Egypt: Cry, Beloved Country. By Uri Avnery.

Cry, Beloved Country. By Uri Avnery. Gush Shalom, August 24, 2013.

Avnery:

I didn’t want to write this article, but I had to.

 

I love Egypt. I love the Egyptian people. I have spent some of the happiest days of my life there.

 

My heart bleeds when I think of Egypt. And these days I think about Egypt all the time.

 

I cannot remain silent when I see what is happening there, an hour’s flight from my home.

 

Let’s put on the table right from the beginning what’s happening there now.

 

Egypt has fallen into the hands of a brutal, merciless military dictatorship, pure and simple.

 

Not on the way to democracy. Not a temporary transition regime. Not anything like it.

 

Like the locusts of old, the military officers have fallen upon the land. They are not likely ever to give it up voluntarily.

 

Even before, the Egyptian military had enormous assets and privileges. They control vast corporations, are free of any oversight and live off the fat of a skinny land.

 

Now they control everything. Why should they give it up?

 

Those who believe that they will do so, of their own free will, should have their head examined.

 

It is enough to look at the pictures. What do they remind us of?

 

This row of over-decorated, beribboned, well-fed generals who have never fought a war, with their gold-braided, ostentatious peaked hats – where have we seen them before?

 

In the Greece of the colonels? The Chile of Pinochet? The Argentina of the torturers? Any of a dozen other South-American states? The Congo of Mobutu?

 

All these generals look the same. The frozen faces. The self-confidence. The total belief that they are the only guardians of the nation. The total belief that all their opponents are traitors who must be caught, imprisoned, tortured, killed.

 

Poor Egypt.

 

How did this come about? How did a glorious revolution turn into this disgusting spectacle?

 

How did the millions of happy people, who had liberated themselves from a brutal dictatorship, who had breathed the first heady whiffs of liberty, who had turned Liberation Square (that’s what Tahrir means) into a beacon of hope for all mankind, slide into this dismal situation?

 

In the beginning, it seemed that they did all the right things. It was easy to embrace the Arab Spring. They reached out to each other, secular and religious stood together and dared the forces of the aging dictator. The army seemed to support and protect them.

 

But the fatal faults were already obvious, as we pointed out at the time. Faults that were not particularly Egyptian. They were common to all the recent popular movements for democracy, liberty and social justice throughout the world, including Israel.

 

These are the faults of a generation brought up on the “social media”, the immediacy of the internet, the effortlessness of instant mass communication. These fostered a sense of empowerment without effort, of the ability to change things without the arduous process of mass-organization, political power-building, of ideology, of leadership, of parties. A happy and anarchistic attitude that, alas, cannot stand up against real power.

 

When democracy came for a glorious moment and fair elections were in the offing, this whole amorphous mass of young people were faced with a force that had all they themselves lacked: organization, discipline, ideology, leadership, experience, cohesion.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood.

 

The Brotherhood and its Islamist allies easily won the free, fair and democratic elections against the motley anarchic field of secular and liberal groups and personalities. This has happened before in other Arab countries, such as Algeria and Palestine.

 

The Islamic Arab masses are not fanatical, but basically religious (as are the Jews who came to Israel from Arab countries.) Voting for the first time in free elections, they tend to vote for religious parties, though they are by no means fundamentalist.

 

The wise thing for the brotherhood to do was to reach out to other parties, including secular and liberal ones, and lay the foundation for a robust, inclusive democratic regime. This would have been to their own advantage in the long run.

 

At the beginning it seemed that Mohamed Morsi, the freely elected president, would do so. But he soon changed course, using his democratic powers to change the constitution, exclude everybody else and start to establish the sole domination of his movement.

 

That was unwise, but understandable. After many decades of suffering from state persecution, including imprisonment, systematic torture and even executions, the movement was thirsty for power. Once it got hold of it, it could not restrain itself. It tried to gobble up everything.

That was especially unwise, because the brotherhood regime was sitting next to a crocodile, which only seemed to be asleep, as crocodiles often do.

 

At the beginning of his reign, Morsi drove out the old generals, who had served under Hosni Mubarak. He was applauded. But this just replaced the old, tired crocodile with a young and very hungry one.

 

It is difficult to guess what was going on in the military mind at the time. The generals sacrificed Mubarak, who was one of them, in order to protect themselves. They became the darling of the people, especially the young, secular, liberal people. “The army and the people are one!” – How nice. How naïve. How utterly inane.

 

It is quite clear now that during the Morsi months, the generals were waiting for their opportunity. When Morsi made his fatal mistakes and announced that he was going to change the constitution – they pounced.

 

All military juntas like to pose, in the beginning, as the saviors of democracy.

 

Abd-al-Fatah al-Sisi does not have an exciting ideology, as did Gamal Abd-al-Nasser (pan-Arabism) when he carried out his bloodless coup in 1952. He has no vision like Anwar al-Sadat (peace), the dictator who inherited power. He was not the anointed heir of his predecessor, sworn to continue his vision, as was Hosni Mubarak. He is a military dictator, pure and simple (or rather, not so pure and not so simple).

 

Are we Israelis to blame? The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, says so. It’s all the making of Israel. We engineered the Egyptian coup.

 

Very flattering, But, I’m afraid, slightly exaggerated.

 

True, the Israeli establishment is afraid of an Islamic Arab world. It detests the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother of Hamas and other Islamic movements which are committed to fighting Israel. It enjoys a cosy relationship with the Egyptian military.

 

If the Egyptian generals had asked their Israeli colleagues and friends for advice on the coup, the Israelis would have promised them their enthusiastic support. But there is nothing much they could have done about it.

 

Except one thing. It is Israel that has assured the Egyptian military for decades its annual big US aid package. Using its control of the US Congress, Israel has prevented the termination of this grant through all these years. At this moment, the huge Israeli power-machine in the US is busy ensuring the continuation of the 1.3 billion or so of US aid to the generals. But this is not crucial, since the Arab Gulf oligarchies are ready to finance the generals to the hilt.

 

What is crucial for the generals is American political and military support. There cannot be the slightest doubt that before acting, the generals asked for American permission, and that this support was readily given.

 

The US president does not really direct American policy. He can make beautiful speeches, elevating democracy to divine status, but he cannot do much about it. Policy is made by a political-economic-military complex, for which he is just the figurehead.

 

This complex does not care a damn for “American Values”. It serves American (and its own) interests. A military dictatorship in Egypt serves these interests – as it does the perceived interests of Israel.

 

Does it really serve them? Perhaps in the short run. But an enduring civil war - on the ground or underground – will ruin Egypt’s shaky economy and drive away crucial investors and tourists. Military dictatorships are notably incompetent administrations. In a few months or years this dictatorship will crumble – as have all other military dictatorships in the world.

 

Until that day, I shall weep for Egypt.

America the Trivial. By Victor Davis Hanson.

America the Trivial. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review Online, August 22, 2013.

The Choice in Egypt. By Charles Krauthammer.

The Choice in Egypt. By Charles Krauthammer. National Review Online, August 22, 2013. Also at the Washington Post.

Egyptians Still Love the Military. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, August 23, 2013.


Krauthammer:

Egypt today is a zero-sum game. We’d have preferred there to be a democratic alternative; unfortunately, there is none. The choice is binary: The country will be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood or by the military.

 

Perhaps the military should have waited three years for the intensely unpopular Mohamed Morsi to be voted out of office. But General Abdel Fatah al-Sissi seems to have calculated that by then there would be no elections — as in Gaza, where the Palestinian wing of the Brotherhood, Hamas, elected in 2006, established a one-man-one-vote-one-time dictatorship.

 

What’s the U.S. to do? Any response demands two considerations: (a) moral, i.e., which outcome offers the better future for Egypt, and (b) strategic, i.e., which outcome offers the better future for U.S. interests and those of the free world.

 

As for Egypt’s future, the Brotherhood offered nothing but incompetent, intolerant, increasingly dictatorial rule. In one year, Morsi managed to squander 85 years of Brotherhood prestige garnered in opposition — a place from which one can promise the Moon — by persecuting journalists and activists, granting himself the unchallenged power to rule by decree, enshrining a sectarian Islamist constitution, and systematically trying to seize the instruments of state power. As if that weren’t enough, after its overthrow the Brotherhood showed itself to be the party that, when angry, burns churches.

 

The military, brutal and bloody, is not a very appealing alternative. But it does matter what the Egyptian people think. The anti-Morsi demonstrations were the largest in recorded Egyptian history. Revolted by Morsi’s betrayal of a revolution intended as a new opening for individual dignity and democracy, the protesters explicitly demanded his overthrow. And the vast majority seem to welcome the military repression aimed at abolishing the Islamist threat. It’s their only hope, however problematic, for an eventual democratic transition.

 

And which alternative better helps secure U.S. strategic interests? The list of considerations is long: (1) a secure Suez Canal, (2) friendly relations with the U.S., (3) continued alliance with the pro-American Gulf Arabs and Jordanians, (4) retention of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and (5) cooperation with the U.S. on terrorism, which in part involves (6) isolating Brotherhood-run Gaza.

 

Every one of which is jeopardized by Brotherhood rule.

 

What, then, should be our policy? The Obama administration is right to deplore excessive violence and urge reconciliation. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing this is possible in any near future. Sissi crossed his Rubicon with the coup. It will either succeed or not. To advocate a middle way is to invite endless civil strife.

 

The best outcome would be a victorious military magnanimously offering, at some later date, to reintegrate the more moderate elements of what’s left of the Brotherhood.

 

But for now, we should not be cutting off aid, civilian or military, as many in Congress are demanding. It will have no effect, buy no influence, and win no friends on either side of the Egyptian divide. We should instead be urging the quick establishment of a new cabinet of technocrats, rapidly increasing its authority as the soldiers gradually return to their barracks.

 

Generals are very bad at governance. Give the reins to people who actually know something, and charge them with reviving the economy and preparing the foundations for a democratic transition — most important, drafting a secular constitution that protects the rights of women and minorities. The final step on that long democratic path should be elections.

 

After all, we’ve been here before. Through a half-century of Cold War, we repeatedly faced precisely the same dilemma: choosing the lesser evil between totalitarian (in that case, Communist) and authoritarian (usually military) rule.

 

We generally supported the various militaries in suppressing the Communists. That was routinely pilloried as a hypocritical and immoral betrayal of our alleged allegiance to liberty. But in the end, it proved the prudent, if troubled, path to liberty.

 

The authoritarian regimes we supported — in South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Chile, Brazil, even Spain and Portugal (ruled by fascists until the mid 1970s!) — in time yielded democratic outcomes. General Augusto Pinochet, after 16 years of iron rule, bowed to U.S. pressure and allowed a free election — which he lost, ushering in Chile’s current era of democratic flourishing. How many times have Communists or Islamists allowed that to happen?

 

Regarding Egypt, rather than emoting, we should be thinking about what’s best for Egypt, for us, and for the possibility of some eventual democratic future.

 

Under the Brotherhood, such a possibility is zero. Under the generals, it’s slim.

 

Slim trumps zero.

Tom Ewing’s Dirty War. By Nicole Etcheson.

Tom Ewing’s Dirty War. By Nicole Etcheson. New York Times, August 23, 2013.

The End of the World Is Starting in Damascus. By Ari Shavit.

The end of the world is starting in Damascus. By Ari Shavit. Haaretz, August 22, 2013.

A Tipping Point in Syria? By Will Marshall. Real Clear Politics, August 23, 2013.

The one video from Syria’s alleged chemical weapons attack that everyone should watch. By Max Fisher. Washington Post, August 21, 2013.

Young girl affected by chemical weapons attack on Damascus, 8/21/2013. Video. ANAChannelEng, August 21, 2013. YouTube.

Syrian activists: Dozens killed in Damascus chemical attack. Video. turan utkan, August 21, 2013. YouTube


Shavit:

Can this really be happening? In the 21st century? Only a few hundred kilometers from where I’m sitting writing this piece? Can it be that only hours ago a tyrant used chemical weapons against his own people who were rebelling in the capital’s suburbs against his tyranny? Can it be that during this gorgeous summer, Arab women and children are being gassed to death by an Arab dictator?

 

The eye refuses to believe the pictures the iPad is transmitting. The mind cannot grasp the reports the iPhone is delivering. After the taboos of using artillery, helicopters and missiles on civilians have been broken, the taboo of using unconventional weapons has apparently been shattered as well. According to news reports, not far from us, in the same Damascus with which we sought to make peace, Arabs are murdering Arabs with chemical weapons.

 

True, more than 100,000 people have already been slaughtered in Syria. For two years our northern neighbor has been bleeding in a way that the Israelis and Palestinians haven’t bled in a hundred years of conflict. And there has already been a chemical weapons incident that the world didn’t really want to acknowledge.

 

But now it’s highly probable that a horrifying and unprecedented attack took place east of Damascus. If this is the case, Syrian President Bashar Assad and the Arab Spring have crossed the black line. The glorious Arab uprising that the West enthusiastically supported has become an apocalyptic event.

 

No decent person can ignore what’s happening. What is supposed to be an enlightened world cannot remain silent. Each day, the Syrian civil war is taking on the chilling connotations of the Spanish Civil War. It heralds the end of an era and delineates the coming era.

 

It’s not only innocent victims being buried in Damascus, but the concept of enlightened Arab nationalism and the hope that the West has a conscience. Women and children who were apparently gassed to death are being buried in Damascus, along with the ideal of an international community and the illusion of international law.

 

If civilians can be gassed to death in 2013, we face the end of the world. It’s the end of the world that purports to be moral and enlightened. It’s the end of the world that sought to establish a reasonable international order of which the Middle East would be part.

 

Many in the West and Israel despise Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But what’s happening in Syria proves the validity of Netanyahu’s warning that the greatest danger to world peace in the 21st century is the combination of unconventional weapons and unconventional regimes. Lunatics really are insane. Barbarians are really barbaric. Huns will be Huns.

 

Those who act mercifully toward Huns bear direct responsibility for the fact that nuclear weapons are being built in Iran, chemical weapons are being used in Syria and doomsday weapons threaten the future of the Middle East. Those who underestimate the inherent danger of the Huns bear direct responsibility for the deaths of today’s victims, the Syrians, and tomorrow’s victims, the Israelis, Europeans and Americans.

 

It’s time to break free of the moral relativism, multicultural hypocrisy and political correctness that prevent us from seeing our evil neighborhood as it really is. A terrible warning siren is being sounded in Damascus. Do we hear it? Does the world hear it?

Harrowing Tales of Christian Persecution in Egypt. By Walter Russell Mead.

Harrowing Tales of Christian Persecution in Egypt. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, August 22, 2013.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on the Dangers of Multiculturalism. By Ben Cohen.

Rabbi Sacks on Multiculturalism’s Dangers. By Ben Cohen. Commentary, August 21, 2013.

Lord Sacks: “Multiculturalism has had its day. It’s time to move on.” By Daniel Finkelstein. ChiefRabbi.org, August 19, 2013. Originally published in The Times of London.

Reversing the Decay of London Undone. By Jonathan Sacks. NJBR, January 2, 2013.

The Handwriting on the Wall. By George Weigel. NJBR, January 2, 2013.

America’s Success was Just a Blip, Says Professor. By Rush Limbaugh.

America’s Success was Just a Blip, Says Professor, and It's Good That We’re Sliding Back into Normal Suckiness. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, August 22, 2013.

Leftist Policies are Failing, Not America. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, August 22, 2013.

Was America’s Prosperity an Accident of History? By Benjamin Wallace-Wells. NJBR, July 22, 2013.

Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton. By Tracy Clark-Flory.

Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance.” By Tracy Clark-Flory. Salon, August 21, 2013.

Camille Paglia: “Hillary Disqualified Herself for Presidency in Fist-Pounding Moment at Congressional Hearing.” By Noel Sheppard. NewsBusters, August 21, 2013.

Another Brutal Embarrassment for the USA. By Bill O’Reilly.

Another brutal embarrassment for the USA. By Bill O’Reilly. Video. Talking Points Memo. The O’Reilly Factor. Fox News, August 21, 2013. YouTube. Real Clear Politics.

O’REILLY: A violent subculture is now in place fueled by derelict parents, a barbaric media and apathy on the part of many politicians. The incredible violence taking place in some Chicago neighborhoods as well as mindless murderers all over the country prove this point. And until we acknowledge – acknowledge the source of the chaos, we will not be able to solve the problem.

Kirsten Powers Challenges Bill O’Reilly Over Chris Lane: “If Those Kids Didn’t Have a Gun . . .” By Matt Wilstein. Mediaite, August 21, 2013. YouTube.

Are Gun Laws to Blame for the Death of Christopher Lane?

Are Oklahoma gun laws to blame for college baseball player’s death? Video. Monica Crowley with Michelle Malkin and Richard Fowler. Hannity. Fox News, August 21, 2013. YouTube. YouTube. Real Clear Politics.

Transcript excerpt:

MICHELLE MALKIN: The dishonesty of the gun grabbers is naked here. It’s as naked as a newborn baby. He’s talking about gun control and gun confiscation laws, national registries and background checks that would do absolutely nothing to control evil thugs who will do whatever they need to do to kill and wreak havoc on people. These boys were intent on killing.

 

MONICA CROWLEY: If you’re intent on killing somebody, if you’re part of a gang, whatever your intent may be, it doesn’t matter what the weapon is. They would have found a way to acquire any kind of weapon.

 

MALKIN: Illegal alien gangs are using machetes. Black and Latino gangs are wilding and mobbing people and using their bare fists. It’s not about the weapons, it’s about the morality.


Michelle Malkin Mows Down Liberal Over Chris Lane Shooting: We Need “Gang Control,” Not “Gun Control.” By Matt Wilstein. Mediaite, August 21, 2013.

Oklahoma “thrill” killing and today’s youth. Video. Greta Van Susteren with Pat Buchanan. On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. Fox News, August 21, 2013. YouTube.

Without Politics, the Mob Rules. By Rami G. Khouri.

Without politics, the mob rules. By Rami G. Khouri. The Daily Star (Lebanon), August 21, 2013.

Knowledge about Arabs is improving. By Rami G. Khouri. The Daily Star (Lebanon), August 14, 2013.

Four Leading Arab Cities in Flames. By Rami G. Khouri. NJBR, August 17, 2013.

Close to the Edge in Egypt. By Thomas L. Friedman.

Close to the Edge. By Thomas L. Friedman. New York Times, August 20, 2013.

Another Devil We Know. By Shmuel Rosner. New York Times, August 20, 2013.

How Strong a Horse Is General Sisi? By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, August 21, 2013.

Attacking the “Enemies of Islam.” By Andrew C. McCarthy.

Attacking the “Enemies of Islam.” By Andrew C. McCarthy. National Review Online, August 21, 2013.

In Egypt, the Brotherhood is savaging Christians because . . . it works.

Increased Attacks on Christians in Egypt. NJBR, August 20, 2013.


McCarthy:

There is a reason why it is often said that there are no good choices for the United States in Egypt.

 

In my weekend column, I argued that there are only two realistic alternatives at the moment. The first is the self-defeating option popular with the Obama administration and the GOP’s erratic McCain wing: Call for a new round of popular elections. Ironically, proponents call this a “return to democracy,” although it would assure the return to power of anti-democratic Islamic supremacists who regard America, Israel, and Western Europe as enemies they are pledged to “conquer” — to borrow the word unabashedly used by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist.

 

On this score, it is crucial to grasp that, in Egypt, Islamic supremacists are not limited to the Brotherhood, not by a long shot. Let’s imagine the Brotherhood were banned, or Egyptians so soured on the Brothers that, if given the chance, they would decline to reelect Mohamed Morsi or some other Ikhwan majordomo. There would still be several other Islamic-supremacist factions in Egypt. The ones referred to as “Salafists” are even more zealous than the Brothers to impose totalitarian sharia.

 

Notwithstanding that it is a very powerful organization with widespread, entrenched Egyptian roots, the Brotherhood enjoys reliable support from no more (and probably less) than a third of the country. Islamic supremacists do not win election landslides in Egypt because of the Brotherhood; the Brothers win elections because they are the best-organized Islamic supremacists in a substantially Islamic-supremacist country. Egypt is what it is not because of the Brotherhood but because of its sharia culture, ingrained after more than a millennium’s dominance by Islamic scholars and imams.

 

In free elections, Islamic supremacists would still win control of parliament. After all, they won by an almost four-to-one landslide only two years ago. In a presidential election, moreover, an Islamic supremacist would be elected. Recall that just last year, the transitional military government resorted to disqualifying presidential candidates on bogus grounds to try to prevent that from happening . . . but they still ended up with Morsi. The Brotherhood is now unpopular enough that Morsi would not be reelected . . . probably. But some Islamic supremacist, whether from the Brotherhood or another Islamist faction, almost certainly would. The Brothers, furthermore, would do reasonably well in parliamentary elections, even if they failed to reach the 50 percent haul of the vote that they garnered just two years ago.

 

So the ill-conceived “democracy” option would be a catastrophe, setting in motion a reprise of what got Egypt to the brink of failed-state status. That leaves support of the military as the only plausible alternative. Military control is the only chance for a long-term positive outcome — defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood; a technocratic government that brings a measure of stability and confronts Egypt’s profound economic crisis; the drafting of a consensus constitution that guarantees minority rights and equality of opportunity; time for democratic institutions and secular parties to take root; and an eventual return to popular elections guided by that framework. As I contended in the weekend column, though, we should not be overconfident about this scenario. Just because it is the only sensible option does not mean it has a good chance of success. This is Egypt we’re talking about.

 

As I’ve argued several times, for instance here and in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the Egyptian military is not dependable. It is our best friend out of a bad lot. Amid the dystopia, it is a comparatively stabilizing influence. But let’s not kid ourselves.

 

With tens of billions of dollars in aid over the past 30 years, the United States has purchased friendship at the highest echelons of Egypt’s armed forces. But that is just the highest echelons. Broadly speaking, Egypt’s military, in which a term of service by all able-bodied men is compulsory, is a reflection of Egyptian society. As we saw in polls taken while Mubarak was still in power, and as we’ve now seen in election after election after election, Egyptian society is substantially Islamic supremacist. The armed forces are thus rife with Brotherhood and Salafist operatives and sympathizers. Indeed, it is worth remembering that General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was chosen by Morsi to lead the armed forces because he is known to be a sharia-adherent Muslim who seemed in sync with much of the Brotherhood’s ideology — if not, as it turned out, with the Brothers themselves.

 

On the Corner, Nina Shea has written movingly about the ongoing pogrom against Egypt’s Christians. And in a powerful post, David French argues that America’s lavish aid for Egypt’s military ought to be contingent not only on defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood but also on the military’s protection of besieged religious minorities, particularly the Copts. I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I would make all American policy in the Middle East contingent on the protection of minorities and the repeal of sharia’s other oppressive provisions — that would be more meaningful democracy promotion than the charade we’ve been pushing for the past decade.

 

But is it realistic in Egypt? To answer that question, I’d suggest remembering two things.

 

The first is that we should not idealize what life was like for Christians in Egypt before the Muslim Brotherhood came to power. Mubarak was, on balance, an American ally, but he made his own accommodations with Islamic supremacists — abiding their prominence in academe, their promotion of anti-Semitism in the media, and their more than occasional harassment of the Copts. The stubborn fact is that attacks on Egypt’s Christians long predate the Brotherhood’s now-aborted rise to political power. In fact, as Ray Ibrahim has recounted and I describe in Spring Fever, Egyptian troops participated in the massacre of Christian demonstrators in Maspero in 2011 — many months before Morsi’s mid-2012 election.

 

The second is to be mindful of how the Brotherhood won all the elections after Mubarak’s fall — from the first, a referendum on constitutional amendments, through the elections for parliament and the presidency, up to and including the last, a referendum on the sharia constitution. In each instance, in venues from thousands of mosques to Sheikh Qaradawi’s popular Al Jazeera television show, Islamic leaders portrayed every contest as a struggle between Islam and the perceived “enemies of Islam” — Christians and secularist Muslims who are supposedly the cat’s paw of the hated Americans and Zionists. Egyptians — millions of them poor, illiterate, resentful, and more than content to see elections in those terms — voted for Islamic supremacists every time, usually by landslide margins.

 

Why do you think the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are torching Christian churches throughout the country? To be sure, doing so is consistent with their supremacist ideology. But the main reason is tactical. In the Egyptian mind, attacking Christians converts the controversy over Morsi’s removal from a matter of the Brotherhood’s governmental incompetence and malevolence to another pitched battle between Islam and the “enemies of Islam.”

 

Obviously, millions of Egyptians do not see things this way. But if those Egyptians were a majority, Islamic supremacists would never have won control of the government in the first place. In Egypt, the Brotherhood is savaging Christians because . . . it works. General Sisi is not doing enough to protect besieged Christian communities because, even if he is privately inclined to do so, he knows that many of his rank-and-file soldiers are not.

Israel’s Army Is Too Powerful. By Zvi Bar’el.

Like in Egypt, Israel’s army takes on powers it shouldn’t have. By Zvi Bar’el. Haaretz, August 21, 2013.

Bar’el:

All of these pale, however, by comparison to the tender inviting bids for providing classes on the subject of Israeli-Jewish identity. The deadline for submission of bids, by the way, is September 9. It's doubtful, however, that there is an institution that can put together a detailed plan and submit it within three weeks about such an identity, but who am I to even suggest that the bidding process might have been rigged?

 

So Israeli-Jewish identity is a commodity available for purchase from the lowest bidder. What 12 years of school didn’t do will be accomplished in a course. Imparting Israeli-Jewish identity is not a new IDF perk. It has existed for years, but it repeatedly raises the issue of why the army is involved in shaping Israeli society. Just as the issue of who “bears the burden” in Israeli society is viewed only in military terms — meaning who serves in the army — and just as some rights and social welfare benefits accorded to citizens are conditioned on military service, so the army is accorded the authority to grant recognition to citizens’ Israeliness and even obscure the identity of non-Jewish soldiers.

 

The cultural and societal power that the army possesses prompts an immediate comparison with what is happening now in Egypt. The Egyptian army has revered status and by law it cannot be found at fault. Its budget is not a matter of public knowledge and is not subject to oversight. It manages its own independent financial system the size of which no one knows. And all of a sudden, and not for the first time, the Egyptian army has taken control, and in the name of “the people and democracy” is fighting a religious movement that was democratically elected. Egyptian liberals are kneeling before Egypt military leader Abdul Fattah el-Sisi, viewing him as the guardian of liberty and liberal values even when he kills hundreds of civilians.

 

But what the Egyptian army is doing, in brutal fashion, is not just a show of force to demonstrators meant to restore stability. It decides what the correct values are and what is out-of-bounds. It defines the boundaries of tolerable democracy and dictates when that democracy needs to protect itself and against whom. It is also overseeing the process of drafting a new constitution that will shape Egypt’s future values and reinvent the “will of the people.” There can be no better definition of dictatorship than the forceful takeover of public awareness.

 

One cannot help but wonder if there is a substantive difference between a military takeover of awareness the shaping of identity on one hand, and voluntary devotion to an army and a willingness to give it authority over these fundamental issues. In both cases, that in Egypt and that in Israel, an organization that is not democratic is taking or receiving powers unto itself that it is not supposed to have. In contrast with the Egyptian army, the Israeli army does not fire at its civilian population. It simply molds them into “shaped citizens.”

What China Fears. By Max Boot.

What China Fears. By Max Boot. Commentary, August 20, 2013.

Leaked “Document #9” Spotlights Xi’s Anti-Democratic Drive. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, August 21, 2013.

China Takes Aim at Western Ideas. By Chris Buckley. New York Times, August 19, 2013.

Ralph Peters on New Glory.

After Words with Ralph Peters. Video. Ralph Peters interviewed by Anatol Lieven. C-Span, August 18, 2005.

Middle East Genocide. By Ralph Peters. NJBR, June 3, 2013.

Increased Attacks on Christians in Egypt.

Increased Attacks on Christians in Egypt. Video. Shannon Bream with Ralph Peters, Lisa Daftari, and Joe Trippi. America Live. Fox News, August 20, 2013. Right Sightings. YouTube.

Egypt’s Christians Are Facing a Jihad. By Nina Shea. National Review Online, August 19, 2013.

Burning Churches in Egypt. By Rich Lowry. New York Post, August 19, 2013.

Islamists Step Up Attacks on Christians for Supporting Morsi’s Ouster. By Kareem Fahim and Mayy El Sheikh. New York Times, August 20, 2013.

2,700-Year-Old Hebrew Inscription Found in Jerusalem. By Gavriel Fiske.

2,700-year-old pottery fragment discovered in the City of David site in Jerusalem (photo credit: courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority).

2,700-year-old Hebrew inscription found in Jerusalem. By Gavriel Fiske. The Times of Israel, August 18, 2013.

Ancient Hebrew Inscription Dating to 7th Century BC Unearthed in Jerusalem. By Enrico de Lazaro. Sci-News.com, August 19, 2013.

Fiske:

Archaeologists working in Jerusalem have discovered what they say is a 2,700 year-old pottery fragment with an ancient Hebrew inscription possibly containing the name of a Biblical figure.

 

The fragment, discovered just outside the capital’s Old City at the City of David site, in what is now the Arab village of Silwan, was likely part of a large ceramic bowl dating from between the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, the Israeli Antiquities Authority said Sunday.

 

The text fragment on the shard, roughly transliterated without vowels into English characters as “ryhu bn bnh,” is similar to the name of Zechariah son of Benaiah, the father of the prophet Jahaziel, whose name appears in 2 Chronicles 20:14 when Jahaziel spoke prophecy to King Jehoshaphat before the king went off to war.

 

“While not complete, the inscription presents us with the name of a seventh century BCE figure, which resembles other names known to us from both the Biblical and archaeological record… and provides us with a connection to the people living in Jerusalem at the end of the First Temple period,” the statement said.

 

The City of David, while today located outside the southern walls of the Old City, is understood by archaeologists to be the site of the ancient city of Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible.

 

The bowl fragment, along with a number of other small artifacts dating from the same period, was discovered by archaeologists Joe Uziel and Nahshon Zanton during an investigation of remains associated with the destruction of the First Temple, which occurred in 587 BCE at the hand of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar.

 

Uziel and Zanton said that the letters inscribed on the bowl shard likely date from “sometime between the reign of Hezekiah and the destruction of Jerusalem under King Zedekiah.” Based on their analysis, they noted, the inscription “was engraved on the bowl prior to firing, indicating that the inscription originally adorned the rim of the bowl in its entirety, and was not written on a shard after the vessel was broken.”

 

The bowl possibly contained an offering, given by the person whose name was inscribed on the vessel, they said.



Why the Peace Talks Are Private. By Jonathan S. Tobin.

Why the Peace Talks Are Private. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, August 19, 2013.

Palestinians Accuse Peace Negotiators of Treason. By Khaled Abu Toameh. NJBR, August 20, 2013.


Tobin:

The resumption of the Middle East peace talks is a major victory for Secretary of State John Kerry, even if no one other than him thinks they have a chance of succeeding. But you may have noticed one curious element of this much-ballyhooed diplomatic event: it’s being conducted almost entirely in private. This might be explained by the need to keep the talks from being blown up by leaks from either the Israelis or the Palestinians that might be designed to embarrass the other side. But rather than the blackout being imposed by a State Department determined to push the uphill slog to peace without interruption from the press, the request for privacy came only from the Palestinians. The purpose of that desire for secrecy tells us a lot more about why the talks are fated not to succeed than they do about either side’s will to negotiate.

 

As Khaled Abu Toameh points out in an article written for the Gatestone Institute, the point of keeping the press away from the talks is not so that they can be conducted without interference so much as it is to save the negotiators–and the Palestinian Authority that sent them–from the outrage of a Palestinian public that wants no part of any measure that smacks of coexistence with the Jewish state. Whether or not PA leader Mahmoud Abbas and his lead negotiator Saeb Erekat are sincere about wanting an agreement that will end the conflict, after two decades of efforts to demonize the Israelis and make cooperation impossible, they fear that any publicity about the talks will create a devastating backlash. Far from anti-peace sentiment being the work solely of their Hamas rivals, the PLO council dominated by Abbas’s Fatah Party is making it clear it will oppose any agreement.

 

The reason for the widespread Palestinian opposition to any accord is rooted in a definition of Palestinian nationalism that is incompatible with compromise with Zionism. Since the Palestinian movement grew up primarily by opposing the return of the Jews to the country, the notion of a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel is anathema under almost any conditions. Even if Israel’s maximum concessions increased to the point where they matched the Palestinians’ minimum terms for peace, that would still entail giving up the “right of return” for the descendants of the 1948 refugees and grant legitimacy to a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. And that is something most Palestinians are still unwilling to do.

 

But more than that is the nature of the Palestinian political culture that has grown up in the wake of the 1993 Oslo Accords. As Abu Toameh rightly notes, most Palestinians are intolerant of any sort of cooperation with Israelis to the point where they oppose even competitions between youth soccer teams. Thus, the debate about the talks is not so much about the terms of peace as it is about the “crime” of talking with Israelis.

 

Unfortunately, even if the talks were to bring the two sides closer, this means that any tentative agreement is bound to be abandoned by the PA before it is brought before the people for the same reason that Yasir Arafat said no to a Palestinian state in 2000 and 2001 and Abbas fled the negotiations in 2008 when he was offered an even sweeter deal. Since not even a powerful leader like Arafat felt he could survive peace, there is no reason to think Abbas thinks differently and everything he has done in office confirms that supposition. Having not only failed to prepare the Palestinian people for peace but fomented more hatred for Jews and Israel, it is inconceivable that anything offered by the Netanyahu government would be enough to make Abbas think he could dare to sign on the dotted line.

 

Seen in this context the lack of cameras at the opening of the talks is not a sign of seriousness. It is an indication that the Palestinians are still not ready to make peace.

Israel’s Need for Defensible Borders. By Uzi Dayan.

The negotiator’s handbook. By Uzi Dayan. Israel Hayom, August 16, 2013.

Dayan:

So far, we have seen negotiations about negotiations. Negotiations about the very existence of negotiations. Only now do the real peace talks seem poised to begin.

 

After many years of dealing with Israeli issues, and armed with the experience – not to mention quite a few scars – as an official who served as the head of the security committee during talks with the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Palestinians, I’m ready to offer my services and recommend seven core principles for this round of new-old negotiations.

 

1) A speedy, decisive return to negotiations, without any preconditions:

 

We must stop acquiescing to preconditions such as the release of terrorists. Freeing these prisoners is problematic both from an ethical and tactical perspective. The U.S. set that precondition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has decisively and wisely pushed peace talks forward, accepted it, to the best of my understanding, to neutralize prospects of either a settlement freeze or an early discussion on the 1967 borders. Negotiators must now return to a position of “no preconditions” in all other matters.

 

2) Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, with Jerusalem as its undivided capital:

 

We do not need the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish nation’s historic right to a state in Israel. But failing to recognize the existence of a Jewish state draws a huge question mark over how ready the Palestinians truly are to agree to two states for two peoples.

 

3) Defensible borders:

 

Israel’s need for defensible borders is written in blood. But how will such borders look? The answer is that they will be drawn in a way that fulfills our three basic security needs:

 

The need for strategic depth: The average width of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is 64 kilometers (40 miles). The strategic depth here is of little importance. But the need increases in light of growing threats stemming from the age of nuclearization, ballistic missiles, and long-range rockets that mostly threaten population centers.

 

The need for defensive depth: The era of “slim chances for war” is over. The Middle East has become a realm of uncertainty. Civil wars and the lethal combination of terrorism and movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood make it necessary for us to remain vigilant over the possibility of an attack from the east.

 

The need to be able to combat terror: The only factor that will guarantee the demilitarization of the Palestinian entity is a permanent Israeli presence along the West Bank's eastern border. The disarmament of the Palestinian state is not only a condition that was guaranteed to Israel's when it signed the “two states for two nations” principle. It is also a condition that ensures the security and fulfillment of any agreement. The situation in Sinai is a testament to that. The Jordan Valley “envelopes the state of Israel.”

 

Holding onto the Jordan Valley is the only way to fulfill these three national security needs. Only through full Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley can the Jewish state manage its own arrangements for security – us, the IDF and Israeli settlements in the Jordan valley. Not foreign armies.

 

4) Zero compromise on the “right” of return:

 

Only Israel can be allowed to permit any individual who wants to immigrate to do so, and that is, of course, if the country wants to absorb the immigrant. Plain and simple.

 

5) Security arrangements:

 

Israel requires several security arrangements to provide protection to its citizens whose lives, and not the Palestinians’, are in constant danger, and whose existence is wrapped up in the dangerous and delicate fabric of the region. Control and prevention, hot pursuit, the authority to arrest, and so on. The fifth principle has one critical aspect, and that is the control over airspace. The territory between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea is, on average, just 40 miles wide. A fighter jet covers that distance in a few minutes. If we factor in our concern over safe civilian air traffic, then we reach one inevitable conclusion: Israel must maintain exclusive control over the territory’s airspace.

 

6) A solution to Hamastan in Gaza:

 

Whom does Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas represent? He can’t enter Gaza, and he couldn’t include Gaza in the Palestinian state which he represents. There won’t be a “three-state solution.”

 

7) Bilateral negotiations:

 

How many times have we heard the (true) cliche that “it takes two to tango?” Have you ever tried to tango with a third partner?

 

The Americans did not participate whatsoever in peace negotiations with the Jordanians. During negotiations with the Palestinians, the Americans did not so much as enter the room. On the other hand, the Americans sat down to negotiations with the Syrians and the results were as expected: The parties stopped speaking altogether, communicating instead with the Americans alone. A modern variation on the famous non-dialogue skit by legendary actor Shaike Ophir.

 

The Palestinians need to reach agreements with Israel, not with the U.S., not with the United Nations, not with the Quartet. The U.S. must understand that its role is limited to bringing the two sides to the table and implementing agreements. Other pretensions won’t succeed and will only cause harm.

 

A few words on the U.N.’s strategy

 

While both parties chose to pursue peace talks for a permanent solution, they also knew such negotiations had scant chances for success. It was a choice they made based on the assessment that the political cost of various concessions on the road to an interim agreement would be intolerable. The two sides also understood that even if they could not reach a permanent arrangement, an interim agreement would always be a possible alternative.

 

Israel controls most of the territory in Judea and Samaria, and it does not lay claim to territories under the Palestinian Authority’s rule. Therefore, Israel must insist that territorial issues will only be settled at the end of negotiations. And if not, so be it. Deliberations over Jerusalem, the refugees and other core issues will end up depleting Israeli munitions.

 

These are the seven core principles. There is no need to introduce red lines or road maps to solutions. Experience has taught us that such proclamations only produce one-sided obligations. The Palestinians, with the help of the “useful Israeli idiots,” view them as Israeli points of no return and continue to gnaw away at them, bargaining for the next concession.

 

Can you recall how the “Beilin-Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] agreement,” the “Geneva initiative,” the “Clinton parameters,” or the “Olmert concessions” wound up? We cannot afford to walk into the same trap.

 

And the most important thing to remember? We have got a Jewish state to build.