Just heard on Savage that Egypt’s Army didn’t react initially because the officials of the government were in the US having secret meetings. They were REMOVED from the country by the OBAMA administration. OR did they leave to be conveniently AWAY?
U.S. reexamining its relationship with Muslim Brotherhood opposition group
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 3, 2011
As it braces for the likelihood of a new ruler in Egypt, the U.S. government is rapidly reassessing its tenuous relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition movement whose fundamentalist ideology has long been a source of distrust in Washington.
Although the group has played a secondary role in the swelling protests that are threatening to topple President Hosni Mubarak, U.S. officials have acknowledged the political reality that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to assume at least a share of power should Egypt hold free and fair elections in the coming months.
There IS a relationship
On Monday, in what analysts said was a clear reference to the Brotherhood, the White House said a new government in Egypt should “include a whole host of important non-secular actors.”
The move drew the skepticism of some U.S. officials who have argued that the White House should embrace opposition groups that are more likely to support a democratic government in Egypt, rather than one dedicated to the establishment of religious law.
It also marked a change from previous days, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials expressed concern that the uprising in Egypt could shift power to an Islamist government much like the one in Iran, where ayatollah-led factions elbowed aside other groups to seize control of the country in 1979.
Officially, the U.S. government has long shunned the Muslim Brotherhood because of doubts about its stated commitment to non-violence and democratic principles. For years, however, U.S. officials have engaged in back-channel talks with Egyptian members of the movement in recognition of its substantial popular support.
<the Muslim Brotherhood has many splinter groups, AMA, etc… But they, also have used the social network websites, because they were easily infiltrated. This is why Hoseni shut down the internet. Liberals, are however, saying that he did it to supress the “oppositions” (civilians) talk. This is NOT a civilian organization. This ARMY of the enemy has infiltrated the common communications to limbed themselves with civilians. >
The unofficial contacts have taken place sporadically since the 1990s but became more frequent after members of the Brotherhood were elected to the Egyptian Parliament in 2005. Afterward, U.S. diplomats and lawmakers held several meetings with Brotherhood leaders, including at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
<What? By whose orders? This should be considered POLITICAL insecurity. Sedition possibly.>
U.S. officials justified the meetings by saying they were merely speaking with duly elected members of the Egyptian legislature.
<They LIED because this should have been considered POLITICAL insurrection. >
“I do think that having contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood was not a bad idea,” said Robert Malley, a Clinton administration official who directs the Middle East and North Africa program for the International Crisis Group. “They are an important constituency in Egypt. They’re very likely to play a role in any future arrangements there.”
Some U.S. officials and analysts have long urged the State Department to reach out even further to the Brotherhood.
“If we are truly going to engage with the 99 percent of Muslims who do not support terrorism or violence, then we’ve got to engage indigenous groups, including Islamic political parties,” said Emile Nakhleh, a former CIA official who directed the agency’s political Islam analysis program.
Although the Brotherhood is Egypt’s best-organized opposition group, with an active charitable arm that dispenses social services nationwide, Nakhleh said it would not necessarily win a majority of votes in an open election. “They would be a hefty minority,” he said, predicting that it would receive support from about 25 to 30 percent of the Egyptian population.
The movement (Muslim Brotherhood) was founded in 1928 by Hassan el-Banna, an Egyptian imam seeking to overthrow British colonial rule, and it has spread to scores of countries.
<OBAMA’S nemesis – his whole Kenyan family is anti colonialist – aka – anti WEST>
In Egypt, the Brotherhood has been officially banned for decades, and many of its leaders have been imprisoned and tortured. Mubarak has warned U.S. officials for years that the group wants to establish a theocracy modeled on the Islamic Republic of Iran, although he has relaxed restrictions on the group’s political activities at times.
Members of the movement are often vague about their political goals. In an interview this week with the BBC, Kamal el-Helbawy, a Muslim Brotherhood leader in exile in Britain, said the group wants “freedom, consultation, equality, freedom of everything.”
He ducked questions, however, about whether an Egyptian government led by the Brotherhood would guarantee equal rights for other religious groups – such as Egypt’s Coptic Christians – and women. When asked whether all women would be required to wear veils, he said, “not necessarily.”
<HE is in EXILE, why? Because he’s a GOOD guy? SARCASM intended. >
Some critics have accused the group of having fundraising and organizational links to terrorist groups. But terrorism experts note that al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups regularly accuse Muslim Brotherhood figures of being apostates and sellouts.
<That’s becuase al- Qaeda sees them as less effective. >
Analysts said the movement strives in public to play down concerns about its agenda, partly for self-preservation. By presenting itself as a moderate group that would embrace a multi-party democracy, it seeks to preempt worries about its goals, said Emad Shahin, an Egyptian American scholar at the University of Notre Dame.
<Basically, “tell the stupid westerners what they WANT to hear, then DO what you know MUST be done. “>
“They don’t want to be seen as taking part in an uprising or upheaval that seeks to establish an Iranian-type government,” he said. “They need to shield themselves behind a broader opposition front.”
Despite the White House’s decision Monday to extend a rhetorical olive branch to the Brotherhood, analysts said the Obama administration remains divided over whether and how to deal with the group, both in the near and long term.
J. Scott Carpenter, a State Department official in the George W. Bush administration, said the White House overture could backfire by alienating leaders in the Egyptian military, who could remain in control of the country even if Mubarak is forced out.
“It was completely unnecessary and counterproductive,” he said of the White House statement. “It sends the wrong message to the military.”
Hillel Fradkin, an analyst at the Hudson Institute, said the U.S. government should be spending more energy reaching out to secular factions that have been active in the anti-Mubarak protests.
“If we’re going to deal with people in the opposition, it makes the most sense for us to engage with groups that can be reasonably thought to support a liberal democratic outcome in Egypt,” he said.
In contrast, he said deepening a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely to bear fruit, because the movement’s goals are at odds with U.S. interests. “How are we going to persuade them to like us?” he said. “They don’t, and they won’t.”
<This guy is an idiot>
ElBaradei Calls “Israel Number One Threat to Mideast”
|by Tom McGregor||Thu, Feb 3, 2011, 08:16 AM|
Mohamed ElBaradei is playing a pivotal role along with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt,and he told Katie Couric on CBS News that Egypt would continue to be a friend to Israel if he assumes power.
Nevertheless, Mr. ElBaradei attended a press conference on October 4, 2009 to declare that, “Israel is the number one threat to Middle East.” He was the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the time. The revelation was disclosed by the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) news agency.
Xinhua news agency reports that, “at a joint press conference withIran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under (the) spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30 years, the report said.”
ElBaradei accused Israel of possessing nuclear arms, although Israel refuses to confirm or deny the allegation. He was quoted as saying that, “Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses.”
He added, “this (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel’s) power plants … and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen.”
Soros blames Jews for Egypt
Today George Soros’s latest dose of vitriol against Israel appears in the pages of The Post. Soros vouches for a potential Egyptian government comprised of the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed ElBaradei. But then he goes on:
The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the sole representative of the Jewish community. The main danger is that the Obama administration will not adjust its policies quickly enough to the suddenly changed reality.
This is the “Israel lobby” canard writ large. In his view, apparently Obama is a pawn of Israel and of American Jews. (Odd Soros thinks so little of Obama since Soros raised millions for his election.) This is rubbish. Israel may be concerned about the turmoil and fear a post-Mubarak Egypt, but there’s no evidence that is the cause of Obama’s inertness. And, moreover, what evidence is there that “U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis”? In fact, the exactopposite is true, as pointed out by figures as ideologically diverse as Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser to George W. Bush .
And why the slur against AIPAC? Oh, yes, Soros funds J Street, founded as a declared opponent of and alternative to AIPAC. J Street, of course, has called for the U.S. to join in condemning Israel at the U.N.
One wonders how the defenders of Soros, many Jews among them, feel about this. Can we expect 400 rabbis to express outrage? I won’t hold my breath.
By Jennifer Rubin | February 3, 2011; 11:17 AM ET
Categories: American Jews