|
Egypt: Still Time For Compromises?
Thanks for the good discussion in the previous Egypt thread. Arnold Evans, with whom I usually agree, has a different take on the situation there than I have.
When one looks at the history of this revolution it was the Brotherhood that came late to it. It was the Brotherhood that promised not to go for the Presidency and not to go for a majority of the parliament. They broke both of those and several other of their promises. They can not be trusted to do what they say.
Morsi was elected with some 51% of the 50% of the Egyptian electorate that voted. That is not what I would call a clear mandate. It is at maximum a caretaker position. But that wasn't enough for him. With the power in the parliament the MB stuffed the constitutional assembly with its own people and ignored the opposition.
Some of yesterday's protesters had voted for Morsi but are now dissatisfied with them. I doubt that the MB and Morsi still have a majority of Egyptians behind them.
A constitution must reflect the whole of the electorate, not just the majority party. The purpose of a democratic constitution is to protect the minority from the dictatorship of the majority. But everyone but the MB and the Salafists has by now left the constitutional assembly because all their attempts for compromises and to make it inclusive were voted down.
When Morsi declared himself an incontestable pharaoh he also moved the deadline for the writing of the new constitution two month into the future. Today the MB declared that the constitution draft would be ready tonight and would be immediately put up for a vote. That is not a reasonable political process.
There were and still are much better ways to do this. After the downfall of Suharto in Indonesia the constitution was changed bit by bit in a long process. The attempt in Egypt to create a completely new one while riding on a roller coaster of political and economic upheaval is unlikely to go well.
The Egyptian president is supposed to be non-partisan. But while Morsi has officially left the Brotherhood his policies are exclusively the Brotherhood policies. Are we really to believe that this is what his voters wanted? Or did they want some figure they could trust to lead the political process to bring Egypt forward towards a stable state?
The alternative to Morsi is not the return of a dictatorial SCAF. Neither the U.S. nor the military believe that that could be done without igniting a civil war. (Thanks to Libya the Brotherhood cells are by now well armed.) The alternative to a partisan Morsi is an inclusive Morsi.
As Nathan Brown writes:
[W]hile the crisis is not fully a product of the actors’ intentions, Egyptians will not find a path forward unless their leaders find within themselves an intention to resolve their differences through compromise. The constitutional process is badly broken, but it can still be repaired.
The opposition can find a set of demands that is not predicated on denying Islamists the fruits of electoral victory or bringing the president down. The president can back down on parts of last week’s dictatorial moves.
The basic elements of compromise have not been destroyed — yet.
The Brotherhood announced a demonstration of its followers on Saturday. It plans to have this at Tahrir square where yesterday a hundred thousand protested against Morsi and where some of those protesters are still camping out. Should the two groups meet the situation could become bloody very fast. The "elements of compromise" would than likely be destroyed.
The Brotherhood should step back, avoid the danger of a blood conflict and go for a real democracy. If it is so convinced of having a majority behind it why does it want to rush a process that will define and guide Egypt through the next decades?
Morsi's priority now should be to get a new parliament elected. The constitution should be left alone until that parliament is well seated and has defined its working procedures. It could then task an inclusive group of notable people as constitutional assembly to write a new constitution in which each article is compromised on until it receives at least a two-third majority of the constitutional assembly. The constitutional draft should then be voted on by all until one is found that a super-majority of the people can agree on.
Only an inclusive solution can guarantee Egypt's stability.
no 27 Don Bacon, this here is the link to the full interview
Has anyone compared the interview to the new Egyptian constitution yet?
Is the Muslim Brotherhood in fact a democratic organization?
By definition , yes. It’s a big yes, sure. This stems from belief, Islamic belief, freedom for everyone, freedom of belief, freedom of expressing their opinions, equality, stability, human rights. ERA. It’s not only in America. Equal rights amendment. Everyone. This is a belief, this is coming from our belief: democracy, equal chance. But also responsibility. Law, constitution,
Egypt is an ancient country, It’s an ancient state also. The constitution in Egypt is quite old. 1923. [The] first one. And we move toward more stable positions. We cannot get stable unless we have freedom, democracy, rights for everyone, equal rights, equal rights for men and women, for Muslim, Christians, for whoever is carrying any opinion The common thing, the base line, the reference is, the nationality, the citizenship –Egyptian, that’s all. And the law is for everyone.
this here is the draft of the constitution according to the Washington Post
The draft left Article 2, which stipulates that Islam is the religion of the state and that Islamic law is the principal source of legislation, intact. But it included a new article that limits gender equality to the extent that it interferes with “the rulings of the Islamic Sharia” — a provision that has sparked a backlash and threats of a mass walk-out by liberals and rights groups.
Another controversial article that had been previously leaked but did not appear in Wednesday’s draft would give Al-Azhar, the country’s highest Islamic authority, unprecedented powers to review forthcoming laws.
How Islam as state religion can be called religious freedom is beyond my grasp of reality.
This here is Wikipedia on Sharia law
Sharia (Arabic: شريعة šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], “legislation”; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).
And this here is Quatari Muslim Brotherhood preacher Yusuf Quaradawi on equal rights for women
Distinctions justified
Some people harbour certain doubts and raise questions about Islam’s stance on the woman’s status as a human being. Here we tackle the more important points of uncertainty or even scepticism.
One of these questions is: why, if Islam really regards the woman’s humanity on an equal basis with that of the man, does it give the man privilege over the female in some dealings such as legal testimony, inheritance, blood money, charge of the family, heading the state and other supporting ministrations?
The distinction (if it can ever be called one) between the man and the woman is not due to any preference by Allah, The Almighty, of the man or the woman on any account of being nobler or closer to the Lord. As a rule, it is piety and only piety that is the measure of ascendancy, nobility and closeness to Allah: ” Verily, the most honour able of you in the Sight of Allah is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa [i.e. one of the Muttaq ‘n: i.e. pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much](abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden), and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)”. [Surah 49:13] The distinctions, however, are merely conditioned by the different tasks assigned to each of the two sexes by virtue of their natural disposition.
Posted by: somebody | Nov 29 2012 7:46 utc | 30
48
“The US doesn’t favor the MB because the MB is pro-Hamas and anti-Israel. The Congress hates MB therefore. Every US stand in the ME must be consonant with Israeli Zionist policy. Being against Iran and Islam in general derives from this (Israel) along with other considerations.”
Rubbish. That is propaganda put out by pro Israeli-American entities and pundits to disguise the MB’s role as “populist” front for Israeli-American imperialism. Proxy imperialism with a friendly local smile instead of the jackbooted frown of old.
US Struggles to Install Proxy “Brotherhood” in Egypt
From Egypt to Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood does the West’s bidding – now joined by overt State Department fronts.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-struggles-to-install-proxy.html
“June 23, 2012 – Were anyone to still believe the rhetoric of the so-called “Arab Spring,” one would be admittedly confused over the emerging political landscape in Egypt where the military establishment and the Muslim Brotherhood have emerged from what was supposedly a “pro-democracy” “popular uprising.”
However, if anyone understood that the “pro-democracy” protesters were in fact US State Department-funded, trained, and equipped mobs providing cover for the attempted installation of the Muslim Brotherhood amongst many other potential Western proxies, the current political battle would make perfect sense.
The Egyptian military, like in many developing nations, may accept money from the West, may train with Western forces, and may even participate in Western machinations of global domination, but are ultimately nationalists with the means and motivation to draw lines and check the West’s ambitions within Egypt and throughout Egypt’s sphere of influence. The necessity for the West of removing not only Hosni Mubarak who had refused to participate in a wider role against Iraq and Iran, but the grip of the military itself over Egyptian politics and replacing it with the Muslim Brotherhood who is already hard at work in Syria attempting to overthrow one of Iran’s primary regional allies, is paramount.
“Pro-democracy” movements, particularly the April 6 youth movement, trained, funded, and equipped by the US State Department, serve the sole purpose of giving the Muslim Brotherhood’s installation into power a spin of “legitimacy” where otherwise none exists. Those within these “pro-democracy” movements with legitimate intentions will be inevitably disappointed if not entirely thrown under the wheels of Western machinations as regional war aimed at destroying Iran, Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah arch of influence slowly unfolds.
Muslim Brotherhood were, are, and will be Western Proxies
Despite the Brotherhood’s lofty rhetoric, it has from its inception been a key proliferator of Western foreign policy. Currently, the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has been involved heavily, leading in fact, the US, Israeli, Saudi, and Qatari-backed sectarian violence that has been ravaging Syria for over a year. In a May 6, 2012 Reuters article it stated:
“Working quietly, the Brotherhood has been financing Free Syrian Army defectors based in Turkey and channeling money and supplies to Syria, reviving their base among small Sunni farmers and middle class Syrians, opposition sources say.”
While Reuters categorically fails to explain the “how” behind the Brotherhood’s resurrection, it was revealed in a 2007 New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection” by Seymour Hersh, as being directly backed by the US and Israel who were funneling support through the Saudis so as to not compromise the “credibility” of the so-called “Islamic” movement. Hersh revealed that members of the Lebanese Saad Hariri clique, then led by Fouad Siniora, had been the go-between for US planners and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
Hersh reports the Lebanese Hariri faction had met Dick Cheney in Washington and relayed personally the importance of using the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in any move against the ruling government:
“[Walid] Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh
The article would continue by explaining how already in 2007, US and Saudi backing had begun benefiting the Brotherhood:
“There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh
It was warned that such backing would benefit the Brotherhood as a whole, not just in Syria, and could effect public opinion even as far as in Egypt where a long battle against the hardliners was fought in order to keep Egyptian governance secular. Clearly the Brotherhood did not spontaneously rise back to power in Syria, it was resurrected by US, Israeli, and Saudi cash, weapons and directives.
And most recently, as the West frequently does before elections it wishes to manipulate, premature claims by the Muslim Brotherhood of a victory during a presidential runoff were made headlines by the Western media in an effort to portray the Brotherhood as the victors and lay the groundwork for contesting any results other than a decisive win for the West’s proxy of choice.
US State Department-run Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty’s (RFE/RL) “Muslim Brotherhood Declares Victory In Egypt Election,” amongst many other articles attempted to give readers the impression that the Muslim Brotherhood had indeed already won the election. In reality the official tallies had yet to be given and it was merely the Brotherhood’s own rhetoric upon which the report was based. As election results were finalized, and the Brotherhood’s candidate, the US-educated Muhammad Morsi, appeared not to have the decisive victory claimed by his party and the Western media, immediately accusations of voter fraud were leveled against the Egyptian government.
The West is already combining its various proxy fronts for what it sees as a pivotal showdown and perhaps another opportunity to overthrow any remaining nationalist tendencies within the Egyptian military. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood, allegedly being a theocratic sectarian party, the antithesis of what the secular April 6 Movement allegedly stood for, Ahmed Maher, the movement’s founder threw his full support behind the Brotherhood.
Maher it should be remembered, had been in the US, Serbia, and back again to the US for a series of training and networking opportunities arranged by the US State Department before during and after the so-called “Arab Spring.” What seemed like politically ideological opposites, between April 6 and the Muslim Brotherhood, in fact share a common denominator – they are instruments executing Western foreign policy.
Libya, Egypt, Syria and Beyond to Form United Front Against Iran
Weakening Egypt before NATO’s assault on Libya was a crucial step in ensuring the latter’s absolute destruction and the creation of what is now a Libyan terror-emirate shipping cash, weapons, and fighters east and west to destabilize and overthrow various governments on the Anglo-American’s long “to-do” list. The West’s ability to install a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, with it’s substantial regional standing and influence would be a serious blow not only to Syria, but to Iran as well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is already echoing calls by the US and Israel for “intervention” in Syria.
Along with Libya, Egypt and of course the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and with the possibility of the Brotherhood coming to power in Syria as well, a united front against Iran would be formed and prepared to fight a proxy war on the West’s behalf against the Islamic Republic.
Such a reordering has not only been mapped out in US foreign policy documents like Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report, but mirror designs against China where all of Southeast Asia is slated for destabilization, regime change, and realignment to carry out the West’s ambitions to contain and even collapse a rising China.”
The piece is sourced throughout with links in the text.
Posted by: вот так | Nov 29 2012 19:56 utc | 54
|
