Barack Obama must accept the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to be part of Egypt’s post-Mubarak government When chaos in Cairo gives way to a resumption of government, the United States will face a crucial test. For three decades American policymakers have vilified the Islamic Republic of Iran. Likewise they have supported the oppression of Islamist parties and leaders by the likes of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They must now bring themselves to accept the reality of an Egypt in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays an important role in government. The spectre of Iran overhangs the Egyptian crisis, the Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini’s bearded visage, frustrated street protests, nuclear ambition and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denunciations of Israel. But this is the wrong Iran. The right comparison is with the Iran of 1979-1980, which saw Cairo-like street demonstrations topple a dictator and endorse a makeshift revolutionary government. And which saw the Carter administration invite the ailing shah and his family to seek refuge over here. No one today is suggesting that President Barack Obama should grant asylum to Mubarak and his family, much less bar a new Egyptian government from recovering assets it may think the ousted leader is absconding with. But imagine the outrage such an invitation would produce on the Egyptian street. The United States does not oppose the aspirations of the Egyptian people, but a single misstep could reverse this perception overnight. For three decades the United States has supported Mubarak, albeit while occasionally tut-tutting his heavy-handed rule. Now Egyptians want to know where America stands. So far, the administration’s pronouncements have lagged behind the unfolding events. The White House is not urging Mubarak to leave even though it is clear to everyone in the world that the Egyptian people want him gone. Washington’s reluctance to embrace a post-Mubarak Egypt reflects gratitude for his past support of American policies in the Middle East. But even more a fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will somehow emerge as the dominant force in a new Egypt. Yet it was precisely America’s decision to cushion the shah’s fall and defy popular demands that he be held responsible for his autocratic rule that led to the debacle of the Iranian hostage crisis . There is no way of knowing how Iranian-American relations would have developed if America’s diplomats had not been held prisoner for 444 days. But that highly dramatised rebuke of American policy was clearly the tipping point in America’s demonisation of the Islamic Republic, and vice versa. And it paved the way for America’s support, first tacit and later overt, for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran . The Obama administration needs to open its mind to the likelihood that the Muslim Brotherhood will be part of Egypt’s post-Mubarak government. The Brotherhood has long formed the primary opposition to Egypt’s dictatorship, and its members permeate Egyptian society from top to bottom. For them not to play a central role now would simply set the stage for continuing uncertainty, renewed oppression and future conflict. In Iran, ignorance of Islamist political forces led the United States to overestimate the secular leadership and overreact to the emergence of a religious leadership. In Egypt, the secular opposition, ill-formed and inexperienced, is being touted as the main hope for a transition to free elections. Yet free elections will certainly confer legitimacy on the Brotherhood and award them a substantial bloc of parliamentary seats. Carter-era policymakers knew little about Khomeini and the forces he represented. Analysts know a good deal more about the Muslim Brotherhood today. They know that it is not a stalking horse for al-Qaida and that it demands a pluralist democratic state rather than an Islamic Republic. The fear remains, however, that an Egyptian government responsive to Brotherhood pressure may turn its back on Egypt’s long-standing collaboration with Israel. This fear is not unrealistic, but the United States cannot afford to condition its acquiescence in a new Egyptian government on pledges of warm relations with Israel and opposition to Palestinian militancy. Israel and the United States will always be friends, but losing Egypt’s friendship would begin the unravelling of a half-century of American policy in the Middle East. Things may unravel nevertheless. The Arab world has been poised for a massive restructuring for decades. But apprehension about future uncertainty affords no basis for trying to sustain a crumbling status quo. The time has come to help Mubarak leave, persuade Egypt’s generals to allow a democratic civilian government to emerge and put our anxiety about the Muslim Brotherhood on hold. Regardless of American ideological preferences and our popular Islamophobia, Islamist political parties are destined to play a significant role in the transition to democracy in the Arab world. They deserve an opportunity to show how they can compete, and possibly govern, in a pluralistic electoral system. Obama should make this clear. • © 2011 Richard Bulliet – distributed by Agence Global Middle East Egypt Hosni Mubarak Islam Religion Richard Bulliet guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Military intervenes in attempt to end violence between government loyalists and anti-regime protesters in Cairo The Egyptian army intervened this morning in a belated attempt to end the violence that flared overnight in central Cairo as supporters of President Hosni Mubarak attacked anti-government protesters. A small group of soldiers cleared about 1,000 pro-government loyalists from a flyover in Tahrir Square, where they had been throwing stones at anti-government protesters below. It was not immediately clear if the steps were part of a wider decision for the army to begin protecting the demonstrations. The intervention came as a retired Egyptian army general told the BBC the military was losing patience with the embattled Mubarak, and would open fire at regime loyalists if there were fresh attacks on protesters. The general, who said he had spoken with tank crews in Tahrir Square, said he believed the military would move very soon against the president, possibly as soon as tomorrow. The moves came after a dramatic night of fighting on streets and rooftops around Tahrir Square and the Egyptian museum. Pro-democracy protesters succeeded in holding Tahrir, their main rallying point throughout the 10-day uprising, but about 1,000 pro-Mubarak militants continued to mass on the flyover. At about 9.50am local time, however, a group of soldiers appeared on the bridge, and cleared the pro-Mubarak crowd. One warning shot was fired, but most of the loyalists left after speaking with the soldiers. An army tank was parked where the crowd had been and four other tanks took up position between the pro-Mubarak forces and the largest group of anti-government demonstrators at the north end of the square near the Egyptian museum. Even though the two sides had been separated, crowds of Mubarak supporters – some carrying bricks – were still trying to reach the square. Local news channels reported that four had been killed in last night’s clashes, but doctors on the ground told the Guardian the death toll was higher. Witnesses who spent the night in Tahrir said there were major shooting incidents at 11pm and 4am, the latter involving a sniper equipped with a laser sight. Seven protesters were reported to be confirmed dead at a nearby makeshift medical centre, with three other bodies unrecovered. “We had over 1,000 injured through the night, including several dead from gunshots,” said Dr Ibrahim Fata, a professor of surgery and one of more than 70 doctors who have volunteered to help treat those injured at the square. “It’s like a war situation in here; some of the pro-change resistance did not bring their wounded to us because they didn’t want to leave their positions. I haven’t slept in the last day and a half.” As Fata was speaking the Guardian witnessed a man with a broken spine being brought in on a corrugated iron stretcher, while others walked around in bandages. Some protesters had taped cardboard boxes to their heads to serve as crude helmets. The shootings came after protesters seeking an end to Mubarak’s three-decade dictatorship were attacked yesterday by supporters of the Egyptian leader, many of whom were carrying police identification. Molotov cocktails were thrown from buildings and several fires burned through the night. This morning some sections of the road were so littered with debris and ripped up by those seeking rocks to throw that they are now impassable. But organisation among the pro-change forces remains strong, with groups cooking breakfast over fires and handing out food to the crowds. “Where have you been, this government is killing us,” appealed Wael Abdel Aziz, a pharmacist camped out in Tahrir. A second man, who would give his name only as Osama, added: “Mubarak decided to kill the Egyptian people. He is treating us like insects, trying to crush us.” Egypt Protest Middle East Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tui has cancelled all holiday bookings for Egypt from Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, but is still running holidays booked in the UK for the Red Sea resorts ‘in line with government advice’ Tui Travel, Europe’s biggest travel company, has warned that the unrest in Egypt and Tunisia will cost it up to £30m as customers cancel or reschedule holidays. As the clashes in Egypt turned increasingly violent , Tui said this morning that the current “economic and geopolitical uncertainty” casts a shadow over its outlook for 2011. “Early indications are that customers are choosing to rebook to alternative destinations and we are taking action to remix our programmes in line with customer demand,” said the company, which runs Thomson Holidays and First Choice. “The Egypt and Tunisia situation could impact the second-quarter result by £25m to £30m.” Tui has cancelled all holiday bookings for Egypt from Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, but is still running holidays booked in the UK for the Red Sea resorts “in line with government advice”. This means that, at present, UK customers would not get a refund if they cancelled their trip. “If we are not able to operate any further holidays to Egypt for the rest of the winter from any source market except for the UK, we estimate the second-quarter impact will be approximately £20m. If UK government advice changes and we can no longer operate from that source market we would expect the impact to increase by approximately £5m,” Tui said. It has incurred further costs of £5m in Tunisia to repatriate customers and from the cancellation of holidays. The comments came as the travel company reported a smaller underlying operating loss of £84m in the quarter to December (its first quarter), compared with £107m a year earlier. The Middle East turmoil is the fourth blow to Tui in the last year. The eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano left around 100,000 customers stranded last spring, and bookings late last year were hit by the poor wintry weather. The company has also discovered a £117m black hole in its accounts . “The short-term impact from the events in North Africa is overshadowing the underlying strategic progress that is being made at Tui Travel,” said Nick Batram at Peel Hunt. “The impact on underlying earnings is uncertain at this stage and will depend on the margin delta on re-bookings. Our underlying profit forecast for 2011 is therefore under review.” Tui Travel Travel & leisure Egypt Middle East Tunisia Julia Kollewe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Bernie Sanders: We Need Medicare for All at State Level, Not Wholesale Repeal of Health Care Law
February 3, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Thank you Sen. Sanders. While discussing the ruling by Florida tea party Judge Roger Vinson to invalidate the Affordable Care Act, Bernie had this to day about what we need to do to fix out broken health care system. SANDERS: At the end of the day, let’s be clear, the United States is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not provide health care for all of our people and yet we end up spending almost twice as much as any other country. Is this health care reform bill the bill I would have written? No, it is not. And one of the changes that I want to see is not to repeal the whole bill, but to give states the flexibility to go forward in more effective ways. In my state I would like to see; and I think we’ve got a shot at passing a Medicare for all, single payer bill, which in a cost effective way could provide health care to all of our people. Those are the changes we need. Not the wholesale repeal of this legislation. His state of Vermont is going to be under attack for trying to do this by the special interests that don’t want to see it work. Let’s hope they prove them wrong and get the system enacted and maybe it will spread to other states.
Continue reading …Bully BillO comes out to smack Colmes for daring to suggest liberals don’t hate America
February 3, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Now here’s an irony: Bill O’Reilly accusing Al Jazeera of being anti-Semitic because it includes guests who clearly fit that description. Meanwhile, the Glenn Beck Anti-Semitic Elephant in the room goes politely ignored. Of course, what this was really about was, once again, right-wing Fox talkers like O’Reilly and Monica Crowley using unrest abroad as a way to smear liberal Americans as insufficiently patriotic. And so when Alan Colmes called them out for it, his reward was to get the BillO the Bully Full-On Nasty treatment. It happened last night on O’Reilly’s opening “Talking Points Memo” segment : “Talking Points” could provide hundreds of examples of anti-Semitism and “hate America” rhetoric displayed on Al Jazeera, the network Sam Donaldson admires. And he’s not alone. Here’s what Brian Stelter wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday: “As recently as Friday, the conservative Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly branded Al Jazeera as ‘anti-America.’ … But that view has been largely drowned out by people like [Sam] Donaldson who have hoisted up Al Jazeera English for its protest coverage.” Totally absurd. Any fair-minded person who follows Al Jazeera knows it is anti-American and anti-Semitic. Only on the far left can it find acceptance. Sure. And it’s true that it’s there are many examples of anti-Semitic guests on Al Jazeera — just as it’s true that Fox has had on its airwaves a broad assortment of nativists and other far-right extremists over the years as well. But even more important, one of Fox News’ leading anchors — and a frequent onstage and on-air cohort of O’Reilly’s — is under siege from Jewish rabbis outraged by Beck’s anti-Semitic slurs of George Soros and his obscene overuse of Nazi and Holocaust comparisons and metaphors . Oh well. That — like any criticism of the network at all — is NEVER mentioned at Fox. Because as the segment that followed with Colmes and Crowley amply demonstrated, this was less about bashing Al Jazeera and was really all about bashing liberals — as Crowley made explicit. And that set off the fireworks: CROWLEY: Well, I — I don’t want to attribute this directly to Sam Donaldson but I would say to make a broader point that the far left in this country is essentially anti-American. COLMES: Oh please, now that’s disgusting. CROWLEY: They are — and so a lot of their — a lot of their philosophy. (CROSSTALK) COLMES: That’s disgusting. That’s sickening. CROWLEY: I’m not saying you, Colmes, I’m saying the broader far left has an anti-American agenda that in many ways dovetails… (CROSSTALK) COLMES: Who, who? Tell me who? Who on the left? CROWLEY: …with the kind of reporting — reporting that we see come out of Al Jazeera. O’REILLY: She’s saying the far left. COLMES: Who? Who? Who are you calling anti-American? I’m so tired of people calling people on my side anti-American. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: Are you a far-left guy? COLMES: I don’t know. You have called me that. O’REILLY: Sometimes your positions are far left. COLMES: All right, fine. But am I anti-American? O’REILLY: I don’t think you’re anti-American. But certainly the far left is taking anti-American positions. COLMES: But look, but let’s stop this name-calling. Let’s stop demonizing anybody you don’t agree with and call them anti-American. O’REILLY: I just ran a “Talking Points Memo” that backed up, all right, with four specific things that this is an anti-Semitic, anti-American network and I could do 40 of them. COLMES: But you said those were people on the network as guests. (CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: There is no counter. Why don’t you grasp this? I’m getting a little mad at you. Grasp this! There is no counter on it, you got it? There is no counter on it! COLMES: Yes, I hear what you say. It’s free speech. O’REILLY: So it’s this, yes, it’s free speech. Shouldn’t be praised by a pinhead like Donaldson. Nor should O’Reilly’s speech be praised … by anyone. Smearing, lying, and bullying should get you removed from the airwaves, not enshrined as one of cable’s most prominent anchors. Memo to BillO: There is a big “counter” hanging around your neck. And his name is Glenn Beck.
Continue reading …Leave Egypt alone, pleads Simon Jenkins ( Comment , 2 February). We should not only avoid any military aid/intervention, however; we should also stop preaching. Twenty-five years ago, the good news was from Russia. Unfortunately, the forces of reform quickly split into two, and the debate descended into a clash between two Nobel laureates, Gorbachev and Sakharov – a battle which, from the longer-term perspective, both lost. Why, then, this confrontation? To a large extent, it was because, both in London and Washington, we blundered, we gave the wrong advice. So the Russians chose to use our western interpretation of democracy. It was thus all win-or-lose in a single-preference electoral system; and win-or-lose again in an even more Orwellian decision-making process: the simple, for-or-against, majority vote. So back to Egypt. Many observers fear a takeover by one or other extremist group. The danger, therefore, is that, we might blunder again, and that Cairo might adopt an adversarial democratic structure which would allow for such an outcome. The wiser approach would be for the Egyptians to ignore any majoritarian model and to opt, instead, for a government of national unity. Decisions could then be based not on the majority’s more preferred policy from a choice of two options but, from a much wider selection, on the most popular option of every member in parliament. In a modern, plural society, concepts like majority rule and minority veto should really be obsolescent. Peter Emerson Director, The de Borda Institute Egypt Hosni Mubarak Foreign policy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Prime minister’s questions is supposed to be fun – not an earnest, gentlemanly debate about Egypt or Afghanistan It was a shocking experience – the first nice prime minister’s questions I can recall. This was a huge disappointment for everyone in the public, press and peers’ gallery and for MPs themselves. Imagine that at the start of tomorrow night’s rugby match between Wales and England in Cardiff, before tens of thousands of excitedfans, there was a PA announcement on these lines: “Ladies and gentlemen, after long consideration and consultation, the Rugby Football Union has decided that having 30 grown men on a field kicking lumps out of each other, attempting to cripple their opponents on a permanent basis, and gouging people’s eyes out, is extremely dangerous and against every health and safety regulation the most crazed bureaucrat could dream up. For this reason, the result of tonight’s game will be decided by a debate between the teams, which you are welcome to listen to, if you wish. There will be no refunds. Thank you.” The place would go berserk. Cries of “Oh, I say, steady on!” would echo round the stands. Barbour jackets would be waved in anger. Hipflasks would rain upon the pitch. Likewise the Commons almost went mad this afternoon. The whole session – or at least the mini-debate between the PM and the Labour leader, which is the only part that counts – was conducted in a manner as calm and emollient as the weekend singalong at an old folks’ home. This is how bad it got. While David Cameron spoke, MPs were talking among themselves. Not barracking, not trying to score points, but chatting to each other because their private conversations were more interesting than anything he might be saying. All public speakers know, and dread, that experience. For a prime minister it is unheard of. I know people will argue that a serious question time is long overdue. Lines such as “I am most grateful for that reply”, “the whole House will be pleased by the prime minister’s answer, and share the view he has expressed,” and “I entirely agree”, which we heard today, are, we are told, what the public wants to hear. They want the kind of thoughtful discussions on Egypt and Afghanistan which we had yesterday. I wonder. Certainly Messrs Cameron and Miliband seemed very pleased with their own gentlemanliness. As the sound of MPs chuntering on about anything except Egypt and Afghanistan rumbled round them the Labour leader mused, “I sense that people are not used to this kind of prime minister’s questions.” Cameron agreed. “From the noises off, it is clear that people would prefer a bunfight, but sometimes it is sensible to have a serious conversation …” Yes, I thought, and you can have that in private any time you like. But PMQs is our weekly fun. Don’t spoil it. (I think he meant “food fight” or a “bear pit”. A bunfight is a tea party.) And, by the way, the bald patch was invisible for most of the session, but towards the end it peeped coyly out, just above and to one side of his right ear. David Cameron Ed Miliband Egypt Afghanistan Simon Hoggart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Susie wrote about this Monday and Ed Schultz did a nice job of walking the viewers through how the hedge fund managers on Wall Street did their part in contributing to the riots we’re seeing in Egypt and across much of Africa by contributing to the severe spikes on the cost of food. Here’s Susie’s post if you missed it — The Era Of Cheap Food Is Coming To An End. Blame Wall Street Hedge Funds. . And here’s more from Democracy Now — The Food Bubble: How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away With It . It’s a shame it takes the kind of turmoil we’re seeing in Egypt and Tunisia and the possibility of the entire Middle East blowing up in protest for our corporate media here in the United States do finally be doing some of the reporting normally reserved for shows like Democracy Now or networks like Al Jazeera.
Continue reading …Few now remember that 1979 and 1980 were the nation’s worst economic years since the Great Depression. Reagan saved America from Jimmy Carter economics: he brought inflation down from 13.5 to 4.1 percent; unemployment, from 9.5 to 5.2 percent; the federal discount rate, from 14 to 6.5 percent. Under Reagan, the number of jobs increased by almost 20 million; median family income rose every year from 1982 to 1989. It was the greatest peacetime expansion in American history. Charitable giving more than doubled, to more than $100 billion in 1988. But the media elite’s first drafts of history ignored the good news and highlighted the bad news. In a study of almost 14,000 network stories on the economy during three one-year time periods – July 1 to June 30 in 1982-83, 1984-85, and 1986-87—Virginia Commonwealth University professor Ted J. Smith III found that as the economy improved, the amount of network TV coverage shrunk and grew more negative in tone. The ratio of negative to positive stories aggressively increased even as economic indicators improved, from 4.9 to 1 in 1982-83 to 7.0 to 1 in 1986-87. When an economic indicator grew better, the networks began covering it less so they could focus more on unhealthy economic signs. For instance, as the unemployment rate fell from 10.6 percent to well under 6 percent by 1987, the number of stories on employment plunged by 79 percent while reports on the growing trade deficit soared 65 percent and stories on the homeless jumped by 167 percent. The media had a theory to prove: Reaganomics was a dramatic failure.
Continue reading …We have here an interesting situation in the schism on the American right over Egypt. You have the faction, chiefly either religious extremist or concerned first and foremost about Israel or both, that thinks the protestors are rabble and we must not desert Mubarak. Then you have the group, foreign-policy neocons who are at least consistent in their hopes for democracy for the region, that backs the protestors. The leader (one supposes) of the former faction is Glenn Beck, whose conspiracy theories about Egypt were nicely captured by Michelle Goldberg in The Daily Beast. Beck has been banging on about Egypt all week. I tried to watch one installment. It wasn’t even that it was infuriating. It was just incoherent. Goldberg: Beck, hero of the Tea Party, has become the hysterical tribune of the anti-democracy forces, linking the uprising in Egypt to a bizarre alliance of all of his bête noirs. “This is Saul Alinsky. This is STORM from Van Jones,” he warned on Monday, continuing, “The former Soviet Union, everybody, radical Islam, every—this is the story of everyone who has ever plotted to or wanted to fundamentally change or destroy the Western way of life. This isn’t about Egypt. Everything is up on the table.” It would all end, he warned, with the restoration of a “Muslim caliphate that controls the Mideast and parts of Europe,” along with an expanded China and Russian control of the entire Soviet Union “plus maybe the Netherlands.” Mike Huckabee has punched his ticket on this train, as well as Newt Gingrich. Others are behaving more admirably. Golberg cites AEI’s Michael Rubin as being with the protestors. And Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations and Commentary has been making good sense : I fully understand the dangers of what is happening in Egypt. I am as apprehensive as anyone about the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood exploiting current events to gain power. I am fully aware of how Hosni Mubarak has been a useful ally in many ways. Yet, when I watch pro-government thugs attacking peaceful protesters, I am rooting wholeheartedly for the protesters and against the thugs… …The United States, a nation born in a liberal revolution, has no choice but to stand with the people. In many ways, this is a continuation of the same battle fought in the streets of Europe in 1848 and 1989: the quest of a people yearning for freedom against the representatives of a corrupt and entrenched ruling oligarchy. America’s role, as the champion of liberty, should be to usher Mubarak out of power as quickly and painlessly as possible in order to avert further bloodshed and to make it harder for malign elements to take advantage of the disorder for their own nefarious purposes. We did not do enough to aid democrats in Russia in 1917 or in Iran in 1979; in both cases, we stuck with a discredited ancien regime until it was too late and reacted too slowly to revolutionary upheavals. Let us not repeat that mistake in Egypt. The Weekly Standard rounds up 2012 wannabee statements here . Missing? The old half-termer, who’s been pretty mum on Egypt, which after all can’t be seen out of any American windows. This presents an interesting conundrum for her. On the one hand, she’s an inveterate chiliast. On the other hand, she is under the tutelage of some pure neocons. Republicans Egypt Michael Tomasky guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …