Jeffrey Goldberg

A number of Goldblog readers believe I've gone soft on the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not true. I know what the Muslims Brothers believe. And it's not Unitarianism. I'm just unsure whether the Brotherhood will find its way to power in Egypt in the current situation. But as a public service, here are several statements of the new Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood, Mohammad Badi, courtesy of MEMRI. Reading this will help you understand why a Brotherhood-led Egypt is not an optimal outcome for the West. Here he is on the need for jihad against the perfidious Zionists:

Today the Muslims desperately need a mentality of honor and means of power [that will enable them] to confront global Zionism. [This movement] knows nothing but the language of force, so [the Muslims] must meet iron with iron, and winds with [even more powerful] storms. They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.

And here he is, sounding suspiciously like a Qaeda theorist on the subject of America's imminent demise:

The Soviet Union fell dramatically, but the factors that will lead to the collapse of the U.S. are much more powerful than those that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire - for a nation that does not champion moral and human values cannot lead humanity, and its wealth will not avail it once Allah has had His say, as happened with [powerful] nations in the past. The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise...

And here, between the lines, is a profound challenge to the moderate Palestinian Authority, presently locked in a death-struggle with Hamas, which is the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood:

Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it. The peoples know well who is [carrying out] resistance and who has sold out the [Palestinian] cause and bargained over it. We say to our brothers the mujahideen in Gaza: be patient, persist in [your jihad], and know that Allah is with you...

A Goldblog reader writes to ask:

How could you support a revolution in Egypt that you know will end with the Muslim Brotherhood in power, the Israel-Egypt peace treaty dead, and the further empowering of Hamas in Gaza and even in the West Bank?

Well, I don't know that all these things are inevitable. The Muslim Brotherhood might not end up in power; just as in Pakistan, the Islamists in Egypt represent only a minority of citizens. Which is not to say that the Brotherhood couldn't wind up in power, but it's too early to call the rise of the Brotherhood inevitable. If the Brothers do end up in power, then the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, which is responsible for 30 years of stability in the eastern Mediterranean, would be in mortal danger, but even if Egypt were to break relations with Israel, this does not mean that war would necessarily follow. And what is more likely is that the Egyptian Army continues to play an important and stabilizing role, and the Egyptian Army, of course, depends on the United States for much of its budget, and it does not want to lose access to American-made weapons systems, which is what might happen if Egypt were to abrogate the peace treaty.

In any case, the "stability" created in the Middle East by autocratic regimes is an illusion, as we've learned again and again. There is ultimately no alternative to freedom and self-government. As Elliott Abrams has noted, the Arab world is not exceptional in this regard. I've gone back and forth on this question any number of times, but ultimately I have to come down on the side of people like Reuel Gerecht, who argue that the imposition of ostensibly pro-Western autocrats on Muslim populations leads to nothing good in the end. If President Bush had carried through his worthy freedom agenda (and if President Obama had picked up the standard of democratic change) Hosni Mubarak might have long ago been convinced to seek retirement before his people sought it for him, and today we would be watching orderly elections in Egypt in which the Muslim Brotherhood represented one choice among many, and not images of Cairo on fire.

It is understandable that Americans, and others, might want to listen to the State Department and leave Cairo in a hurry, but there is an alternative, which is to stay in Cairo and watch history unfold. These demonstrations are directed against one person; they are not directed against Americans, or any other national group. Here's proof, from Israeli tour guide Amos Abidov:

"The attitude towards us as Israelis and tourist is very friendly. Actually, they're overly nice compared to my previous visits in Egypt. The Egyptians want to explain themselves, to tell everyone about their struggle. They speak Arabic over here so it's easy to communicate with them. On Friday we went right past the demonstrations on our way back from the pyramids, and people helped us get though the crowd."

The first instinct, to run from these situations, isn't always the best instinct. This doesn't mean people shouldn't be cautious and alert for mood changes, but often there is little reason to run away like mice.

By Eli Lake

So President Obama is pretty cold. The most important takeaway for me is that the U.S. president does not want to be seen with Hosni Mubarak, the second leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid for the last 30 years. He sends Robert Gibbs out to say that he doesn't know if President Obama has even tried to call him. Ouch. This may well have been the right call. If Mubarak was really going down, Obama has started what could be a long process of trying to build a relationship with the government that comes next. But this approach, which looks haphazard following Biden's interview on Jim Lehrer, also has its consequences. General Kayani in Pakistan and King Abdullah in Jordan, not to mention America's friends throughout the Gulf, will be studying that press conference, if freedom fever spreads to their streets. The GWOT since 9-11 relies more and more on these clients. So how Obama handles a crisis in Cairo will also effect the counter-terrorism partnerships in the regimes that survive the current wave.

That said, it's pretty clear that what everyone believed was stability, wasn't stability. I lived in Cairo in 2005 and 2006. The 2005 parliamentary elections began by allowing more opposition parties to run. And the Muslim Brotherhood did very well after the first round of that voting. Mubarak's NDP then proceeded to steal the next two rounds of the election. That cheating prompted calls from some independent jurists to review and audit the allegations of voter fraud in the parliamentary elections. Those judges were eventually disbarred. The year 2005 began with President Bush's second inaugural, which promised no longer would America "tolerate oppression for the sake of stability." Nine days after Bush delivered that speech, Mubarak had his goons arrest Ayman Nour, a former member of parliament who came in second in the sham presidential elections that year. By the end of 2005, the United States had allowed Mubarak to steal an election and the ambassador Frank Ricciardone had nothing to say about the judges, the election or Ayman Nour.

One more point. One of the services Mubarak provided as an American client was to train and supply the Palestinian preventive security services. I don't think a new Egyptian government would withdraw from the peace treaty with Israel. It's hard to govern Egypt, provoking a war with Israel would be suicidal. The Muslim Brotherhood leadership would always talk about the peace treaty in terms of a referendum for the Palestinian people. But I don't think it would want the Egyptian security services enmeshed with Hamas' enemies in the West Bank. What's more I doubt the next Egyptian government would enforce a blockade of Gaza.

A government that uses rubber bullets and tear gas against its own people -- who want nothing more than a change of leadership after 30 years of one-man rule -- has no future. President Obama would be standing for American values if he encouraged Hosni Mubarak to leave office now. Mubarak (and his son, it is almost needless to say) have no credibility, and the U.S. will have no credibility if it doesn't support the aspirations of these frustrated protesters. Will the Muslim Brotherhood follow in the wake of Mubarak's downfall? Not necessarily. But the U.S. will make that possibility less remote if it doesn't stand with the people now.

 I'm not downplaying the threat the Muslim Brotherhood poses, to America or to Israel. And I fear for the future of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. And there is a chance this regime could survive, for a while. But these facts are overwhelmed by the reality on the streets.

Michael: [about the unrest in Cuba] We saw a strange thing on our way here. Some rebels were being arrested, and instead of being arrested, one of them pulled the pin on a grenade he had hidden in his jacket. He took himself and the captain of the command with him.
Guest: Ah, the rebels are insane!
Michael: Maybe. But the soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael: They can win.

Bruce Riedel says we shouldn't worry overly much about the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood joining a post-Mubarak government. I reserve the right to worry, but Riedel makes an interesting argument:

The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced violence years ago, but its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists. Al Qaeda's leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, started their political lives affiliated with the Brotherhood but both have denounced it for decades as too soft and a cat's paw of Mubarak and America.
Egypt's new opposition leader, former International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, has formed a loose alliance with the Brotherhood because he knows it is the only opposition group that can mobilize masses of Egyptians, especially the poor. He says he can work with it to change Egypt. Many scholars of political Islam also judge the Brotherhood is the most reasonable face of Islamic politics in the Arab world today. Skeptics fear ElBaradei will be swept along by more radical forces.

Israel, of course, isn't looked on favorably by the Brotherhood:

The most problematic issue between the Ikhwan and America will be Israel. The Brotherhood raised an army to fight Israel in its war of independence in 1948. Its Palestinian branch was the nucleus for Hamas, and the Brotherhood retains links to the rulers of Gaza. The Ikhwan's leaders understand the peace treaty with Israel is the cornerstone of modern Egyptian foreign policy and underwrites America's $2 billion annual aid as well as the lucrative tourist trade, but they are very critical of Israel, its leader, and policies. Their base is fundamentally opposed to any Egyptian cooperation with Israel.

1) It's not yet a revolution. It might become one, but one of the reasons I haven't blogged much about this (apart from the snow-related loss of power) is that I have no idea which way this is going to go. I don't believe the Mubarak regime is going to give up power as easily as the Tunisians, for what it's worth. Although that can change very quickly.

2) So much for stability. A few years ago, I profiled Brent Scowcroft, the king of foreign policy realism, and he recounted for me a conversation he had with his erstwhile protege, Condi Rice:

"She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But we've had fifty years of peace."

Fifty years of peace has meant propping up dictators for fifty years.

3) Is that such a bad thing? Friends of mine like Reuel Gerecht believe that Arabs, given their druthers, might choose Islamist governments, and that would be okay, because it's part of a long-term process of gradual modernization. I'm not so sure. I support democratization, but the democratization we saw in Gaza (courtesy of, among others, Condi Rice) doesn't seem particularly worth it.
 
4) This doesn't really have much to do with the liberation of Iraq. Yes, it was a liberation, and no, it hasn't inspired very much in the Arab world. Sorry.

5) Once again, these uprisings are offering proof that Israel isn't the central Arab preoccupation. WikiLeaks showed us that Iran is the obsession of Arab leaders, and these mass demonstrations are showing us that the faults of Arab leaders are the actual obsession of Arab people. Don't think, however, that the next Egyptian government -- if that's where we're heading -- is going to be friendly to Israel. And this is true even if it is not a Muslim Brotherhood government.

UPDATE: More, less ambivalent thoughts, here.

No power, no school = no blogging. Though I have very strong feelings about PEPCO, our "electric" company.

Interesting analysis:

In Egypt, teacher salaries are so low that it's common for students to pay for private tutorials (often from the same teachers), and social critics have lamented that poor education has deprived generations of the skills needed to think critically - and to dissent. "The 80 million people have no power, no knowledge, and they are not organized," one of Egypt's most outspoken social critics, feminist writer Nawal el-Saadawi, remarked last year. "Change the education. Work on the mind of the people. There is no mind here."

The other factor is the Army. In Tunisia, at a critical turning point, the Army took the side of the protesters in the street: it refused to fire on demonstrators. In Egypt, however, the military stands with Mubarak. The Interior Ministry, which runs the police, stands with Mubarak. Mubarak knows better than to falter on security, Egyptians say. "The government here is stronger than it was in Tunisia - that's why people are scared," says one Cairene citizen. "The jails are for people who protest these days. No one demands their rights anymore."

This from Ha'aretz today:

A Holocaust memorial design created by two graduate students at Columbia University's architecture school has beaten out an Israeli design to become the winner of a competition for a memorial that will go up on the Atlantic City boardwalk.

"Fractured Landscapes," which was chosen from between the two finalists last month, is a "fractured landscape and a river of light" that "stitch together disjointed surfaces, expressing our hopes for peace," according to the text of the submission.

This raises the question, why does Atlantic City need a Holocaust Memorial? Does every dumpy little American city need a Holocaust Memorial?  How about spending the money on Holocaust education? Or just education? Or something with some utility?

This is great: Steve Doocy on Fox reads comments from Ben's blog on the air, by way of arguing that Ben is some sort of anarcho-syndicalist, or something.  For unknown reasons, Fox forced Doocy to stand in the snow while reading the comments:

An amusing story in the Times today: A Holocaust denier inadvertently sends an e-mail blast filled with the typical dumbass denial horseshit to his kid's elementary school's parent listserv. Outrage ensues, but that is not what is interesting to me: According to the Times, the idiot, whose name is Michael Santomauro, lives on the Upper West Side. Now why would he do that? Is he some sort of masochist? Is he keeping the perfidious Jews under close observation? Has he looked into real estate opportunities in northern Idaho?

I can always count on Reuel to read me, at least. This is in response to my Times op-ed, written with Hussein Ibish:

Peace comes when a democratic Palestine votes for peace with the Jews. Hamas does not appear to represent all faithful Palestinian Muslims, but Hamas's creed may well have considerable resonance--more resonance than the creed of Abu Mazen and his men--with devout Muslims.   What we have on the West Bank is a dictatorship.  Until it's not, we won't know where the Palestinian soul is. There are many reasons why Muslim Brotherhood ideology, financed with Gulf money and now synched with Wahhabi virtues, has become the most powerful intellectual force in the Arab world (it's only competitor is the democratic ethos, which has merged, at least in Egypt (and Tunisia) with the Brotherhood's identity. But one not insignificant reason has been the distasteful peace process between Fatah's elite and the Jews.  (The Israeli factor pales, of course, with local national issues and the larger overwhelming issue of modernization and the failure of secular dictatorships.)  The only thing that I'm willing to bet large quantities of money on is that economic vitality on the West Bank does not guarantee democratic success. The perverse truth is that Hamas might still do very well on the West Bank in a free vote.

A fascinating Michael Weiss interview with the Israeli leftist Zionist Gadi Taub. Here's one exchange about the anti-Zionism of the settlers:

MW: One of the more interesting points you make in your settlements book is that settlers seem to be echoing the sentiments of the anti-Zionist left in calling for a binational state. You quote Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook and Shlomo Aviner and others who make it plain that they'd rather see Greater Israel with an Arab majority than any division of land.  That the intelligentsia of the Yesha Council more and more resembles the collective wisdom of the London Review of Books might be taken for a sign of how just marginalised and discredited the settlement project is.

GT: I think that's very true. Which is why recently some on the right have been arguing for annexation which will include full citizenship to all residents of the territories.

I have very little respect for that solution when it comes from them, just as I have little respect for it when it comes from anti-Zionists.

A look at Gaza, where the differences between Hamas and Fatah were settled by the use of arms, should help us all wake up from imaginary schemes of peaceful bi-nationalism. I don't see how Gaza would have turned into a liberal democracy if only there was a Jewish faction added to the mix. What the one-statists are promoting is going to be a chronic Lebanon style civil war. And the odd thing is, how little the London Review has drifted from old colonial habits of mind. The natives - we Jews and Arabs - aspire to national self-determination. But the good ol' Brits, never tired of carrying the White Man's Burden, know that the natives are too barbaric to understand what the right form of self-determination should be for them. So until they grow up, we, Western intellectuals, will serve as their political parents, and impose on them the state we know they should want. Because it is Western and enlightened, of course.

Watch through to the end of this video.

Hussein Ibish, of the American Task Force on Palestine, and I have an op-ed in the Times today, about ways to unfreeze the peace process. I'm not overly optimistic, of course, but I've decided to stop with the whole despair shtick. 

From the Sulia feed:

There's a nifty new tool for Twitter called Sulia that's doing a good job organizing feeds from Egypt, and weeding out the useless info. You can follow it by clicking right here. 

Hillary suggested today that the Mubarak regime is in no danger of falling. Keeping in mind that tweets distort, and pictures distort, and that most Egyptians aren't out in the streets, I still wouldn't bet my house that the Mubarak regime is stable. Blake Hounshell explains how the police have been out-foxed so far. Keep in mind, of course, that Egypt has experienced periods of public unrest before, and the government has always managed to stifle the protests.  But the consequences of this burst of anger are potentially huge. Two questions: Where is al-Jazeera in this? The network, so obsessed with the Palestine Papers, which tell people what we already know, hasn't been covering these demos with much alacrity. And where is the Muslim Brotherhood? So far, sitting out.