"How the Muslim Brotherhood Lost Egypt" - Reuters

How the Muslim Brotherhood lost Egypt

 
By Edmund Blair, Paul Taylor and Tom Perry
CAIRO | Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:23am EDT
CAIRO (Reuters) - When Egyptians poured onto the streets in their millions to demand the fall of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011, few thought they would return two years later demonstrating for the overthrow of the man they elected to replace him.

The stunning fall from power of President Mohamed Mursi, and the Muslim Brotherhood which backed him, has upended politics in the volatile Middle East for a second time after the Arab Spring uprisings toppled veteran autocrats.

Some of the principal causes were highlighted a month before the army intervened to remove Mursi, when two of Egypt's most senior power brokers met for a private dinner at the home of liberal politician Ayman Nour on the island of Zamalek, a lush bourgeois oasis in the midst of Cairo's seething megalopolis. It was seen by some as a last attempt to avert a showdown.

The two power brokers were Amr Moussa, 76, a long-time foreign minister under Mubarak and now a secular nationalist politician, and Khairat El-Shater, 63, the Brotherhood's deputy leader and most influential strategist and financier. Moussa suggested that to avoid confrontation, Mursi should heed opposition demands, including a change of government.

"He (Shater) acknowledged what I said about the bad management of Egyptian affairs under their government and that there is a problem," Moussa told Reuters. "He was talking carefully and listening attentively."

Shater, a thick-set grizzly bear of a man who is now in detention and cannot tell his side of events, replied that the government's problems were due to the "non-cooperation of the ‘deep state'" - the entrenched interests in the army, the security services, some of the judiciary and the bureaucracy, according to Moussa's account.

"The message that I got after one hour was that OK, he would discuss with me, agree with some of my arguments, disagree with the rest, but they were not in the mood of changing," Moussa said. Nour gave a similar account, saying Shater did not budge. But he added that the talks might have started a process of political compromise had they not been exposed in the media.

"(Shater) is a normal person and his appearance does not do him justice. His appearance gives the impression of mysteriousness and ruthlessness, but he is well-mannered and gentle," Nour said.
The dinner on a terrace around the swimming pool of Nour's 8th-floor duplex apartment was cut short when journalists got wind of the meeting. Moussa left convinced that the Brotherhood were over-confident, incompetent in government and had poor intelligence on what was brewing in the streets and the barracks.

Yet many Egyptian and foreign observers still expected the tightly knit Islamist movement, hardened by decades of repression, to dominate Egypt and the region for a prolonged period, after 60 years of rule by army-backed strongmen. Instead, Mursi was bundled out of office and into military detention on July 3 amid huge anti-government protests, barely a year after he became the first democratically elected leader of the Arab world's most populous nation.

Mursi's failure sends a powerful message: winning an election is not sufficient to govern. Post-Mubarak rulers need the acquiescence of the security establishment and of the population at large. Upset either and your position is not secure.

Egypt's Islamists may draw the bitter lesson that the "deep state" will not let them wield real power, even with a democratic mandate. This report, compiled from interviews with senior Muslim Brotherhood and secular politicians, youth activists, military officers and diplomats, examines four turning points on Egypt's revolutionary road: the Brotherhood's decision to seek the presidency; the way Mursi pushed through the constitution; the failures of the secular opposition; and the military's decision to step in.

Mursi and some senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders, who have been held incommunicado since the coup, could not be reached for comment.

With the Brotherhood angrily resisting its eviction from power, the prospects of Egypt's second transition to democracy being smoother than the first look slight. This time, the army says it does not wish to exercise power directly as it did in 2011-12 after Mubarak's fall. But few doubt that armed forces commander General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who planned Mursi's overthrow and has since been promoted to deputy prime minister as well as minister of defense, is the man now in control.

TO RUN OR NOT TO RUN?
In the immediate aftermath of Mubarak's overthrow, the Brotherhood had no intention of ruling. It reassured secular Egyptians and the army by promising publicly not to seek the presidency or an outright parliamentary majority. The rest of the article can be found here

"Difficult Choices for Israelis and Palestinians" - Cyprus Mail

‘Difficult choices’ lay ahead for Israelis and Palestinians, Kerry warns


‘Difficult choices’ lay ahead for Israelis and Palestinians, Kerry warns U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (left) greets the new US peace envoy Martin Indyk at the State Department (EPA)

By Mark Felsenthal
US SECRETARY of State John Kerry named former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk as his main envoy in Israeli-Palestinian talks which were due to start in Washington later on Monday and said he was seeking “reasonable compromises” in the tough negotiations.

“Going forward it is no secret this is a difficult process. If it were easy, it would have happened a long time ago,” Kerry told reporters. “It is no secret, therefore, that many difficult choices lie ahead for the negotiators and for the leaders as we seek reasonable compromises on tough, complicated, emotional and symbolic issues.”

Israeli and Palestinian officials have put forward clashing formats for the peace talks which have been stalled for nearly three years. After intense mediation, Kerry planned to bring the negotiators together in the evening and on Tuesday to renew talks that broke down in 2010 over Israel’s settlement of occupied land where Palestinians seek a state.

Indyk’s job will be to oversee the negotiations. Indyk is a veteran of US efforts to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. He was a senior official in the Clinton administration, which oversaw a failed summit in 2000 after which violence erupted in Israel and Palestinian territories.

Previous attempts to resolve the decades-old conflict had sought to ward off deadlock and the risk of knock-on violence by tackling easier disputes first and deferring the most emotional ones like the fate of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.

President Barack Obama welcomed the talks but cautioned that a tough path lies ahead. “This is a promising step forward, though hard work and hard choices remain ahead,” Obama said in a statement. “I am hopeful that both the Israelis and Palestinians will approach these talks in good faith and with sustained focus and determination,” he said. “The United States stands ready to support them throughout these negotiations, with the goal of achieving two states, living side by side in peace and security.”

The Palestinians, with international backing, want their future state to have borders approximating the boundaries of the West Bank, adjacent East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip before Israel captured them in the 1967 Middle East war. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ umbrella Palestine Liberation Organisation, said the US letter of invitation to the Washington talks had not specified which disputes were to be discussed. But Abed Rabbo told Voice of Palestine radio the talks “will begin, in principle, on the issues of borders and security”.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had resisted Abbas’ calls to accept the 1967 border formula before talks resumed. This time “all of the issues that are at the core of a permanent accord will be negotiated simultaneously”, Silvan Shalom, a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu’s cabinet and rightist Likud party, told Israel’s Army Radio. Shalom said that the Israeli position would help keep the talks, which are slated to last nine months, comprehensive.

“Had the matter of borders and territory been given over, what incentive would they (Palestinians) have had to make concessions on the matter of refugees or Jerusalem?” Shalom said.
Israel deems all of Jerusalem its capital and wants to keep West Bank settlement blocs under any peace accord. The international community considers the settlements illegal and rejects Jerusalem’s status.

Israel quit Gaza in 2005 and that enclave is now ruled by Hamas Islamists hostile to the Jewish state and opposed to Abbas’s peace strategy. Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war at Israel’s founding, along with millions of their descendants, claim the right to return to their original homes in what is now Israel. The Israelis rule that out as demographic suicide, saying the refugees should resettle in a future Palestine or elsewhere.

Netanyahu says any peace accord must safeguard Israel, which has often clashed with Hamas in Gaza and fears the Islamist movement could gain ground in the West Bank. Kerry has also described Israel’s security as “paramount”. Abed Rabbo said Israel and the United States, its main ally,  had been conferring about security without including the Palestinians. “This is a big shortcoming in the Israeli and the American behaviour because they are not discussing their bilateral security, they are discussing a central and a fundamental issue of ours and it concerns our future as a whole,” he said.
After months of intensive and discreet mediation, Kerry announced on July 19 in Amman, Jordan, that the parties had laid the groundwork to resume negotiations on the so-called “final status” issues that must be resolved to end the dispute.

“The meetings in Washington will mark the beginning of these talks,” Kerry spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. In what it dubbed a goodwill gesture required to restart diplomacy, the Israeli cabinet on Sunday approved the release of 104 long-serving Palestinian security prisoners in stages. Thousands more Palestinians remain in Israeli jails.

Bloodbath in Cairo and Peace Attempts in Jerusalem

MURAT YETKİN  July/29/2013
murat.yetkin@hurriyet.com.tr

MURAT YETKİN Bloodbath in Cairo cannot lead to peace in Jerusalem    

There should be some dignity in politics; the lip service by the Western democracies and the Arab autocracies regarding the Adawiya massacre on July 27 is a silent approval of it and a shame.

Egyptians are paying the price, being squeezed between the bad and the worse. It seems that the Saudi/Salafi-backed Gen. Abdul Fatah al-Sisi is not as bad as the people’s chosen president, Mohamed Morsi, whom he toppled for the interests of the West and Arab governments for now. (It is worth recalling that it was Saudi Arabia that sent troops to crush a Shiite-version Arab Spring in Bahrain in fear of Iran.)

It is difficult not to link that indirect support for al-Sisi with the ongoing U.S. efforts to bring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas around a table for a settlement. Netanyahu released a number of Palestinian prisoners in order to give a hand to Abbas, whose bigger adversary is Khaled Mashaal of Hamas. The power of Hamas in the Gaza Strip has been curbed by the fall of Morsi in Egypt, since the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) link in between is broken – together with possible access of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan to Gaza via Egypt, avoiding any touchdown on Israeli soil. One should also note Ikhwan has been the main actor in the civil war in Syria against the Bashar Al-Assad regime. Also note that Ikhwan and the Syrian opposition generally started to get weakened after the emergence of the al-Qaeda-backed Salafi movement of al-Nusra, almost at the same time that Morsi’s rise to power had started in Egypt.

Perhaps it is early to comment, but Morsi could be a victim for the success of the U.S.-led Middle East plan in the second Barack Obama administration, carried out by Secretary of State John Kerry. It is also no surprise that Turkey, which used to play a rather key role in the Middle East talks complimentary to that of Egypt, seems not as vital as before after Egypt coup. On top of the regional Arab issue, Turkey is dealing with its serious Kurdish problem nowadays.

Will the elimination of Ikhwan and also the Iran-backed Hezbollah from the equation bring a Israeli-Palestinian settlement? Unfortunately there is no guarantee of that.

Nevertheless, Egypt is in a dangerous divide that could tumble the country into a civil war. That would be the second after the one in Syria. Nobody is sure what is next, with signs of unrest visible even in Saudi Arabia.

It is possible that the whole ‘greater Middle East’ is heading toward a more painful time during which regimes and borders might change like a century ago, at the beginning of the oil age.
 

Turkish PM Erdogan Threatens to Sue Times Over Open Letter

One of the most important elements of leadership in the Middle East is that of "Shame and Honor". Leaders want to be honored above all else. To be shamed often provokes strong responses. Use this lens to examine crises in the Middle East. Authoritarian regimes react strongly against the media when criticized.
 
BBC News
Europe
26 July 2013 Last updated at 18:17 ET
Turkish PM Erdogan threatens to sue Times over open letter
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 18 July 2013
Critics of Mr Erdogan accuse him of being increasingly authoritarian
 
Turkey's prime minister has threatened legal action against a UK newspaper for publishing an open letter criticising his handling of recent protests.Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the Times of "renting out its pages for money".
 
Hollywood celebrities and academics were among those who signed the letter this week accusing Turkey's government of "dictatorial rule".
 
A row over a park in Istanbul last month triggered widespread anti-government protests. At least four people were killed and thousands more injured as police cracked down on demonstrators who accused Mr Erdogan of becoming increasingly authoritarian.
 
"The press wants to throw mud to see if it sticks," Mr Erdogan told reporters in comments broadcast on Turkey's NTV channel.  "The Times is renting out its own pages for money. This is the Times' failing. We will pursue legal channels regarding the Times. Mr Erdogan has referred to the anti-government protesters as "thugs"
 
Mr Erdogan said those who signed the letter - taken out as an full-page advertisement - had "rented out their thoughts" and did not genuinely support democracy. "If they truly believed in democracy, they couldn't have displayed such a lack of character to call the leader of a party that won 50% of the vote a dictator," the prime minister said.
 
The Times has so far not commented on the remarks. The open letter was signed by 30 people including Turkish pianist Fazil Say, US film stars Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon, film director David Lynch and British historian David Starkey. They condemned the crackdown on anti-government protesters and compared giant pro-government rallies - organised by Mr Erdogan's AKP party to counter the protests - to the huge rallies staged in Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany.
 
The wave of unrest in Turkey was sparked by demonstrations against controversial plans to redevelop Istanbul's Gezi Park. The authorities' heavy-handed response sparked anti-government protests nationwide.

 

Inching Forward in the Mideast

 
The week that Secretary of State John Kerry said could start the revival of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is passing without visible progress. The naysayers are chortling, but Mr. Kerry, to his credit, is undeterred. His aides insist that plans to resume the dialogue on a two-state solution that collapsed in 2010 are on track; on Thursday, an Israeli minister said that talks could begin next week.
 
Even if they do, the path will never be smooth. The differences are deeply felt, and the two sides have repeatedly squandered chances for peace. After Mr. Kerry announced last Friday that he would bring Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to Washington “within a week or so,” both sides poured cold water on the idea. The Palestinians said talks could not begin without an agreement that would be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 war; the Israelis rejected that and said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not even proceed with talks without approval from his divided cabinet. That could come on Sunday.
 
While crucial details remain secret, Mr. Kerry has used six trips to the region to pursue a sensible strategy to nudge the two sides to the table. The Arab League has given the Palestinians political cover to enter talks by endorsing Mr. Kerry’s efforts and modifying their 2002 Arab Peace Initiative so it is more in line with American and Israeli positions. The international community has promised the Palestinians a $4 billion economic package.
      
For its part, Israel has said it will release 82 Palestinian prisoners convicted after the 1993 Oslo accords. It has also slowed the expansion of settlements that have shrunk the land available for a Palestinian state. As a concession to Israel, the Palestinians will not ask the United Nations to further upgrade their status while negotiations are under way. The European Union has weighed in: on the one hand pressuring Israel with the threat of reduced aid if it does not negotiate, and on the other putting Hezbollah’s military wing on the terror list.
      
Half-measures will not do. To be fruitful, negotiations must proceed quickly to core issues. Palestinians need to have the borders of their state defined, and Israelis need to know that the new state will not threaten their security. But other critical issues — Jerusalem’s future and the fate of Palestinian refugees — must also be addressed.
 
One sign of Mr. Kerry’s optimism is his plans to name a full-time envoy to oversee negotiations. It is reported to be Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration. While well-versed on the issues and known to regional leaders, Mr. Indyk has a long association with pro-Israel groups. He, or whoever is chosen, will need to be creative and even handed in pressing both Mr. Netanyahu and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, on a compromise.
      
The pessimists insist that this is not the time, and these are not the leaders, for a peace deal. Yet the future seems increasingly unpredictable and the consequences of inaction increasingly grave. No good can come if Israel, with its growing Palestinian population, evolves from a Jewish majority state to an Arab majority state; if disenfranchised Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza remain stateless in an increasingly restive region; and if the long sought dream of a Palestinian state is left to die.
 
 

Egypt Court Orders Morsi Held Over Hamas Ties

Egypt court orders Morsi held over Hamas ties: MENA
CAIRO - Agence France-Presse
Egyptian supporters of deposed president Mohamed Morsi hold up his portrait and wave their national flag. AFP Photo
Egyptian supporters of deposed president Mohamed Morsi hold up his portrait and wave their national flag.
           
An Egyptian court has ordered that ousted president Mohamed Morsi be detained for questioning over suspected collaboration with Palestinian militant group Hamas, official MENA news agency reported Friday.

Morsi will be quizzed on whether he collaborated with Hamas in attacks on police stations and prison breaks in early 2011, in which the Islamist and other political inmates escaped during the revolt against strongman Hosni Mubarak, it said.

The alleged crimes are being investigated by a Cairo court that was tasked to determine how inmates broke out of a prison late January 2011, after accusations Morsi's Islamist group sought the help of the Hamas rulers of Gaza.

Gehad El-Haddad, a spokesman for Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood denounced the detention order, saying Mubarak's regime was "signalling 'we're back in full force.'" On July 23, a court had said Hamas militants facilitated the escape of prisoners during the tumultuous 18-day uprising that forced out Mubarak.

At the time, Morsi, then a senior Brotherhood leader, told a television station Egyptians had helped the prisoners escape.

Turkey is no 154th in World Press Freedom Index (Not Good!)

Turkey now 154th in world press freedom index
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News July 25, 2013
Daily News Photo
Daily News Photo
Turkey has experienced another among fall down the ranks of Reporters Without Borders’ (RWB) World Press Freedom index, dropping to 154th on the list.

RWB stated that Turkey, a country of “political importance” amid the Syrian conflict, was “currently the world’s biggest prison for journalists.” The country suffered a six-slot fall, plummeting from 148th to 154th.

The report also targeted Turkey for failing to live up to its regional model aspirations “despite a varied and lively media” presence in the country. The Turkish state was criticized for pursuing “a paranoia about security, which has a tendency to see every criticism as a plot hatched by a variety of illegal organizations.”

The ongoing paranoia has intensified during the past year, which was “marked by a rising tension over the Kurdish question,” the organization said.

Syria, meanwhile, has become “the deadliest country for journalists,” taking one of the last spots, as journalists suffered both from the civil war and from government attempts to crack down on reporters.

The report also looked into some of the regional dynamics and noted especially Greece’ sharp drop down the list to number 84 as part of the “unraveling European model” that is otherwise filled with list-topping countries. Finland topped the list for the second year in a row.

Greek journalists are “exposed to public condemnation and violence from both extremist groups and the police,” the report said. Countries like India, China and Russia were also named among those falling short of their regional ambitions.

Regional scores from zero to 100 ended up as 17.5 for Europe, 30.0 for the Americas, 34.3 for Africa, 42.2 for the Asia-Pacific and 45.3 for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Middle East and North Africa region came last at 48.5.

The index focuses not on political developments but on “attitudes and intentions of governments toward media freedom,” with criteria ranging from “legislation to violence against journalists,” according to the organization.
Netanyahu sees Morsi fall as sign that political Islam is 'bound to fail'
BERLIN - Reuters, July 21, 2013   
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, listens during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, July 21. AP photo
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, listens during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, July 21. AP photo
 
In rare remarks on Egypt's government crisis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that the fall of the president, Mohamed Morsi, demonstrates the weaknesses of political Islamist movements.

"I believe that over the long haul these radical Islamic regimes are going to fail because they don't offer the adequate enfranchisement that you need to develop a country economically, politically and culturally," Netanyahu told the German weekly Welt am Sonntag.

He said he thought radical Islamism was wholly unsuited to dealing with a global economic and information revolution, and "goes right back to medievalism against the whole thrust of modernity, so over time it's bound to fail".

Israel had previously responded more cautiously to Morsi's removal by the Egyptian army on July 3. Netanyahu avoided any comment at the time, though a confidant expressed hope that Egypt's new leaders may restore largely frozen contacts with Israel.

In the interview, Netanyahu reiterated Israel's concern that a U.S.-brokered 1979 peace treaty with Egypt should remain intact, alluding also to a surge of violence in a Sinai border region since Israel's ally Hosni Mubarak was toppled from power in Egypt two years ago.

"Preserving the peace with Egypt through these convulsions is of central importance to us," Netanyahu said.

 

Ramadan TV - as reviewed by the Wall Street Journal

Arab cops hunt jihadi terrorists. A con artist becomes president of Egypt. A mosque preacher falls in love with a secular violinist at the opera house. These are just a few of the plots for dozens of new TV shows playing to 90 million households in the Arab world this month. Ramadan is a time of fasting and contemplation—but in the Middle East, it's also the most high-stakes period for hundreds of satellite channels in 21 Arab countries.

Most serials made their debut with the new moon on July 8 and air nightly after daylong fasting is broken at sunset. This year's story lines reflect the political upheavals rocking the Arab world and suggest that the region—or at least those producing the shows—are tilting against Islamism.

A traditional mainstay of Ramadan TV has been programming depicting Jews as hook-nosed spillers of blood who want to enslave the world, starting with Muslims. Perhaps most memorably, the 2001 Ramadan show "Faris Bila Jawad" (Horseman Without a Horse) told the story of Israel's founding as a nation on the premise that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were real and not, as they were, a vicious anti-Semitic forgery by the Russian secret police.

This year, one Qatari-backed historical drama does fit that bigoted bill: "Khaybar"—airing on networks in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere—shows why a Jewish tribe in seventh-century Arabia deserved to be slaughtered by Muslims and recreates the carnage. Egyptian screenwriter Yusri al-Jundi made his feelings toward Jews clear when he told an Al Jazeera television interviewer: "The series shows how the Jews' . . . nature endures. Despite the fact that hundreds of years have passed, they still spread corruption wherever they live."

But early ratings show "Khaybar" to be a commercial flop, as well as an outlier. This year's most popular shows don't focus on an external enemy but on current intra-Arab issues.

The nightly comedy sitcom, "Abu Al Malayin" (Father of Millions), airing on the Saudi-backed network MBC1, is about two rich brothers' zany adventures in capitalism. In one episode, the siblings predict that the Arab revolutions will boost demand for "tools of repression," and start importing tear gas and police dogs. The brothers want to earn a bad reputation among Western human-rights groups, so that Arab states will be more likely to do business with them. When I asked screenwriter Khalaf al-Harbi why he thinks the show is a hit, he replied: "All year long Arabs have been crying—about Syria, about Iraq. They need to laugh more than ever."

The most serious rival for "Abu Al Malayin" is an Egyptian production, "Al-Arraf" (The Fortuneteller). Beloved Egyptian comic actor Adel Imam plays a con artist who makes millions, lands in prison, escapes amid the chaos of the 2011 revolution, and goes on to win political power in the new Egypt. Numerous TV critics in Egypt and beyond have interpreted the story as a dig at recently ousted President Mohammed Morsi, who was jailed for a few days along with other Muslim Brotherhood activists during the January 2011 revolution. The critics interpret the con as a metaphor for Islamists' use of religion to gain power. Mr. Imam, who faced prosecution on charges of "offending Islam" last year, recently talked with an Egyptian newspaper about Mr. Morsi's ouster: "I can't describe how happy I am at the armed forces' announcement."

His political views echo broader anger at the Muslim Brotherhood among Egypt's leading actors, writers and directors—and the new crop of dramas puts their feelings on display. "Al-Da'iya" (The Preacher) features a cleric in love with a violinist. As their relationship deepens, he confronts extremism and hypocrisy among his colleagues. "Ism Mu'aqqat" (Temporary Name) casts Brotherhood candidates in Egypt's recent elections as cheats. Meanwhile, secularist ideologue Ilham Shaheen scripted the slapstick comedy "Nazariyat al-Gawafa" (The Guava Theory), which mercilessly spoofs the Brotherhood.

Part of the reason such programming is dominating the airwaves is that the Syrian TV industry, which has long been the source of the most anti-Semitic and politically toxic shows, has been virtually put out of commission by the civil war. Battle scenes in dramas like "Khaybar" are costly, and these days are difficult to shoot outdoors in Syria, where the other kind of shooting is rampant.

The Brotherhood, for its part, hasn't nurtured the creative talent necessary to staff its own ideological productions. One halting attempt was ridiculed by critics earlier this year for its conspicuous lack of female characters. Meanwhile, Shiite Hezbollah's annual TV epic spotlights a non-Jewish adversary this year—the Sunni Ottoman Empire—in an apparent nod to the region's sectarian strife. It hasn't attracted a substantial audience.

Shifting political circumstances have conspired to alter the menu of shows this season. But viewers' choices are a sign that Arabs may be eschewing the fixation on an external enemy in favor of more introspective, even self-critical fare—as well as plain old escapism.

Mr. Braude, author of "The Honored Dead" (Spiegel & Grau, 2011), broadcasts a weekly commentary in Arabic on Morocco's MED Radio network. He is writing a book about Arabic media.

A version of this article appeared July 19, 2013, on page A9 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: For Insight Into Mideast, Tune Into Ramadan TV.

Does "Forgiving your enemies" go this far?

In Istanbul, Turkey, a huge historical Armenian building is being rented despite the ongoing trial.

The Sanasaryan Han in Istanbul’s Eminönü neighborhood, was won by Özgeylani Construction Company, despite the ongoing trial over the ownership of the building. The building is claimed by the Armenian Christians. Armenian Christians around the world claim that upwards of 1,500,000 of their people died in a "genocide" in 1915 when Turkish soldiers forced them out of the eastern most areas of the Ottoman Empire.

The Turkish government claims that the events happened during World War I, that the deaths were not a "genocide", and that "only" 315,000 Armenians died. Most recently, the Turkish government has begun handing back some of the 9,500 properties seized from Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox Churches in 1974.

The issue I want to illustrate involves the ongoing struggle of being a member of the Kingdom of God, in which earthly loyalties and properties are temporary, and being a citizen of this world, in which human rights and justice are necessary and important. (This is one of the major themes of this blog.) This theme overlaps other situations: race relations, property rights, freedom to dress using religious symbols, freedom of expression, etc.

(From Hurriyet Daily News, July 20,) "The tender for renting the historical building, organized by the Directorate General of Foundations on July 18, was won by Özgeylani Construction Company, despite the ongoing trial over the ownership of the building.

"Turkey’s Armenian Patriarchate claims that the han, which was donated to the patriarchate in 1881 by a Russian-Armenian Mıgırdiç Sansaryan, belongs to them as they have the documents to prove the donation. The Directorate General of Foundations, on the other hand, claims that the building did not fall under the jurisdiction of a law on the return of properties to community foundations that took effect in 2011 as it had been owned by a person.

"Şahin Gezer of Turkey’s Armenian Patriarchate Real Estate Commission told the Hürriyet Daily News that they had hoped until the last minute that the tender would be halted. Gezer said they would continue their legal action. "The Sanasaryan Han had an autonomous status when compared to the other Armenian foundations, Gezer said, adding that this was due to the fact that other foundations had churches and schools, whereas the han had been donated to the patriarchate by a natural person.

"Gezer said that the rent of the han should be equally distributed between Armenian schools and public schools without any discrimination, while adding that this was as an offer to the Directorate General of Foundations “as we are equal citizens.” "Commenting on the resolution on foundations, which entered into force two years ago, Gezer said more than 400 properties were returned but major problems were being faced. “For example, the returned space is accepted as a green area or is closed for housing, so even if it is returned you cannot use it,” said Gezer.

I  quoted  at length because most people don't know the legal issues faced by Christians in Turkey. it illustrates the tensions we have as followers of Jesus Christ. When we are told to "forgive our enemies, to love our enemies and to pray for our enemies", does that mean we abdicate the claims of our earthly citizenship? The Mennonites, in large measure, did that historically. They moved from place to place based on the need to avoid bloodshed and now are found in Canada, USA, Mexico, Paraguay and other nations.

How should Armenian believers act and think when faced with the Turkish government's use of tiny details in law to avoid handing over such a massive building, worth many millions of dollars in a prime real estate location? Of course, the Armenian Patriarcate will launch a law suite and it may go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey is the champion loser of cases brought to the ECHR, and alongside Russia, is the champion of cases brought against its government.

There are countless cases like this, every year, brought against Christians in the Muslim countries. Usually the Christians lose the fight in the courts. What do you think the issues are in the hearts of Christians when faced with injustice? Let me know what you think!

"Read, Read, in the name of thy Lord!"

Read. Read in the name of thy Lord - by Burak Bekdil, Hurriyet Daily News, July  19, 2013 
   
The first verses of the Quran begin with the word: Read. “Read in the name of thy Lord who created; [He] created the human being from blood clot. Read in the name of thy Lord who taught by the pen: [He] taught the human being what he did not know.” (96:1-5).

Fourteen centuries later, in Turkey, there are more illiterates (5 percent) and literates who never attended a school (7 percent) than university graduates (11 percent), although the government boasts about grocery shop-like universities mushrooming on every corner. I am still curious, though, why our editor-in-chief has not yet launched HDN University since our newsroom seems academically and administratively more competent than many Turkish universities (though he may be too frightened by the possibility of my application for a position in the Department of Theology).

In this year’s Undergraduate Placement Examination, a central, standardized test for admission to university, high school graduates scored an average of 25.6 percent in mathematics, 15 percent in geometry, 23.8 percent in physics, 37.4 percent in chemistry, 40 percent in biology, 42 percent in Turkish language and literature, 31.4 percent in history and 25 percent in philosophy. According to the OECD, the percentage of population that has attained at least upper secondary education in Turkey stands at 40 percent, compared to the OECD average of 80 percent and the G-20 average of 70 percent. Meanwhile, the government’s education policy seems to be a radically Islamized version of C.S. Lewis’s famous quote: “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”

Of course, Lewis’s “values” are quite different than Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s. As Şafak Pavey, an opposition MP, recently wrote in The Guardian: “Education, for one thing, is in peril. Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party has given the lion’s share of the budget to mosques and religious schools, cutting schools that provide secular education adrift. There are 67,000 schools and 85,000 mosques. Over the past few months, in Istanbul alone, 98 primary schools have been converted into state-run religious Imam Hatip schools.” Precisely as one reader put it concisely in a letter: “I am worried about the education system in Turkey. It’s an issue which seems to have been mostly overlooked by the media this past year. The English-language press [has spent] very little time in the past year discussing what is happening in our schools right now; perhaps because [they assume] most ex-pats send their children to private schools and colleges.

“I have been living in Turkey for 10 years. My Turkish husband and I have two young daughters attending a local government school. Luckily we have very few complaints regarding our children’s education. However, I was recently perturbed to see that our local boarding school has been transformed into an Imam Hatip school.

“A government boarding school is home to kids who can’t live at home, either for emotional, practical or economical reasons. Although the state does not permanently care for these children, they are in the state’s care during term time. Often the children return to their families during school holidays, sometimes even for the weekends. So you can imagine how I felt when I realized that the only boarding school in our area which supports working or broken families has been turned into an Islamic teaching school. I feel the parents and students may have been railroaded by the government’s new schooling policy [designed to apply an] Islamic agenda through backdoor methods.

“I have no idea what kind of permission was required (if any) from the parents, but I do know many parents rely on this system to allow for space to heal, or to work… I know that state care children already receive extra-curricular religious courses after school. I’m left wondering just what type of secular government is this.”

I wish I knew the answer. Or was able to call it by its name. Suffice it to say that Turkey’s elected social engineers have a very nostalgic worldview; so nostalgic that sometimes their longing goes back to times before the Quranic commandments in 96:1-5 were even revealed.

"Malala Spoke: Muslims, please Listen"

(From Globe and Mail, July 17, 2013)
It was fitting that Malala Yousafzai addressed the United Nations during the first third of Ramadan. The month’s first 10 days are regarded as the days of God’s mercy.

While her powerful speech left an indelible mark on the world, her words served as a powerful reminder to Muslims worldwide about mercy, the fundamental tenet of their religion. She began her speech with the invocation of God the most Merciful, and it was masterfully woven throughout her brief but eloquent discussion of five important themes: inclusiveness, non-violence, forgiveness, education and female self-reliance.

Malala reminded us that mercy is at the heart of the message preached by the Prophet Mohammed, Jesus and the Buddha. This serves as a powerful rejoinder against those who preach violence between faiths. It should provide impetus to the silent majority to take an assertive stand against the hatred that threatens to tear apart society’s very fabric.

She invoked the names of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, reminding Muslims to look beyond their own sphere to the vast expanse of universal principles embodied by the many rich strands of humanity. That she acknowledged Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan and a Shiite, should give special pause considering the dangerous Sunni-Shia schism that threatens to inflame tensions in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

And she reminded us that the most profound changes have occurred not through armed jihad, but principled non-violence, as embodied by Gandhi, Bacha Khan an ethnic Pashtun who mounted non-violent opposition to the British Raj in India) and Mother Teresa.

History will add Malala’s name to this illustrious list of individuals who see beyond the immediacy of revenge, reaching deep into the recesses of the heart to forgive one’s enemies. She told the world that she learned compassion from Mohammed (the Prophet of Mercy) and forgiveness from her parents. This, too, serves as a stark reminder to Muslims about the importance of forgiveness and compassion, considering the tumult in so many Muslim societies.

She then reminded us of the supreme importance of knowledge. During Ramadan, as Muslims spend more time with the Koran (literally, “The Reading”), we are reminded about the importance of knowledge and literacy in building individuals, societies and civilizations. Malala reiterated the call of another courageous Pakistani woman, Mukhtar Mai, who was gang-raped as part of a twisted tribal custom.

Like Malala, Ms. Mai called for more education (including for the children of those who attacked her), emphatically stating: “I want to kill illiteracy.” It’s high time for Muslim societies to realize that their most vital asset isn’t oil or arms, but people. Investment in education pays off. It also threatens those who seek to control others. Knowledge is power, and the powerful know it.

Finally, Malala said what so many women have felt instinctively: “We will do it for ourselves” – an echo of the classic Aretha Franklin/Annie Lennox anthem. This is a challenge to those who wish to control women, who see women as mere children in need of male guardianship. It is also a challenge to Muslim women to take stock of their potential, take charge of their own agency and loosen the reins of dependency.

Malala has provided the world with inspiration through her example. Let us follow in her footsteps, and replace weakness with strength, fear with courage, and hopelessness with power in our own lives. Imagine the difference we can make.

Guiding Syria towards a more stable future

Guiding Syria towards a more stable future


Guiding Syria towards a more stable future

By Dennis Ross
What was supposed to be the Syrian phase of the so-called “Arab Spring” has evolved into one of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century. The once-peaceful opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s deeply entrenched and powerful Ba’ath Party regime has escalated into armed resistance and, finally, a brutal civil war – one that has now claimed close to 100,000 lives. This escalation poses a serious threat, not just to Syria’s neighbors, but – given the existence of chemical weapons in Syria – to the international community, as well.

The United States, like other nations supportive of the Syrian opposition, has chosen to act, but to do so primarily through diplomatic and economic means. Its hesitancy to take more direct action is understandable given the fractious nature of the opposition, but the cost of failing to influence the balance of power between the opposition and the Syrian regime could be high. I say this not only because of the horrific humanitarian toll that is being exacted, but also because the conflict is almost certain to spread to all of Syria’s neighbors. Meanwhile, Assad, confident of his military strength and with support from Iran and Hezbollah, continues to wage war on his own people in what has now become an overtly sectarian conflict.

At this stage, it might appear almost too late for the United States to have an influence on the Syrian crisis. To be sure, providing small amounts of lethal assistance will not have much impact on the situation. Iran and Hezbollah are determined to keep Assad in power, even to the point of using their own forces. As such, the U.S. will need to do more to make sure that the provision of lethal assistance can affect the balance of power. This will require actually assuming responsibility for managing the whole assistance effort to the opposition.

This will not be easy. It will require coordinating all the disparate sources of support on the outside – from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, and France – and ensuring that all money, training, weapons, and non-lethal and humanitarian assistance are channeled in a complementary and cooperative fashion.

There should be no illusions: Should the U.S. take over the management of the assistance effort – something that will require a serious investment of time and political capital on the part of the administration – transforming the situation and the balance of power will take time, and is not a given at this point.

After all, the Syrian opposition remains fragmented despite the formation of a Syrian National Coalition last year. Moreover, the Jihadist elements, having received the most money and arms, retain the upper hand within the opposition, at least at this juncture. To help influence a positive outcome, then, the U.S. administration would need to ensure that all assistance is going only to those who are committed to a non-sectarian, inclusive Syria. These groups are at a disadvantage now, and, even if they are given the kind of assistance and training that they need, it will take time before they are able to exploit it.

The larger point here is that the U.S., and others that support the opposition, need to have a clear objective. Providing more material assistance, including weapons, in a more systematic and coordinated fashion is a means to altering the balance of power on the ground, and that is the only way a politically negotiated transition can become possible.

That is the hope, and it remains a long shot at the moment. Not only must the opposition become more credible and less divided, but the international coalition that supports the opposition must itself become more unified and provide determined and consistent support to those fighting the Assad regime. Even if some sort of political agreement became possible, it would need to be enforced by an international peacekeeping presence.

If a political resolution to the situation seems like an increasingly forlorn objective, how can the United States respond to the ever more probable outcome that Syria will simply fall apart? Assad, whatever he believes, is not going to succeed. He may continue to control certain areas within Syria for a while, but a fragmentation of the country is more likely. Such a deterioration would pose a threat to the international community as a whole: Not only might al-Qaeda embed itself in what would effectively be a failed state, but the loss of control over Syria’s chemical weapons could have catastrophic implications for everyone. If the situation does worsen along these lines, Syria as we have known it for decades will cease to exist.

At a minimum, assuming that a political solution proves impossible, we need to have a fallback strategy of containment that aims to build a buffer zone in and around Syria. While this is not a very satisfactory approach, the fragmentation of Syria cannot be allowed to destabilize the whole region.

Diplomat and author Dennis B. Ross has served as a Middle East adviser to five U.S. presidents, most recently as President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy, 2009-2011. His latest book, Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East, co-authored with David Makovsky, was published in 2009. He is a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
This article originally appeared at www.themarknews.com

Turkish and Arab political Islam 'differ in Secularism'

Turkish and Arab political Islam ‘differ in secularism’ From Hurrieyet Daily News, July 15, 2013 

Turkey’s secular system is the main factor that differentiates Turkey from Arab countries in terms of political Islam, according to a former Turkish foreign minister. ‘Had Egyptians endorsed a secular Constitution, they would have been somewhere else,’ says Yaşar Yakış, a former envoy to Cairo

    
The Islamic nature of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt worked against it, as Islamophobia was one of the main factors in the West’s reaction to the coup in Egypt, says former Foreign Minister Yaşar Yakış. DAILY NEWS photo, Emrah GÜREL
The Islamic nature of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt worked against it, as Islamophobia was one of the main factors in the West’s reaction to the coup in Egypt, says former Foreign Minister Yaşar Yakış. DAILY NEWS photo, Emrah GÜREL
    Barçın Yinanç Barçın Yinançbarcin.yinanc@hurriyet.com.tr

    Looking at Egypt, it becomes obvious how Turkey’s secular system has worked as an advantage, according to a former Turkish foreign minister.

    The Justice and Development Party (AKP) founders established the party based on the principle that it would not fight the secular system and decided to embrace the majority in Turkey rather than its core pious constituency, said Yaşar Yakış, a career diplomat who also served as ambassador to Cairo.

    Had other Islamic movements been inspired by the sociological engineering of the AKP, events could have unfolded differently in the Arab Spring countries, Yakış, a founding member of the AKP, told the Hürriyet Daily News.

    What’s your take on developments in Egypt?

    Maybe they were inspired by Turkey on the basis of the message that governance is not just about elections. Perhaps they have gone too far. But there is a difference in how Turkey and the world see events in Egypt. The mood in Turkey is as if the army hit the wall, but the world does not have that type of reading.

    Let’s go back a bit; what was your assessment of the Arab Spring?

    It had to happen. But if you had asked me at that time whether I saw such a possibility, I would not have been able to say yes. The Muslim Brotherhood [MB] had no experience on governance. Perhaps this is behind the current problem. It was unable to satisfy the expectations of those that had initially filled Tahrir Square. There is a tendency in Turkey to evaluate it with general terms. But we need to see the nuances. Some of those who have voted for the MB have probably quit supporting it. But I am also guessing that even between the military intervention and today there must be people switching sides. In Turkey we tend to see it as the country divided between Morsi supporters and Morsi opponents. But there isn’t a situation in Egypt where there are movements with clear cut positions in the political map. The position of the army will determine the developments. [Egyptian General Chief of Staff] al-Sisi probably thinks that if Morsi is reinstated, he will be punished; therefore he will do his utmost to prevent his return.

    In this case you would think that Turkey’s initial efforts to have Morsi back are not realistic.

    We need to compare the risks facing Morsi and al-Sisi. If al-Sisi loses he might be executed or condemned to life in prison whereas if Morsi loses, the same outcome is not definitely valid for him. Therefore al-Sisi will do whatever it takes to struggle. We are not talking about a struggle between two groups on equal terms. This dimension is overlooked in Turkey.

    What do you say about debates on naming it as a coup?

    There is no doubt it is a coup. Every country makes its assessment according to national interests. That is valid also for the United States and European countries. I believe Islamophobia was an important factor while they made their assessments.

    So the Islamic characteristic of MB has been a disadvantage?


    It worked against them because the West is uneasy about seeing political Islam coming to power. In Egypt they are concerned about the Copts [Christians] as well as the security of Israel. In view of the two concerns it doesn’t suit their interest to have the MB in power.

    Are the concerns about political Islam justified?

    In politics perceptions matter more than reality. There is no need to discuss whether there were justifications for those concerns or not. If there are such perceptions they will act according to those perceptions.

    But don’t you think some of the concerns were alleviated due to the performance of the Justice and Development Party [AKP]? Isn’t the AKP considered as political Islam?

    Some do some don’t. In Oxford I am often asked to compare political Islam in Turkey and the Middle East. The perception is increasing recently that Turkey is sliding toward political Islam due to the spreading of Islamophobia.

    Don’t you think the AKP created a perception of blending political Islam with democracy?

    At one stage yes; but this perception has weakened over the years.

    Why?

    Because of Islamophobia. As pious people started to come to power in the region, they started to be more concerned.

    You do not share the view of those who argue that the AKP became authoritarian.

    If there is such a perception for some, for them that becomes the truth.

    How do you answer when you are asked to compare political Islam in Turkey and the region?

    The Virtue Party [of which AKP is an offshoot] was divided into reformists and conservatives. From that time on there emerged a different approach in Turkey. Mr. [Abdullah] Gül, [currently president of Turkey] said “we cannot achieve a thing by fighting the secular regime. When we start working in the parliament we give our sermon saying we will remain loyal to Turkey’s secular regime.” As such he gave the direction of the party. The AKP is the product of that decision. Obviously, the party became stronger. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When we started to feel stronger in power, we try to act as a strong player and many perceive it as a threat.

    So you believe the main difference between Turkey and the Middle East is that political Islam avoids clashing with the system?


    When making comparisons, we can say that some developments in Turkey could be an inspiration for Middle Eastern countries. One such development is the transformation of the AK Party. Had they undertaken a similar transformation, maybe they would have now handled it like Turkey.

    When you look to the streets of Egypt; there are secular practices, it is an emancipated society. In Turkey you cannot base any law on religion whereas in Egypt, there was an article in the constitution that stipulated that a law can’t run contrary to the shariah. The military [after the fall of Mubarak] could not take the article out of the interim constitution. Nearly all parties, except a few ones, wanted to maintain that article. When you compare Turkey and Egypt; had Egyptians endorsed a secular constitution, they would have been somewhere else than they are today. Egyptians got stuck on secularism. We see how big of an advantage it is to be secular in Turkey when you look to Egypt. Secularism brings about different outcomes. Secularism is ingrained in the constitution; this is not the case in Arab countries; they did not succeed [in that sense] even after the Arab Spring.

    So secularism is the main factor differentiating Turkey from other regional countries.

    Definitely, and the strategic decision taken by Mr. Gül. At that time we had made a public opinion poll which showed us 46 percent were unhappy with existing parties. The [Virtue] party’s support rate had gone down from 23 to 13 percent. As the party was divided, we [the reformists] could have tried to appeal to half of the party constituency. But we decided to appeal to the 46 percent. I am one of the 6 persons who penned down the party program and we did not mention religion. Opinion polls showed us that many saw issues like unemployment and security as main problems. While the headscarf issue was heatedly debated at that time, it did not appear as a priority in our polls. We wrote the party program under those findings.

    We [the AK Party] won the elections with 34 percent. We have aimed for the right target by doing a very good sociological engineering. Had the Arab Spring countries undertaken such social engineering and read correctly their peoples’ expectations. It could have been different.

    But secularism is not popular in the region, even the MB reacted to Prime Minister Erdoğan when he talked about it in Egypt.

    That shows how big of a distance we have taken.

    What do you think of Turkey’s official reaction?

    It was very good. The Prime Minister acted as a responsible leader; he criticized it but stopped there. I am afraid we may run into the same difficulties we face in Syria, if we were to go beyond and start helping the MB. Egyptians are to decide who will rule the country. Our interlocutor is the one that is recognized as the state. The Egyptian ambassador in takes his instructions from the army; so we can’t tell him, we don’t recognize you.

    What kind of a relationship is there between the AKP and MB?
    They have a similar world view. It is only natural that they stay side by side; just like European Christian democratic parties grouping under the EPP [European People’s Party, in the European Parliament].

    Support ebbs in Muslim Brotherhood's birthplace

    Support ebbs in Muslim Brotherhood's birthplace


     Dissatisfaction with President Morsi is not hard to spot in Ismaliya. The Egyptian city of Ismaliya, 150km (93 miles) north-east of Cairo, is deeply symbolic for the Muslim Brotherhood. It is where Egypt's largest and most powerful Islamist group began in 1928Anti-Muslim Brotherhood graffiti in Ismaliya

    The al-Rahma mosque, in one of the city's poor neighbourhoods, served as the group's first headquarters, and a launch pad for a mission that combines political Islam with charity. Historically, its charitable work has served the group well, generating strong grassroots support and unwavering loyalty.

    In a house on a discreet suburban side street, tonnes of food supplies are stored, to be distributed among poor families during the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. Young Brotherhood members shuttle to and from the house, carrying bags loaded with sugar, rice and flour to a pick-up truck waiting outside.

    "The Muslim Brotherhood has done a lot of work for charity over many years now," said Shukri Khaled, a 52-year-old electrician. They help the poor, the orphans, and young couples planning to get married. And they are doing all this for God - not for themselves."

    Mr Khaled lamented the growing anti-Brotherhood sentiment in Ismaliya following the ousting of the former president Mohammed Morsi, himself a Brotherhood figure. "It's a shame that many people have forgotten a history of struggle and wonderful work, and listened to conspirators from the old regime," he said.

    Last month, many in the city joined the wave of massive demonstrations nationwide against Mr Morsi's one-year-old rule. Angry crowds took to the main streets, protesting against what they described as Mr Morsi's power-grabbing, and failure to save the country's collapsing economy.
    Graffiti If its charitable work was all the Brotherhood needed to remain popular, it would be safe. But clearly, it was not enough.

    The group is currently facing one of the most profound crises since its establishment. It has lost a lot of support, most notably in its birthplace.

    Visible evidence of pro-Brotherhood sentiment in Ismaliya is hard to spot.

    The rising cost of basic commodities is a big issue for ordinary Egyptians. During our travels around the city we saw hardly any posters backing the ousted president, or the group he represents. Instead, we found quite the opposite - anti-Brotherhood graffiti spray-painted on the wall of the main government building in the city.

    "Leave", read one, while another said: "No to the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood". A major reason why the Brotherhood's support has slumped can be found at the nearest market. Costs of basic commodities have increased dramatically since last year. Locals told us they could not wait for another three years until Mr Morsi completed his first term in office.

    "If you bought a packet of butter and found it expired, what would you do? You would throw it away," said 49-year-old Mohammed Gad. "Morsi's year in office was all negative - and that's why the Egyptians revolted against him, backed by the military."

    A widely held sentiment here in this former Brotherhood heartland is that the army backed a public uprising against the former president. Few in the city will describe what happened last month as a coup. And many appear happy the generals are back in charge - at least for the time being.

    Egypt's Turmoil - Bob Abernethy and Kate Seelye on PBS

    BOB ABERNETHY, host: Muslims around the world this week began their month-long observance of Ramadan, when they fast from sunrise to sunset.
    In Egypt, the holiday falls amid continued unrest after the military’s removal from power of former president Mohamed Morsi. Morsi’s political party, the Muslim Brotherhood said it will not cooperate with the interim government and vowed to continue protesting. Tensions were particularly high after the military fired on Brotherhood protesters, killing more than 50 people. One of country’s top Muslim clerics called for an end to bloodshed and warned both sides against dragging the country into civil war.
    I am now joined by Kate Seelye, senior vice president of the non-partisan Middle East Institute. She was a long time correspondent in the Middle East and has reported from there for, among others, this program. Kate, welcome.

    KATE SEELYE (Sr. Vice President, Middle East Institute): Thank you very much.

    ABERNETHY: You’ve been to Egypt many times. As you look at it from here, what do you see? How do you characterize the mess it’s in?

    SEELYE: Well Egypt is facing a very challenging situation as it transitions from an authoritarian regime to a democracy in the future. It’s still very much along a transitional path.

    ABERNETHY: But, how do you describe what’s going on?
    SEELYE: Well, you know, there are two different views of what just happened. There are those who say that a coup just took place, that a legitimately elected government was just overthrown. You now have the military in office that is rounding up the very Islamists that were ruling Egypt just, you know, a few weeks ago, putting them in prison and closing down the media. You have liberals on the other hand, who supported the recent popular uprising, who say this is the very best thing that could have ever happened to Egypt. They say Morsi, the president, was incompetent, that he was authoritarian, as authoritarian as Mubarak. And they note that the economy was collapsing. There were two months left of wheat supplies. Now, in response to what’s just happened, Gulf countries have committed twelve billion dollars to Egypt. The new prime minister is a renowned economist and the liberals say there’s hope that Egypt will become prosperous and stable once again.

    ABERNETHY: But they had elections. How can they...Morsi was freely elected.
    Kate Seelye
    SEELYE: Absolutely. And there are those who say that this is very bad for the future of democracy in Egypt. It’s been a real setback for democracy. There have been several elections since the overthrow of Mubarak. They have all been annulled. And yet on the other hand many liberals feel that the direction the country was going in under the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood Islamist leadership was very, very bad and they didn’t want to continue in that direction.

    ABERNETHY: How much was just because they didn’t like what the government was doing and how much of it had to do with Islam?
    SEELYE: Well it had nothing to do with Islam. It had everything to do with this particular government which was the first Islamist government in Egypt’s history. So how did they rule? Well, they were incompetent because they’ve never had a chance to rule before. They were a party that was banned for decades. They’ve never had experience running anything. So they were incompetent. They were authoritarian. They were not inclusive. They were dismissive of liberals, women and minorities. So in general people didn’t like how this Islamist government was ruling. They also feared that they would try to Islamize the state, make it more Islamist. And we saw that in the new constitution which they pushed through in January in which many of the clauses were once again not very respectful of women, minorities and others. And so I think Egyptians just rose up and said we don’t like the direction Egypt is going in. It’s not because we don’t love Muslims – most of us are Muslims – but we don’t like the idea of an Islamist Egypt.

    ABERNETHY: That’s interesting. What about the Copts, the Christians there? What’s going on with them?
    SEELYE: Well they’re much relieved today. They suffered under the Morsi government for the past year. What democracy did in Egypt was it brought into office more Islamists and Islamists that are more, I would, say radical than the Muslim Brotherhood who call Christians heretics and who were responsible for attacks against Christian businesses and churches and homes. But Morsi also created a hostile environment. One of his key clerics during Easter called upon Muslims not to say happy Easter to their Christian neighbors cause that would be unIslamic. So under Morsi, Christians suffered and they’ve been leaving the country in droves ever since.

    ABERNETHY: And still are.
    SEELYE: And still are.
    ABERNETHY: Kate Seelye of the Middle East Institute. Many thanks to you.
    SEELYE: Thank you so much.

    Not much Mideast left for Turkey to fight on

    by CİHAN ÇELİK
    cihan.celik@hdn.com.tr From Hurriyet Daily News, July 14, 2013
     
    Not much Mideast left for Turkey to fight on   
    Amazed by the ultimate dream of establishing neo-colonial, or neo-Ottoman, dominance in the Middle East through satellite and supposedly loyal Islamist regimes in the region, the Turkish government still failed to acknowledge that its regional police drive in the “post-Arab Spring” era has been shattered by the political backlash in regional countries.

    Unfazed by the ramifications of fast-changing “real politik” in the Middle East, Turkey is still making plans to reinstate its Islamist allies in Egypt at the expense of engaging in a standoff with both its key Western and Arab partners, such as the United States and Saudi Arabia.

    Actually, the self-denial in Turkish foreign policy did not start with the ouster of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in Egypt; it was triggered by its arrogant stance on the crisis in Syria. It was just bad timing for Turkey that the military junta in Egypt took over the tainted rule of Morsi with the coup creating a regional scene in which Turkey has become increasingly alone due to its reluctance to see a behind-the-doors setting for Syria.

    Despite the raging civil war and its catastrophic outcome, Syria has lately fallen back in the regional priorities of Turkish regional policy seemingly due to the crisis that cost Ankara an ally in Egypt. However, that was also not a choice made voluntarily since Turkey wanted to shelve the crisis in Syria after the developments that brought more lifelines to President Bashar al-Assad.

    The U.S.-Russian deal that does not rule out keeping al-Assad in charge and the never-ending saga on having the Syrian regime and opposition forces at the negotiation table shrouded Turkey’s sight. In the meantime, Ankara has lost a major ally in the task of “saving Syria,” as the Qatari royal family has witnessed an unexpected handover of the top seat with the tiny Gulf nation’s self-proclaimed “liberal” emir “willingly” ceding power to his heir apparent son.

    The change in the command of the Qatari dynasty has never been linked to the emir’s staunch backing of the Syrian armed rebels, but the handover obviously was not willing, instead imposed by foreign actors, most likely Riyadh and Washington, due to the outgoing emir’s failure to see the changing balances in the Syrian crisis. The Turkish stance has also echoed the emir’s failure, while the unexpected move by the Egyptian military, which is thought to be tamed and restrained under the might of Islamist rulers, was in fact a wake-up call for senior Turkish officials that the waves in the region have been shifting tides to another one.

    With lingering plans for a “saving – actually Morsi – Egypt” task, the Turkish government seemed to be doing damage control in a recent meeting involving the foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, and his envoys in Middle Eastern countries. The meeting gave the first sign that the Turkish government has started to realize that it needs a tactical game changer regarding its post-Arab Spring policy in the region, which would also mean that Ankara appeared to accept the defeat of its neo-Ottoman dream through the Islamist alliance. Otherwise, the outcome for Turkey would be far worse and the blow would bring eventual isolation with Ankara finding itself alone on fronts deserted by rival camps long ago.

    What to do with 'Political Islam'

    MUSTAFA AKYOL
    akyol@mustafaakyol.org Hurriyet Daily News


    What to do with ‘political Islam’        

    The term “political Islam” has been a dominant theme in Middle Eastern politics for a couple of decades. With the recent military coup in Egypt, and the political tension in Turkey, it has become, once again, the focus of attention. People ask whether political Islam is dead or triumphant, or moderating itself, or getting more radical.

    Finding an answer is not that easy, but here I will share some thoughts. Firstly, “political Islam” is actually a very vague term, and it may correspond to very different realities. This is because the influence of Islam on politics, which is the issue, can take very different forms. The Quran really does not give you a definition of a state, or a blueprint of an ideology, but only political values such as “justice” or “consultation.” How people understand these values and build a political vision on them very much depends on non-religious factors, such as their context and mindset.

    Authoritarian minds, for example, build a very authoritarian “political Islam.” When they read in the Quran that good Muslims should regularly pray, they go and establish “religious police” to make sure that people do pray. A liberal Muslim mind, however, would say that praying is his personal duty to God, and none of anybody else’s business. (The Quranic injunction to “command the right and forbid the wrong” can similarly be interpreted in authoritarian or liberal ways, as I show in my book, “Islam without Extremes.”)

    The main problem with modern-day political Islam is that it has almost always flourished within political cultures that already happen to be authoritarian. That is why the non-Islamic ideological movements in the same places have been quite authoritarian as well. Just look at the secularists of Turkey, Tunisia or Iran: They all have a history of banning the Islamic headscarf, which makes them the perfect mirror image of the Islamists who impose the headscarf. (Even some of the “liberals” of this part of the world have been authoritarian, just like some of the ones in Cairo’s Tahrir Square who have been cheerfully applauding a bloody military coup.)

    The matter, then, is not how to suppress “political Islam,” or forcefully secularize Muslim societies, but how to liberalize the political culture of societies that happen to be Muslim. (Or Russian, Chinese, Burmese - you name it.)

    In my view, there are two major ways for this: First, promote the market economy, and thus economic development, which will empower the middle class, which will inevitably become liberal-leaning. This chance is already taking place in Turkey.

    Second, help save conservative Muslims from the sense of being besieged. In other words, do not occupy or bomb their countries, or launch military coups against their political parties. Welcome them to the democratic game, and keep the rules fair.

    The much-expected “war of ideas” will take place, in a fruitful way, only within a liberalism-friendly context.
    Even then, you will still have many problems with hubris, machismo, paranoia, and mere inanity, as is seen in Turkey. But do not forget that such problems exist almost everywhere in the world. And, also, please do not forget that the evolution of “political Christianity” from the tyranny of the Spanish Inquisition to the liberalism of Martin Luther King did not happen overnight.

    The (Impossible) Alternative

    Looking at world situations, especially those in the Middle East, it is easy to become discouraged. What kind of positive impressions pop up when we have such grim news? Civil war... endless bombings... unrelenting cruelty...

    It all seems impossible ... until we remember that there is an alternative. It's costly and probably impossible in our own strength.

    Jesus ... Yeshua... Isa... However you wish to pronounce his name came with another approach. His is not the fanfare of trumpets, of PR spin and living on the back of popularity contests. Instead, his direct approach cuts deep.

    "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Matthew 20:25-28

    The Great Reversal ! Who actually wants to become a servant? or a slave? Who wants to give his / her life for others?

    Here's the alternative. How many kingdoms (empires) fell in the last 100 years? (Count them: Belgian, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, German, Turkish, Italian, Russian, Japanese and English - eleven empires)

    How long has the Other Kingdom, the Kingdom of the Great Reversal been overcoming the very gates of hell?

    Living it out, in prayer, meditation, quiet servant-hood,  humble generosity and unquenchable joy - that's the impossible alternative!