Egypt’s Fight – The Brotherhood vs. The Military

January 3, 2012

The Muslim Brotherhood is winning the elections in Egypt. This sets the stage for a huge political fight between the U.S. supported Egyptian military and the people of Egypt.

The brotherhood is against the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and wants to put it up for a referendum. The outcome can not be in doubt.

The U.S. holds secret talks with the military dictatorship to somehow save that agreement. As part of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty Egypt is receiving some $1.3 billion military and economic aid per year. That sum is simply a bribe and the brotherhood is now on the record rejecting such payments:

The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) announced Monday that it will seek an end to US aid to Egypt when parliament is seated in January.
…
Ahmed Abou Baraka, legal consultant for the FJP, told Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper that one of the chief goals of his Islamist party which so far has won the majority of seats in the upcoming parliament, is to abolish US aid to Egypt in all its forms, economic and military, because it is used as a means to interfere in Egypt's internal affairs.

Having allowed the election it will be difficult for the U.S. and the military to argue against the demands of the majority. We of course know that U.S. talk about democracy is just that and the pretense only holds as long as the voters in foreign countries vote in the U.S.'s and Israel's interest.

But how will Washington go about it? And will the Egyptian military follow the orders of its bribed high officers when the fight against its people really begins? And what will happen within Egypt when Israel, as it announced, will again bomb and occupy Gaza?

Another attack on Gaza could well be the spoiler for Washington's plans – whatever they are. It is hard to imagine that the Egyptian people and the military would this time just stand by and watch as they had to do under Mubarak's rule. It could well be that in this case, like in Pakistan, U.S./Israeli arrogance would finally end its influence over a foreign power.

Posted by b on January 3, 2012 at 17:25 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Wow, there’s no upside in any of this. It’s going to end badly….very badly, and there are a number of possibilities of how this will play out. The Top Brass in the military, the bribed in this case, are caught between a rock and a hard place, as are the commoners of Egypt, but for different reasons.
The Top Brass are staring two very plausible outcomes in the face right about now. If they annul the passing of legislation that voids the peace treaty, and keep the aid in place, they will more than likely incept the beginnings of a civil war in their country. Yes, it will also be a full-scale, bloody revolution, but it will also be a civil war because that aid will be used to make that manifest. However, if the Top Brass should decide to honor any such voided peace treaty legislation, they’re looking at hostile provocations from Israel including a retaking of Sinai, and deteriorating conditions domestically since it won’t end with just aid being withdrawn, but also potential sanctions and threats of bombings. The Egyptian people are already suffering from massive, wide spread poverty, and under either scenario, especially the second one, there will be out and out starvation and death, not to mention much bloodshed.
Yeah, like I said on the January 1st thread, Happy New Year of Death and Destruction.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 3 2012 17:57 utc | 1

Could Ban Ki-moon, with increased job security, be slipping his U.S. leash a bit?
from thedailynewsegypt:

UNITED NATIONS: Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in his second term as chief of the United Nations, wants to help people who rose up in the Arab Spring attain and sustain freedom and democracy.
As he embarks on a new five-year term starting New Year’s Day, Ban said one of his top priorities is to help Arab countries sustain their moves toward democracy. He also said he intended to do more for young people and women, and address frustrations over the growing gap between the rich and poor expressed by the Occupy movement.
This is a moment of historic change “which we have to seize and help them,” Ban said. Ban’s ability to influence what happens is limited because the UN secretary-general has no independent power over international affairs. It is up to the UN’s 193 member states to take action, and only the actions of the powerful 15-member Security Council are legally binding.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 3 2012 18:09 utc | 2

Some points I would add.
1) Egypt is in no condition to fight Israel. Economically it is reeling since the revolution. Militarily it is much weaker than Israel in the best of circumstances. Add to that the liklihood that Egypt’s F-16s probably have an IFF system that misreads Israeli warplanes.
2) If the treaty is to be broken despite the above, let it be broken in such a way that Israel would be to blame. Namely, arm Gaza in secret while denying everything. If the Israelis threaten to attack Egypt, then Egypt can call the treaty into question.
3) Keep in mind that if there will be a war, it is the Egyptian army that will have to fight it. Presumably, the generals would advise a new civilian government that they can’t defend the Sinai against invasion.
4) Israel’s incentive for avoiding war would be the pressure it would put on Saudi Arabia and how much harder it would be for the Saudis to be a collaborationist power. Also, they can forget about any Sunni-Shia strife they would want to kick up. But with current Israeli leadership, you never can tell.
5) Instability in Egypt takes the pressure off Assad in Syria. I don’t think the west will want to conduct black opps in Syria, hoping to overthrow the Assad regime, if they think Egypt may blow up in their face at the same time.
Just some ideas to kick around.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 3 2012 18:12 utc | 3

Could Ban Ki-moon, with increased job security, be slipping his U.S. leash a bit?
Nah, it’s just talk. It’s expected of General-Secretaries…in fact, “they” probably wrote the words for him and told him to get out there and provide some form of cover.
The caveat, of course, is this.

Ban’s ability to influence what happens is limited because the UN secretary-general has no independent power over international affairs. It is up to the UN’s 193 member states to take action, and only the actions of the powerful 15-member Security Council are legally binding.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 3 2012 18:21 utc | 4

Egypt doesn’t need to fight a war with Israel to cause it problems. As the recent Hamas-Fatah peace deal brokered by Egypt shows it has alot of cards that Mubarak just never used.
It can certainly help transfer arms to Hamas without being seen to transfer arms to Hamas (just by using Bedioun smuggling routes). It can also open up the Rafah crossing and create a breach in the siege of Gaza. Negotiate a fair price for the discounted Gas it sends to Israel or just cut supplies altogether. And of course Hamas will appreciate having its sister organisation the Muslim Brotherhood in power politically backing it up.
Israel wouldn’t have the balls to start another war with Egypt. Remember the shitstorm of international condemnation after the 2008 Gaza bombing? Imagine the reaction if Israel was dropping bombs on Tahrir Square. Lysander is right on the Egyptian military having subpar F-15’s but they also have a young population of 82 Million vs Israels 7 Million (5 million if you exclude the 2 Million Palestinians living in Israel).

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Jan 3 2012 21:51 utc | 5

I agree with Lysander and Colm. Egypt isn’t agitating for war.

Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 5 2012 10:15 utc | 6

Back to Main