Hi everyone!
For anyone interested in reading a concise overview of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its presence in the Middle East since its founding in Egypt in 1928, I suggest you pick up a copy of this week's The Economist. As is typical of its reportage, the article provides an in-depth though thoroughly readable discussion on how, in the ongoing wake of the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood and its confederates are determining the political direction of the entire Middle East.
Branches of the Brotherhood are present in almost every country in the Arab World. Surprisingly, they aren't necessarily as aligned as one might think. In Egypt's recent elections, the Brotherhood dominated the polls and now make up more than 50 percent of the new parliament. The same is true in Tunisia. In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (a Brotherhood affiliate) comprises the political opposition and has been dominant in this role for decades. Over in Gaza, Hamas--otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement--was born from a Brotherhood charity. In Iraq, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Yemen, offshoots of the Brotherhood have been influential in the respective parliaments of these countries. And although the Assad regime in Syria has banned its own Syrian Brotherhood, it has allowed Hamas to run its headquarters from Damascus much to the Syrian Brotherhood's chagrin, although this has changed of late as Hamas has moved out of the country in light of the Syrian uprising and Assad's bloody crackdown.
What the Arab Spring has done is given the Muslim Brotherhood--or Ikhwan as it known in Arabic--genuine political legitimacy. No longer is it a cultish underground organization kept under persecution by the ruling secular elite. As the recent democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia have demonstrated, the majority of people want a solidly religious (and thereby moral) leadership. It's not really all that surprising when one considers the extent of corruption and graft that were inherent of these previous autocracies. And while the rise of political Islam may not be what the West has hoped for, the Brotherhood--at least for now--is being quite pragmatic in its approach to government.
In Egypt, for example, Brotherhood leaders have attended Coptic Christian religious ceremonies as proof that they support a religiously pluralistic landscape. They have also been vocal in their support of women taking a greater role in government, which has also been true in Tunisia and within Hamas. They have been criticized however for not being tough enough against SCAF, the military counsel that now dominates Egypt's transitional government, and have been accused of discouraging those who have protested for an immediate SCAF withdrawal. But again, this is pure pragmatism. What's important right now--as the Brotherhood has openly stated--is to get society back on track after a tumultuous year that has severely weakened the Egyptian economy and wrecked its tourism industry. It would seem the last thing on the Brotherhood's minds right now is extremist ideology, though of course that is always a concern.
Bottom line: it's simply still too early to determine whether the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is going to prove an asset or a detriment to the economic and social development of these countries on the world stage. While the West certainly has some cause to be wary, the Brotherhood as it has evolved and will continue to evolve, is not al-Qaeda. It is remarkable that amid all the turmoil in the region over the past year, al-Qaeda has not been a dominant voice, although of late there has been concern that it has infiltrated the Syrian opposition movement. If we want democracy to blossom in the Arab World, we have to withhold judgement and allow things to develop organically, even if an Arab version of democracy does not always align with Western interests.
When you empower the people to speak, you have to listen to what they say. This does not mean you always have to agree. That's the spirit of true democracy.
Ciao.
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Syria + Iran = A Whole Lot of Kicking and Screaming, But a Fall Nonetheless
Hi everyone!
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Religion: An Extremist Opiate for the Dispossessed Masses
Hi everyone!
It is always disappointing when religious-inspired violence mars religious holidays. While sitting in my post-Christmas dinner food coma last night, I was upset when I turned on the BBC and saw that a Catholic church in Madala, a suburb of the Nigerian capital Abuja, was bombed as the faithful filed out after Christmas Mass. According to the New York Times, at least 25 people were confirmed killed while many others were wounded or unidentified. An Al-Qaeda affiliated insurgent group, Boko Haram ("Western education forbidden") claimed responsibility for the attack which comes on the heels of a series of lesser bombings and skirmishes in the area over the past few days.
According to various reports, Boko Haram have typically limited their terrorist activities to the northern, Muslim-dominated, area of Nigeria while focusing their attacks on local government headquarters and the police with the reported aim of imposing a stricter form of Shariah law on the country. In August, however, they claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja, which killed at least 23 people. The Christmas bombing marks the first time Boko Haram have specifically targeted a Christian institution, and the fact that they chose Christmas Day, one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar, is particularly disturbing in that it indicates a decision to deliberately aggravate Christian-Muslim tension in the area.
I feel particularly disappointed in these events because for the past year I have been cheering on the Arab Spring movement and have been heartened by the fact that fundamentalist Islam has remained more-or-less out of it. And while I know that at its heart Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a relatively small minority of its adherents, I continue to be sickened by the tenacity of those who corrupt Islam to serve their nefarious means. In the grand scheme of history, Islam is a new-ish religion, at least when compared to its Judeo-Christian counterparts. Christianity has its own history of violence, particularly upon Muslims during the dark days of the Crusades. An argument can be made--and I have heard this--that Islam is merely going through its Dark Ages and that every religion must endure a period of growth and development that puts it in conflict with, well, the rest of the world. Perhaps this is what we are witnessing now?
Meanwhile, Gaza-based Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya embarked yesterday on a two-week mission throughout the Arab World to raise money and support for Hamas. While Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by the US and other Western governments, one cannot deny its role in Gaza as a humanitarian organization. Many Palestinians have greatly benefited from Hamas's efforts to help those who have been affected by the Israeli blockade. It is no wonder that it enjoys the support that it does. While I certainly do not condone Palestinian terrorist activities, I understand their frustration as that of the powerless. I believe that the majority of Palestinians (and Israelis for that matter) support a peaceful resolution to their ongoing conflict. Unfortunately, each side is hijacked by extremists--Arab and Israeli--who use religion as their most lethal weapon.
While organized religion of any ilk has the capacity to be a source of comfort and genuine good, I fear that it has an equal--and perhaps more powerful--capacity as an extremist opiate for the dispossessed masses. I want to believe in its positive and life-affirming elements but am continually disappointed by what I am seeing perpetrated in the world, all under the guise of organized religion, regardless of whether it's done in the name of Christ, Moses, or Mohammed. I fear I am going to be disappointed for a long time.
Ciao.
It is always disappointing when religious-inspired violence mars religious holidays. While sitting in my post-Christmas dinner food coma last night, I was upset when I turned on the BBC and saw that a Catholic church in Madala, a suburb of the Nigerian capital Abuja, was bombed as the faithful filed out after Christmas Mass. According to the New York Times, at least 25 people were confirmed killed while many others were wounded or unidentified. An Al-Qaeda affiliated insurgent group, Boko Haram ("Western education forbidden") claimed responsibility for the attack which comes on the heels of a series of lesser bombings and skirmishes in the area over the past few days.
According to various reports, Boko Haram have typically limited their terrorist activities to the northern, Muslim-dominated, area of Nigeria while focusing their attacks on local government headquarters and the police with the reported aim of imposing a stricter form of Shariah law on the country. In August, however, they claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja, which killed at least 23 people. The Christmas bombing marks the first time Boko Haram have specifically targeted a Christian institution, and the fact that they chose Christmas Day, one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar, is particularly disturbing in that it indicates a decision to deliberately aggravate Christian-Muslim tension in the area.
I feel particularly disappointed in these events because for the past year I have been cheering on the Arab Spring movement and have been heartened by the fact that fundamentalist Islam has remained more-or-less out of it. And while I know that at its heart Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a relatively small minority of its adherents, I continue to be sickened by the tenacity of those who corrupt Islam to serve their nefarious means. In the grand scheme of history, Islam is a new-ish religion, at least when compared to its Judeo-Christian counterparts. Christianity has its own history of violence, particularly upon Muslims during the dark days of the Crusades. An argument can be made--and I have heard this--that Islam is merely going through its Dark Ages and that every religion must endure a period of growth and development that puts it in conflict with, well, the rest of the world. Perhaps this is what we are witnessing now?
Meanwhile, Gaza-based Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya embarked yesterday on a two-week mission throughout the Arab World to raise money and support for Hamas. While Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by the US and other Western governments, one cannot deny its role in Gaza as a humanitarian organization. Many Palestinians have greatly benefited from Hamas's efforts to help those who have been affected by the Israeli blockade. It is no wonder that it enjoys the support that it does. While I certainly do not condone Palestinian terrorist activities, I understand their frustration as that of the powerless. I believe that the majority of Palestinians (and Israelis for that matter) support a peaceful resolution to their ongoing conflict. Unfortunately, each side is hijacked by extremists--Arab and Israeli--who use religion as their most lethal weapon.
While organized religion of any ilk has the capacity to be a source of comfort and genuine good, I fear that it has an equal--and perhaps more powerful--capacity as an extremist opiate for the dispossessed masses. I want to believe in its positive and life-affirming elements but am continually disappointed by what I am seeing perpetrated in the world, all under the guise of organized religion, regardless of whether it's done in the name of Christ, Moses, or Mohammed. I fear I am going to be disappointed for a long time.
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)