June 24, 2012
Morsi Wins Presidency - But Potential Comes Down To Trust
Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi wins Egyptian presidential vote
Egypt’s election commission has declared Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood the winner of Egypt’s first free elections by a narrow margin over Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister under deposed leader Hosni Mubarak.
The commission said Mr. Morsi won with 51.7 per cent of the vote versus 48.3 for Gen. Shafiq.
Voter turnout was at 51 per cent, the electoral commission said.
With only 26% of the full electorate backing Morsi his mandate to rule is likely too thin to enable him to attack the old guard's and the military's interests.
But a year from now when the Egyptian economy will still be in shambles and the blame is laid on him and the Brotherhood's continuation of neo-liberal policies a conflict with the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces may become a political necessity and could escalate fast.
When that escalation crystallizes in renewed street riots the question for the Egyptian people will come down to which side they can trust. There Morsi and the Brotherhood already lost out.
Feb 10, 2011: Muslim Brotherhood: 'We are not seeking power'
Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- Keeping with the low-profile it has adopted in Egypt's uprising, the Muslim Brotherhood said Wednesday it wants to promote democracy but does not intend to field a candidate for president.
"The Muslim Brotherhood are not seeking power," Mohammed Morsi, a member of the group's media office, said at a Cairo news conference. "We want to participate, not to dominate. We will not have a presidential candidate, we want to participate and help, we are not seeking power."
Jun 22, 2011 Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood expels presidential hopeful
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has expelled a senior member for saying he would run for president in defiance of the group's decision not to seek the post vacant since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in February.
"The Shura Council (the group's decision-making body) has decided to scrap the membership of Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh... because he announced he would run for the presidency," the Brotherhood said in a statement posted on its website.
Dec 25, 2011 Muslim Brotherhood will not nominate a presidential candidate: spokesman
Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mohamed Ghozlan announces that his party's “final, irrevocable” decision on whether to field a candidate for president in Egypt's elections is negative.
Ghozlan, in a statement he gave to Saudi newspaper Al-Yawm, said the Brotherhood has not yet named the presidential candidate that it will be supporting in the elections.
The Muslim Brotherhood had previously stated that they would not field a candidate, but then seemed to rescind that decision recently when reports came out that they were toying with names.
Posted by b on June 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM | Permalink
Come on, we're not going in for American levels of demanded consistency in voting. The situation changed when it became evident that the military were going hard to retain power.
Personally, I'm pleased Morsi won. It is better than Shafiq. If Shafiq had been declared the winner, there would always have been questions.
And it is an honest democratic win. One may not like the Ikhwan, but it is a result without question that can be said to reflect Egyptian wishes. We should have a few more votes like that, in the West Bank and Gaza. Also Syria, Saudi and the Gulf.
Posted by: alexno | Jun 24, 2012 11:58:41 AM | 1
Alexno, the Palestinians at the insistence of the Americans did have such an election in 2006, in fact, President Carter said that they had been the most democratic that the Middle East had ever seen. But the Americans did not like the results and neither did the Israelis. Gaza is still paying for having democratically elected the candidates of its choice and not the candidates that the Americans and Israelis wanted them to elect.
Posted by: www | Jun 24, 2012 12:12:19 PM | 2
It will be interesting to see the rationalizations for the US changing its stance toward the Muslim Brotherhood, eh?
Posted by: jawbone | Jun 24, 2012 12:23:50 PM | 3
Celebrations gatherings for Morsi win underway in streets of Doha, Qatar, in the Emirates, in Saida, Lebanon.
Posted by: www | Jun 24, 2012 12:59:03 PM | 4
@alexno Come on, we're not going in for American levels of demanded consistency in voting.
I admit that would indeed be a low, low level.
I am fine with Morsi winning. But it isn't the end of the social-political conflict in Egypt. What I see is economic trouble and a Brotherhood that has an economic program that resembles Mubarak's. It's religious stand will make the tourism business worse than it was. In that regard the military candidate may well have been better for Egypt.
When the people will see, in a year or so from now, that the economic situation will not get better the conflict will revive.
That is my analysis and there will certainly be other plausible ones.
Posted by: b | Jun 24, 2012 1:00:26 PM | 5
>>> It will be interesting to see the rationalizations for the US changing its stance toward the Muslim Brotherhood, eh?>>>
If the Brotherhood entered the elections as a party and won, it was thanks in most part to the US that put in a good word for it with the Egyptian military after the fall of Mubarak. Without US help, the MB would still be in Egypt's dog house. So the US stance changed a while back. Are you a Canuck?
Posted by: www | Jun 24, 2012 1:04:43 PM | 6
Egypt's Christians must not be happy with the results. Tens of thousands lined up at foreign consulates for visas after the results of the parliamentary were announced. I think we'll see a repeat of this tomorrow because of the Morsi win.
Posted by: www | Jun 24, 2012 1:17:38 PM | 7
wwww @ 6--Nope, Yank. But, while there have been these new and different US reactions to the MB, it was not so long ago that MB was one of the bogeymen, one of the Very Bad Guys groups.
But, since the US can amend its assessment of MEK, when they're assisting in going after Iran, possibly Syria, I imagine there's no problem in pragmatically finding the MB aren't so awful and possibly useful. It's just that if people remember the former US positions, the spin makes one dizzy. bit nauseous.
However, the US does maintain a very steady stance toward Cuba. Maybe if the MB were an economically liberal organization, progressive, populist, somewhat socialist, they would still be anathema to the US.
And, of course, who in the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) will ask questions about these policy reversals? Only those on the fringes or writing for the internet audience, and those are easily ignored as NOT Very Serious People.
Posted by: jawbone | Jun 24, 2012 1:20:04 PM | 8
This victory and American backing for it is completely consistent with US policy of now going overt with their sponsorship of Islamic radicalism. Yes this is the party of Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, just like west is installing Islamicists in power all over m.e. The plan is for the same to happen all over the region like in Iraq. Hegel is the word
Posted by: file2 | Jun 24, 2012 1:37:39 PM | 9
I think the US franchised the empire to Turkey and Quatar, France and Britain.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 24, 2012 1:45:06 PM | 10
Jawbone, the "eh" threw me off. The Brothers are already having problems and will continue having big ones but not with the US. Their problem are with their cousins, the Salafists. The Brothers are aware what religion can do to Egypt's economy, as b said, and they are willing to take years and years to slowly steer Egypt towards a religious end but the Salafists don't want to wait. The pressure is on by the Salafists for an immediate change to shut down all the bars in Egypt, the open beaches and so on and all those things would kill tourism and the Egyptian economy. In the end, the Brothers and the Salafists want exactly the same objectives but differ only in the time they are willing to take to reach these objectives.
Posted by: www | Jun 24, 2012 1:56:08 PM | 11
It is a complex dirty game file2, problem is lots of government play it in reverse, in need of a plausible enemy to get their citizens fund their armies, which are not really needed, once you acknowledge that the enemy is us.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 24, 2012 3:46:34 PM | 12
by the way, this here is Morsi's cv
"Born in 1951 in Sharqiya on the Nile delta, Morsi studied engineering at Cairo University before pursuing a doctorate at the University of Southern California. He was an assistant professor at California State University, Northridge in the early 80s. His children were born there and hold US citizenship."
Posted by: somebody | Jun 24, 2012 4:10:50 PM | 13
Robert Dreyfuss, a freelance journalist for Rolling Stone, Mother Jones and The Nation wrote a book in 2005 mainly about the Muslim Brotherhood called "Devil's Game: How the US helped unleash Fundamentalist Islam". It looks at the whole history of MB and CIA links from 1950's until 9-11.
Starting with Eisenhower in 1953 it shows how the US viewed the Brotherhood as a conservative shield against the spread of Communism and also against other left wing groups like Nasser's Pan-Arab movement and Che supporters during the 1960's. It's a complicated relationship between the two. Some will look at the long history of ties with the CIA and say the MB is a US tool.
In reality I think the Muslim Brotherhood allowed itself to be a CIA tool during the 50's and 60's in order to have a free pass as it crushed its own left-wing rivals. But in the 1970's it spiralled outside of US control. Sadat assassinated in Egypt, Islamic Jihad splintering off, rising Anti-American feeling in the Brotherhood, even the Iranian Revolution in 79 had Muslim Brotherhood influences. The Shia chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood called the "Devotees of Islam" was formed in the 1960's whose leader mentored none other than Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
After being US puppets during the 50's and 60's, before turning on the puppet masters during the 70's it was crushed and repressed during the 80's and 90's. Question is where do they stand now? Likely there is Anti-American and Pro-American factions within todays Brotherhood. I would say Morsi is definately in the Pro-American wing and so likely to work with the US is keeping down left-wing Revolutionaries and keeping Israeli relations in a cold war rather than a hot one.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jun 24, 2012 7:59:06 PM | 14
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jun 24, 2012 7:59:06 PM says:
"In reality I think the Muslim Brotherhood allowed itself to be a CIA tool during the 50's and 60's in order to have a free pass as it crushed its own left-wing rivals."
This was also true in Iran in 1953 when MI6 and the CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran. Few people realize that Western intelligence organizations worked to mobilize the Shia clerics to revolt against Mossadegh that led to his over throw and triumphal arrival of Shah Pavlivi to restore order.
It has been true for 60 years that the fundamentalist Islam groups in the ME, either Shia or Sunni, have willingly conspired with Western powers to destroy their leftist, secular rivals. Once those secular forces are liquidated they then turn on Western backed rivals.
I am not suggesting that the current Islamic Republic of Iran serves US and European interests, just that the Islamists used that support in the past to achieve power. I suspect that the MB in Egypt are trying to follow a similar pathway for total control over their nation.
This is the terrible dilemma that the young revolutionaries in Egypt now face. They lack sufficient power to resist the military. They need to establish some alliances with the MB. Big problem for them -- if they succeed in such an alliance what will stop the MB from destroying the secular forces as the Iranian Islamists liquidated the left forces in Iran after 1979.
I am not their adviser on what they should do, but am just a student of revolution and will just have to sit back and watch what happens.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 24, 2012 8:28:07 PM | 15
"Permeating Saudi worries about the Muslim Brotherhood are decades of ideological rivalry.
“The Brothers offer a religious political discourse that’s in competition with the Wahhabi one. It’s something of a threat to the government because it enjoys a certain legitimacy by virtue of its religiosity,” said Thomas Hegghammer, author of Jihad in Saudi Arabia.
Since the 18th century, the ruling al-Saud family have enjoyed a close alliance with clerics of the ultra-conservative Wahhabi school of Islam.
In the modern kingdom, the royal family has bankrolled the clergy and given them wide-ranging influence over government policy. In return, the clerics have espoused a political philosophy that demands obedience to the ruler, a notion that shaped Saudi dismay at last year’s Arab revolts.
By contrast the Muslim Brotherhood has always promoted an active political role for Islam, first as a revolutionary organization and more lately as a force in democratic politics.
Some Saudi leaders have accused the Brotherhood of inspiring the kingdom’s main domestic opposition group, the Sahwa movement that in the 1990s agitated to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia.
“The Saudis are pragmatic enough to realize when things change. Now the Muslim Brotherhood are in power in Egypt. They have to re-evaluate the relationship,” said Khalid al-Dakhil, a political sociology professor in Riyadh.
Mahmoud Ghozlan, the Brotherhood’s spokesman, said the movement had had no contacts with Saudi Arabia over the recent dispute, which he described as “a summer cloud.”
Under Mubarak, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were both staunch opponents of what they saw as Shi’ite Iran’s efforts to expand its influence and destabilize the region.
They perceived Tehran’s hand behind the Shi’ite Hezbollah movement’s increasing power in Lebanon, Hamas’s military take-over of the Gaza Strip and sectarian violence in Iraq.
Any new Brotherhood-led government in Egypt might prove less pro-Saudi, while maintaining a distance from Iran."
"The alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar is becoming a noticeable factor in the reshaping of the Middle East. There are several striking aspects to this evolving and deepening relationship.
First, note that the Brotherhood is barely involved in Qatari domestic affairs. The arrangement is akin to the one between Qatar and Al Jazeera, the biggest Arab television channel, which is based in Doha. The station covers news throughout the Arab world but refrains from covering controversial events in Qatar.
As a formal organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood in Qatar dissolved itself in 1999. Jasim Sultan - a former member of the Qatari Brotherhood - has explained in a television interview that this decision was justified because the state was carrying out its religious duties...."
Posted by: somebody | Jun 25, 2012 1:36:01 AM | 17
I see nothing about his foreign policy views on Syria. Does anyone know if he supports Syria defending itself and whether he acknowledges outside forces are meddling in Syria?
Haven't Syria and Egypt historically enjoyed close relations? The revolution has distracted Egypt from assisting Syria. It also makes any common defense with Syria, Iran, and Hizbullah against Israel more difficult.
So what's Mursy's position on Syria?
The election certainly sets the stage for Israel to blame the Muslim Brotherhood for acts of terrorism coming from the Sinai and to seize more land (probably during a broader war).
We are starting to see red flags about Morsi being too cozy with the West. The rank and file Muslim Brotherhood may not be complicit, but the West seems to have either tight control over Egypt or they are benefiting from the confusion. Plus, the West can shed patsies when needed (see Mubarak). If they need to drop the Muslim Brotherhood, or use it as a scapegoat, they will.
And lastly, it seems probable that Egypt was a victim of food warfare, as Tunisia and other countries may have been in the last few years. It just can't be a coincidence in light of other circumstantial evidence like the influx of NGO citizen media activist groups in the years before the Arab Spring. And Britain has a history of using starvation as a tool in war. It makes me wonder how inaccurate the reporting on the food crisis in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Iran has been. I've seen reports that all these countries have suffered currency crisis and food and supply crisis, but now I wonder how many have been killed and if these policies are deliberate. We can't rely on the media to tell us the full extent of these probable crimes.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Jun 25, 2012 1:47:07 AM | 18
As the West intentionally causes food shortages in Syria*, because it's the inevitable consequence of orchestrating this war against Syria, look for them to try to further cut off Syria's existing food supply system and insist on setting up their own humanitarian food supply system, complete with NATO protected corridors and under NGO cover.
Turkey also poses a threat to Syria by controlling a major water source (from the link above):
"Syria regularly suffers from water-shortages and has suffered from droughts in the past, and it remains dependent on water flows from Turkey. If Syria were to be hit by another drought amidst the violence, or if water flows from Turkey were disrupted, the country’s humanitarian crisis could rapidly worsen, potentially inflicting additional human suffering while also further destabilising the regime."
If these countries are going to choke off a country they should be responsible for the resulting food insecurity. Have they even accounted for their actions in Libya? How do we know they didn't simply create a huge humanitarian crisis and just leave?
*not to mention the acts of war and the terrorism and the ethnic/religious cleansing.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Jun 25, 2012 2:36:32 AM | 19
I seem to recall that the MB wants to crack down on foreign tourist resorts, those dens of sin and iniquity.
Hard to get a Club Med tan in a burkha.
And hard to rebuild a a tourist industry with no paying customers.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 25, 2012 3:19:41 AM | 20
Ralphieboy, the MB wants to do that but not now because they don't want to shut anything down just yet. Those that are anxious to get it done now are the Salafists and they don't give a hoot what this could do to the country's economy. They have already served notice on the country's belly dancers to start looking into other lines of work and are saying tourists can do all the drinking they want in their home countries before visiting Egypt. The coming conflict will be between the patient MB that wants to shut down these fun places in a few years and the Salafists that want them shut this year.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 3:44:17 AM | 21
Walter, the Egyptian MB is close to the Americans, it was the US that helped them get recognized by the military to let them run in the elections as a party. Morsi made all kinds of promises to put Egyptians at ease to get elected, he even said something about having a Christian VP and all kinds of goodies for women's rights but how much will he actually do, nobody really knows. As to relationships with others, Qatar is politically driven by a MB agenda,so relationships between Egypt and Qatar should be excellent. Same with Hamas, which is an offshoot of the Egyptian MB, especially that it has now broken ties with Assad and joined the campaign against him and relocated its offices to Qatar. I think this relationship will be a plus for Egypt as it will be getting the much needed help from Qatar, Saudia and the Emirates. Had Chafic won the elections, only the US would have helped with the arms to the military but nothing to help Egypt's economy.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 4:06:23 AM | 22
Somebody, the National article is very good but the actual relationship is much deeper than what was stated, especially as it concerns the political leanings of the staff at the Jazeera Arabic station. The article downplayed the prominence of Cheikh Qaradawi in the overall politics of the Middle East and how much of a guru he is to the Egyptian MB of which he was a spiritual leader until his exile 40 years ago.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 4:14:09 AM | 23
Walter @ 18
So what's Mursy's position on Syria?
In his inaugeration speech, Morsi stressed that Egypt will honor international agreements, and honor national integrity in domestic affairs, and will not meddle in other countries internal affairs. However, if we should believe that, or interpret that as him not backing a intervention in Syria, I don't know
Posted by: Alexander | Jun 25, 2012 6:19:02 AM | 25
Regarding the Egyptian "win" of the muslim brotherhood candidate
This "win" was blessed by the West.
Stamp of approval by the Egyptian military makes it very clear this "win" has the backing of the US and Israel
Muslim Brotherhood leadership is a tool of the West
Since it's a top down organization it will run as a tool for the west entirely, sure there will some disgruntled individuals but as a whole...
This win benefits Israel, NATO and the US.
Morsi is already saying all the right words to create a specific perception via the media- one of hostility to Israel
Which works to Israel's advantage.
Morsi is claiming he will reach out to Iran- Utter nonsense.
Israel will claim it is "under threat" and the Sinai is the prize.
"Recall I covered the news in this post about the leadership of the Muslim brotherhood getting all cozy at the White house dinner with Obama and coincidentally or not having travel restrictions lifted-
"Partially brought to the world by the Western Intelligence backed Muslim Brotherhood.
Isn't it interesting that January 2010 saw the US lift the travel ban on Tariq Ramadan?
The Barack Obama administration has decided to lift a ban preventing Muslim Scholar Professor Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States."
Curiously, or maybe not so much. It was reported that Tariq Ramadan attended the Whitehouse Iftar dinner, though his name was left off the list of attendees? Why?
Would it make the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood, the destabilization of Tunisia, Syria and Egypt and the US all the more obvious?"
Posted by: Penny | Jun 25, 2012 7:39:27 AM | 26
"Mr. Morsi’s comments may unsettle Western powers as they seek to isolate Iran "
Those comments don't "unsettle" the western powers in the least.
The comments are for domestic consumption.
Keeping in mind the Sunni/ Shiite divide.
Divide to conquer
Call it what you will?
The narrative is being created
Posted by: Penny | Jun 25, 2012 9:19:43 AM | 28
You're right, Penny, there's no real love especially between the fundamentalist Sunni Brothers and the heretical Shia of Iran. You can't be close to Iran and to Saudia at the same time and given the choice, Egypt's Brothers would side with the Saudis. This declaration is most probably a smoke screen to precede a really big declaration down the road about friendship with Israel. America didn't set these guys up to hold power in Egypt so they could make life miserable for poor little Israel.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 10:27:46 AM | 29
look you have to decide, either the comments are for domestic consumptions or there is a big Shia/Sunni divide ... :-))
Posted by: somebody | Jun 25, 2012 10:31:41 AM | 30
there is for example this:
"As the Shaikh sees it, intra-Muslim rivalry, particularly between Shias and Sunnis, only plays into the hands of forces that are inimical to Muslims. All Muslims should be alert’, he warns, ‘against the schemes and plots planned by the enemies of Islam’. ‘They.want us to disagree and fight each other in the name of belief’, he says, and appeals to Shias and Sunnis ‘not to give them this chance’.
Given the nature of the institution of the fatwa, the Shaikh does not deal at length with the theological (as opposed to simply jurisprudential) differences between Shias and Sunnis, but instead, simply provides an opinion in response to specific questions put to him. Naturally, for a meaningful dialogue between Shias and Sunnis, issues of theology as well as history cannot be ignored. Yet, the Shaikh’s fatwas make clear, dialogue can only take off when both partners are willing to recognize what they share in common. As the Shaikh points out, there is much that Sunnis and most Shia share, and this must form the basis for developing a genuine Islamic ecumenism."
Posted by: somebody | Jun 25, 2012 11:06:50 AM | 31
We actually know very little what Mursi's agenda and policies will be(or what the military allows);But surprise surprise,today's news says he wants better relations with Iran.
I think most of this divide between the sects is American and Israeli spin,and they must know that Islam for both is under western Sodomite attack,so if they don't circle their wagons,they will be consumed by the monster.
And I'm curious,just how many tourists are visiting such a turbulent nation(of late)with deadly riots,and Christians know the score,look at Israels destruction of that community,they know who are the real bad guys are anyway,US and Israel.
And these alleged thousands of Christians,where are they going emigrate to anyway?We aint going to take them,Israel?They've gotta better chance calling ghostbusters.
Posted by: dahoit | Jun 25, 2012 11:28:42 AM | 32
>>> Look the world is not as simple as that :-))>>>
Somebody #27, the Globe and Mail is practically a voice for Israel, so you have to read between the lines what's in those smoke signals being sent up in the article and in which ways would they benefit Israel. Also, all those spooking nuggets about the Muslim Brotherhood being dropped like stink bombs in the article are really yesterday's news and more or less still valid with the Brotherhood in a constant state of renewal. The Hamas being described is not the Hamas of today today's that has turned on Syria and joined the moderates that aren't that opposed to Israel like Qatar, the UAE, Turkey and Saudia. Disparaging Iran on its last elections one more time has nothing to do with Morsi's election and his future dealings with Iran. It's just another piece of propaganda for Israel.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 11:37:13 AM | 33
look, www it was all over the news, like here
like here - they wish for it but do not report he actually said it
and they should know
Maybe it is in Israel's interest to spread it, but it is in Iran's interest as well, so?
I doubt Hamas turned on Syria, they cannot afford to with a large part of their constituency living there, they are keeping a distance, same as Morsi in the above quotes talking of "balance", that would have nothing to do with their relationship with Iran, and I guess, Iran is keeping a "distance" from internal Syrian turmoil.
That "constant state of renewal" would be great strength.
They still have a long way to get the power from the military though.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 25, 2012 11:57:21 AM | 34
somebody @ 30
"look you have to decide, either the comments are for domestic consumptions or there is a big Shia/Sunni divide ... :-))
The comments are for domestic consumption and there is Shia/Sunni divide being encouraged
I don't have to decide.
Posted by: Penny | Jun 25, 2012 12:08:44 PM | 36
Somebody #34, Hamas closed its Damascus office 4 or 5 months ago and took up Qatar's invitation to reopen one there. It was like the invitation that Qatar had extended to the Taliban. Last weekend, there were anti-Assad rallies in the streets of Gaza. That should explain that Hamas has turned on Assad. That was ungrateful of Hamas since their top leader Khaled Mashaal had been welcome in Damascus since his expulsion from Amman in 1999 and Syria had taken a lot of heat from the West because of its refusal to shut down the Hamas operation in Damascus.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 12:35:19 PM | 37
>>> Yet, the Shaikh’s fatwas make clear, dialogue can only take off when both partners are willing to recognize what they share in common.>>>
It was the cheikh's fatwas that institutionalized suicide bombings including those by women bombers; a practice forbidden by Islam. Notwithstanding different inheritance laws between Sunnis and Shias, a fatwa by the cheikh wasn't really necessary to permit marriage between a Shia and a Sunni since Islam already permits marriage between Muslims and Christians as well as between Muslims and Jews, so it's common sense that different Muslims can marry. Now all I need is for Noor to come back and tell me again that I'm ignorant about Muslims.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 12:49:55 PM | 38
I like the link to PressTV.
Reminds me of letters "progressives" write to Obama pleading with him to to follow through on his liberal promises. As if they will "make him do it" by not complaining too loudly about Obama's apparent betrayals hoping that the leader will make the right decisions in the future and gently reminding him of his opportunity to do the right thin.
The healthcare debate was a perfect example. It was obvious Obama was going not going to fight for a public option and indeed agreed to give it away early on but pretended to his supporters he was still fighting for it. I imagine something similar is going on with Morsi.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Jun 25, 2012 1:08:01 PM | 39
www, as I understand it, there is a man and woman difference ...
Posted by: somebody | Jun 25, 2012 1:13:15 PM | 40
Dahoit #32, the Brotherhood with Cheikh Qaradawi at their head want to take back Jerusalem. The contradiction in this is that the Brotherhood owes a lot to the Americans for having given them the opportunity to come out into the sun, and as such, they can't be nasty with America's pet snake, Israel. Today's street demonstration in Gaza to celebrate Morsi's victory had people saying that as soon as Morsi gets set in his new duties, he would start attending to getting Jerusalem back for the Palestinians. At Rafah, 1 person died and 6 were injured by shots being fired in the air to celebrate Morsi's victory.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 2:02:14 PM | 42
Somebody @ 41
Fars was recently responsible for the story that Russia, Iran, Syria, and China were going to conduct war games in the Med with 90,000 troops. It was quickly called "disinformation" by the Russians and denied by Syria.
Why would Fars originate this false information? It doesn't help the Iranian government. Seems more like Western propaganda than Iranian propaganda.
So maybe the West has hijacked Fars? Maybe only a few stories? This story seems like a likely one to plant. As some argue above, it helps Israel and the U.S. to make it seem like the Muslim Brotherhood is getting closer to Iran.
Maybe this propaganda partly explains the recent news about ending the prohibition on propaganda aimed at the American people? Even under the old rules, the intelligence agencies probably could hijack Fars and when all the Western media reports the "news" (as happened in this instance) it was no crime.
Maybe now they don't want to have to go through the trouble of hijacking Fars and want to simply plant stories in the West (which they do anyway, so I don't know why they bother trying to get legal permission . . .).
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Jun 25, 2012 2:21:24 PM | 43
Celebrating arabs firing their AK-47 into the air, "Yyalalalal!", and accidently killing innocent bystanders, really reinforce the Hollywood arab stereotype.
Posted by: Alexander | Jun 25, 2012 2:24:22 PM | 44
Knowing Morsi would win, SCAF has already made him powerless by shutting down the paliament and threw away the constitution.
Posted by: nikon | Jun 25, 2012 3:07:03 PM | 45
Nikon, Morsi and his people announced that the demonstrations will continue until the parliamentary suspension is lifted. Looks like they won't settle on only a piece of the cake.
Posted by: www | Jun 25, 2012 3:15:58 PM | 46
It is getting more and more fun researching if Morsi actually gave an interview to FARS (He very likely did not)
Now "Egyptian official news agency MENA" is quoted for denying he ever gave an interview to FARS, however turns out their credibility is as high as FARS
Posted by: somebody | Jun 25, 2012 3:42:05 PM | 48
re www 2
Alexno, the Palestinians at the insistence of the Americans did have such an election in 2006,
www, I do know Middle Eastern history; I just don't have much time to write, thus no time to explain every detail.
Posted by: alexno | Jun 25, 2012 4:29:45 PM | 49
>>> We should have a few more votes like that, in the West Bank and Gaza. Also Syria, Saudi and the Gulf
... I do know Middle Eastern history>>>
Nothing to get upset about, Alexno, from your valued suggestion, I thought you had forgotten about the historic 2006 elections of the Palestinians whose results the Americans did not like and that punished them with the siege of Gaza. More on the democratic type of votes you are calling for, Kuwait had one last February, but regrettably the opposition (it's those Islamists at it again) won most seats so last week the constitutional court simply voided the election results and reinstated the former pro-government parliament. Yesterday the Kuwaiti cabinet resigned in protest. Voting is welcomed as long as the majority votes for the party in power. I'm still holding my breath to see how Morsi's victory will turn out since it went against the wave and surely the US can't call up a siege of Egypt; it's too damn big so it's pretending to go along with his victory for now.
Posted by: www | Jun 26, 2012 9:37:40 AM | 51