access to social networking websites.

. . . the Obama administration is now pursuing a "dual-track" approach, with U.S. diplomats reaching out to government officials and democracy activists to encourage peaceful dialogue for reform, a senior U.S. official said. . . .

Most U.S.-based analysts believe Mubarak is likely to weather the storm, if for no other reason than his government and military seem prepared to use whatever force is needed.

But if Mubarak does lose his 30-year grip on power, the greatest U.S. fear would be the rise of a government with strong Islamist ties and the risk of Egypt aligning itself with Iran, a bitter foe of the United States and its ally Israel.

This is widely seen as something the powerful Egyptian military would never permit. Washington has poured billions of dollars of military and other aid into Egypt since it became the first of only two Arab states to make peace with Israel.

Unfortunately for Obama, the protesters are in no mood for half measures. They want real change, not hope and change. This from Reuters today:

Web activists called for mass protests across Egypt on Friday to end President Hosni Mubarak's three-decade rule after protesters clashed with security forces late into the night in the eastern city of Suez. . . .

All that it will take to turn the riots into a revolution is for some in the military to decide to switch sides as a critical moment. But as a leaderless revolution, it would create a vacuum that the Brotherhood would be quick to exploit unless something is done to head off such an outcome.

Unfortunately, Obama seems confused and out of his depth. His message of support for Mubarak and a message to the rioters that "violence isn't the answer" must seem craven and unrealistic advice indeed to people who have suffered under an iron-fisted dictatorship for decades. If the riots fail displace Mubarak, it won't be because of Obama's intercession on behalf of non-violence.

This is a critical challenge for the Obama administration. The moral highground here is clearly with the rioters. If Obama continues to side with Mubarak while mouthing meaningless suggestions that Mubarak institute democratic changes, whatever good will we have in Egypt may be squandered. That said, if he outright abandons Mubarak, he would be repeating the fatal mistakes of Jimmy Carter vis-a-vis Iran. Carter refused to back the Shah at a critical point in the 1979 revolution, thus opening up the country for takeover by Ayatollah Khomeini and the imposition of his repressive theocracy. Obama must also consider that Mubarak, given his age, ill health and tenuous hold on power, will not long retain power in Egypt in any event.

What Obama could do is act decisively. Obama should very publicly demand that Mubarak take specific steps to institute real democracy - freedom of speech, fair elections, a war on corruption - over a specific time frame or that he step down and turn over the government to a caretaker who will see to the reforms. At the same time, Obama should be using our contacts with Egypt's military to assist them in stepping in to take control of the country and institute a caretaker government should it become necessary. At all costs, Obama should be focused on buying the time and space to allow a secular opposition movement to coalesce in Egypt that can act as a counter-weight to the Brotherhood.

So now its 3:01 A.M. What will Obama do?

Updates:
- Egypt's El Baradei Not An Option

- Egypt Update I

Read More...

Friday, December 25, 2009

A Discordant Note On Christmas (Updated)

I have blogged here often on the mistreatment of Christians and Jews in Muslim states. As I wrote a few months ago:

. . . [The] Wahhabi, Salafi, and Deobandi sects in particular interpret the Koran to mean that they can freely murder non-Muslims or enslave them and rape them. [Update: For specific references to these Salafi doctrines being taught in a Saudi school in Virginia, read the USCIFR report here.] . . .

In . . . Pakistan, the charge of blasphemy against the Prophet is being used to steal vast tracts of land from Christians In Algeria, Christians are being jailed by kangaroo courts for practicing their religion. In Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom to practice any religion but Islam, even in the privacy of one's home. No churches can be built in Turkey. Christians are being systematically persecuted and driven from Palestinian controlled portions of the Holy Land. Christains and Jews are second class citizens in virtually all Muslim dominated countries.

Despite all of this, you will recall Obama praising the Muslim world for its history of religious tolerance during his Cairo speech. Yet what he said is naught but another example in an endless line of examples of cowardly and morally weak Western politicial leader ignoring the bloody religious intolerance of Islamic states, pretending that this cancer does not exist. It is not that we should be intolerant in turn - to the contrary. But we have a moral duty to speak up and to hold these nations to account for their actions. Phyllis Chesler, writing at PJM, weighs in on this topic today. She asks the question, "could Jesus live safely in Bethleham today?" The answer is no.

This from Ms. Chesler:

It is Christmas 2009, and instead of peace on earth and good will towards all, Muslims are busily blowing up churches and Christians all over the Islamic world.

This is an awful reality but it is neither recent nor unexpected. Perhaps what is even more awful is the world’s silence and seeming passivity. We in the West who believe in religious tolerance have not stopped the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. In the name of political correctness, we have also “tolerated” the often aggressive demands for mosques, public prayer, minarets, and loudspeakers on our own soil even though there is absolutely no reciprocity towards Christianity (or any other non-Muslim religion) in most Arab and Muslim countries. . . .

First they came for the Jews … and indeed, most Jews, all 800,000 of us, fled the Arab and Muslim world in the 1940s and 1950s. No one stopped this “silent exodus” or really cared that it had happened. Individual Muslims and the Muslim governments happily, greedily, confiscated Jewish homes, factories, and farms; those Jews who were not slaughtered were allowed to leave with ten dollars in their pocket. Unlike the Palestinian refugees, the Jews and Israel took care of their own. Unfortunately, the Muslim world turned parasitically to the United Nations and to the world to fund the very Palestinians whom they would not allow to remain in their countries as refugees or citizens.

As to our Christian brothers and sisters:

Two days ago, in Mosul, Iraq, the Syrian Orthodox Church of St. Thomas, founded in 770 AD, was bombed — killing two civilians and wounding five others. This was the “sixth attack on Christians there in less than a month.” Ironically, according to their identity cards, the two murder victims were actually Muslims. However, according to Father Abdul Massih Dalmay of this church, “Christians are being targeted during Christmas time.” Father Dalmay feels that the government has not provided enough security for churches at this time and views this as “negligence on their part.”

The Syrian Orthodox Parish of the Immaculate Virgin was attacked a week ago. An infant girl was killed and forty people were wounded. Father Faez Wadiha, of this church, says, with irony: “This is certainly a Christmas present for Mosul, a message of congratulations why we are celebrating a feast of love and peace. But we will pray in the streets, in homes, in shops. God is everywhere, not just in churches.” The Syrian Catholic Church of the Annunciation , the (Chaldean) Church of St Ephrem, and the St. Theresa Church were all bombed in Mosul in the last month. According to another Christian Father: “These attacks are aimed at forcing Christians to leave the country.”

Some might say: There is an unwanted (and perceived as) Christian-American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. These bombings are in retaliation …well, not so fast. There are other Muslim countries where there is no (unwanted) American military presence and where both Jews and Christians have lived long before Islam even came into being — countries in which Christians are now under siege. Let’s look at what’s happening to Christians who live in some Muslim countries today.

Egypt

For years now, Islamist “gangs” have been forcibly converting Christian children to Islam by drugging, kidnapping, gang-raping, photographing the rapes, blackmailing, and “marrying” the female child, as young as twelve, to Muslim men. The Egyptian police have been unwilling to stop this criminal activity. Recently, a Christian television channel broadcast a program about this in Arabic. Many Egyptians were shocked. Here is one of the kidnappers’ tactics:

“The latest fraud mentioned on the TV program is that Muslim gangs who dress as Coptic priests, offer a car lift to Christian girls and then abduct them. ‘The Coptic Church has warned its congregation against letting any unknown person dressed as a priest into their homes or accepting a lift.’” (My thanks to John Peter Maher for this information).

A substantial Christian population has always lived in Egypt. They have increasingly been bombed, tortured and murdered. . . .

Pakistan

For a long time now, Christians have been persecuted in Pakistan. Their female children have been kidnapped, forced to convert and forcibly married to Muslims; both priests and believers have been attacked, and often murdered. . . .

Turkey

Last month, Turkish authorities uncovered a detailed plot by Turkish naval officers to commit violence against their country’s non-Muslims in an effort to unseat Turkey’s Islamist government. “Entitled the ‘Operation Cage Action Plan,’ the plot outlines a plethora of planned threat campaigns, bomb attacks, kidnappings and assassinations targeting the nation’s tiny religious minority communities. …The scheme ultimately called for bombings of homes and buildings owned by non-Muslims, setting fire to homes, vehicles and businesses of Christian and Jewish citizens, and murdering prominent leaders among the religious minorities.” Nine hundred and thirty nine Turkish non-Muslims were specifically marked as targets. . . .

Indonesia

In the rapidly Islamifying Indonesia, in Jakarta, “hundreds of Muslims celebrated the eve of the Islamic New Year last Thursday (Dec. 17) by attacking a Catholic church building under construction in Bekasi, West Java. A crowd of approximately 1,000 men, women and children from the Bebalan and Taruma Jaha areas of Bekasi walking in a New Year’s Eve procession stopped at the 60 percent-completed Santo Albertus Catholic Church building, where many ransacked and set fires to it, church leaders said. Damage was said to be extensive, but no one was injured.”

Somalia

“Islamic extremists controlling part of the Somali capital of Mogadishu this month executed a young Christian whom they accused of trying to convert a 15-year-old Muslim to Christianity. Members of the Islamic extremist group al Shabaab had taken 23-year-old Mumin Abdikarim Yusuf into custody on Oct. 28 after the 15-year-old boy reported him to the militants. Yusuf’s body was found on Nov. 14 on an empty residential street in Mogadishu, with sources saying the convert from Islam was shot to death, probably some hours before dawn.”

Thus, Christians and other non-Muslims have been continuously attacked and persecuted in Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Somalia.

Christmas approaches. What about the Holy Land? What kind of Christmas may we expect there?

The Jewish King David was born in Bethlehem, as was Jesus. Nevertheless, fewer and fewer Christians (and no Jews) live there year-round; pilgrims come to visit at this time of year but that’s about it. According to Benny Avni, writing in the New York Post, “fifty years ago, Christians made up 70 percent of Bethlehem’s population; today, about 15 percent…Practically the only place where the Christian population is growing is in Israel.”

As to the Church of the Nativity, it was treated abominably by Palestinian terrorists who, in 2002, held priests hostage there and treated it as a combination garbage dump and toilet. Israeli forces had to rescue the priests and arrange a cease-fire and surrender.

In the West Bank, churches, Christian cemeteries, and Christian-owned businesses have been attacked and defaced. Christians have been leaving in droves. According to Benny Avni, the current “West Bank Christian population (not counting Jerusalem)…is now less than 8 percent of the population.”

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Daniel Schwammenthal focuses on the persecution of Arab Christians in Bethlehem and especially on how the Western media has refused to cover this fact. When we read about the persecution of Palestinians it is only ascribed to Israel, never to Hamas, Hezbollah, or to the Palestinian Authority. The firebombing of Christian homes and of the only Christian bookstore in Bethlehem, the mass Islamic prayers in Manger Square, the intimidation of students at a Christian Bible college by Muslims who stand outside and loudly chant from the Qu’ran — are all daily realities for Christians in Bethlehem. A Christian spokesman in Bethlehem says: “We have never suffered as we are now suffering.”

Only the Jewish government of Israel guards and cherishes the holy places of all religions over which it has sovereignty. Only the Jewish Israeli government has offered permanent asylum to the Baha’i who fled Iran and temporary asylum to the black African Muslims and Christians who fled persecution and genocide at the hands of ethnic Arab Muslims in Sudan.

What in God’s name, are we to conclude from all this? Nina Shea, in National Review, draws some of the necessary conclusions:

“The disappearance of living Christian communities would signal the disappearance of religious pluralism and a moderating influence from the heart of the Muslim world. Within our lifetime, the Middle East could be wholly Islamicized for the first time in history. Without the experience of living alongside Christians and other non-Muslims at home, what would prepare it to peacefully coexist with the West? This religious polarization would undoubtedly have geopolitical significance. So far, official Washington has not taken this under consideration.”

As I’ve said: What happens to the Jews, at least under Islam, is bound to happen to Christians next. And so it has.

Of course, Muslims persecuted, colonized, and genocidally exterminated other non-Muslim groups too. Let’s not forget the Hindus in India who were under genocidal attack for 700 years; the Zoroastrians and Baha’i who were under attack in Iran; and the Armenians who were genocidally exterminated by Turkish Muslims. Armenians are a Christian ethnic group whose members belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church. To this day, the Turks still refuse to admit their responsibility.

So, on the one hand we have a relatively passive Christian West which has chosen not to actively stop the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands. On the other hand, we have allegedly “peaceful” Muslims who look the other way as Christians are persecuted and who are, understandably, also unwilling to … die to save Christians. For that matter, they are simply trying to live their lives and they are also unwilling to risk their lives to save other Muslims as well. “Peaceful” Muslims do not necessarily feel responsible for what is happening. Culturally and psychologically, they have been well trained to blame others, never themselves and to never act alone, as individuals, and/or against the family, clan, tribe, or ummah.

For example, the other day, I engaged my taxi driver in conversation. He was a young man from Turkey. He told me that he was a religious Muslim, that his wife wore hijab — and that he was committed to peace.

“Do you understand the Islamic jihadists who massacre innocent civilians in the name of Islam”?

Calmly, he answered. “Madame, they are not real Muslims. No real Muslim would do anything like that. I don’t know any Muslims like that.” He was very definite about this.

Said I: “But don’t you want to stop such criminals from committing atrocities in the name of your religion?”

He remained silent. Perhaps my question embarrassed him or made him sad; perhaps he was angry and could not afford to show it. Perhaps my question even threatened him because it assumed, even demanded, that he should be “doing” something. However, this soft-spoken man expressed no sorrow, no sense of responsibility, no guilt. His practice of Islam rendered him superior to it all; thus, evil had nothing to do with him, he had disassociated himself from it entirely.

As the world celebrates the birth of the Prince of Peace — originally a Jewish rabbi from Bethlehem–let’s be clear: In these times, Jesus would not be safe in the city where he was born, neither as a Jew nor as a Christian.

A final thought. Obama condemns the U.S. as having a "broken moral compass" for "torturing" the perpetrators of the greatest mass murder in U.S. history in order to stop other such acts, yet he white washes daily acts of murder, torture, and blatant discrimination in Muslim states directed against Christians. His morality is but skin deep. His cowardice goes to his core.

Update: At the WSJ, Daniel Schwammenthal has an article on the mistreatment and terrorizing of Christians within the Palestinian terrirtories, including Bethleham:

. . . On the rare occasion that Western media cover the plight of Christians in the Palestinian territories, it is often to denounce Israel and its security barrier. Yet until Palestinian terrorist groups turned Bethlehem into a safe haven for suicide bombers, Bethlehemites were free to enter Israel, just as many Israelis routinely visited Bethlehem.

The other truth usually ignored by the Western press is that the barrier helped restore calm and security not just in Israel, but also in the West Bank including Bethlehem. The Church of the Nativity, which Palestinian gunmen stormed and defiled in 2002 to escape from Israeli security forces, is now filled again with tourists and pilgrims from around the world.

But even here in Jesus' birthplace, which is under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Christians live on a knife's edge. Mr. Khoury tells me that Muslims often stand in front of the gate of the Bible College and read from the Quran to intimidate Christian students. Other Muslims like to roll out their prayer rugs right in Manger Square.

. . . Christians have only recently begun to talk about how Muslim gangs simply come and take possession of Christian-owned land while the Palestinian security services, almost exclusively staffed by Muslims, stand by. Mr. Qumsieh's own home was firebombed three years ago. The perpetrators were never caught.

"We have never suffered as we are suffering now," Mr. Qumsieh confesses, . . .

Always a minority religion among the predominantly Muslim Palestinians, Christians are, Mr. Qumsieh says, "melting away," even in Bethlehem. While they represented about 80% of the city's population 60 years ago, their numbers are now down to about 20%, a result not just of Muslims' higher birth rates but also widespread Christian emigration. "Our future as a Christian community here is gloomy," Mr. Qumsieh says.

Palestinian plight not attributable to Israel barely seems to register in the West's collective conscience. As Christians around the world remember Jesus' birth, perhaps we can think of Mr. Khoury and those Christians still suffering in Gaza and Bethlehem.

Read More...