BROTHERS IN BLOOD:
Unclear Intentions or Dangerous Complacency?
Analysis and Commentary
Jay B Gaskill
Attorney at Law
Militant Islam is a toxic assault on Western civilization so serious and multi-focal that, unchecked, it will eventually drive the West in to a corner from which only two options will present themselves: suicide or general war.
In every such historic moment there are Churchillian voices that, if only they are heard and heeded, can avert the worst outcomes. But the ambivalence and naiveté of the New York Times AND the seeming naiveté of this administration is a very dangerous sign.
Imagine, if you will, that the year is 1932 and the major newspaper of the day runs the following header:
As Hitler’s National Socialist Group rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear
Please compare today’s New York Times:
As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear
By Scott Shane
“We demand that this regime is overthrown, and we demand the formation of a national unity government for all the factions,” the Brotherhood said in a statement”
Allow me to digress for a reality check.
The Muslim Brotherhood was formed by Al-Banna, a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler. Al-Banna strongly supported the new Nazi Party. The Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. One goal of the Third Reich was to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside Egypt. The Nazi-Islamist nexus was well known at the time and ran deep. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims fought for Nazi Germany in Waffen SS Divisions, serving in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the Balkans, North Africa, Nazi-occupied areas of the Soviet Union, and the Middle East.
Now examine the New York Times’ take:
“The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is the oldest and largest Islamist movement in the world, with affiliates in most Muslim countries and adherents in Europe and the United States. Its size and diversity, and the legal ban that has kept it from genuine political power in Egypt for decades, make it hard to characterize…
“The Brotherhood includes both practical reformers and firebrand ideologues.
Which of those tendencies might rise to dominance in a new Egypt is under intense discussion inside the Obama administration, where officials say they may be willing to consult with the Brotherhood during a political transition.
“…Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “So if we’re talking about counterterrorism, engaging with the Brotherhood will advance our interests in the region (because of its competition with al Qaeda)”
“Mr. Hamid said the Muslim Brotherhood’s deep hostility to Israel — which reflects majority public opinion in Egypt — would pose difficulties for American policy. Its conservative views on the rights of women and intolerance of religious minorities are offensive by Western standards. But he said that the group was far from monolithic…”
Today’s “experts” on the “Brotherhood” seem to be divided along a convergent set of three fracture lines:
[a] Those who remember the communist party’s use of front groups and faux democratic initiatives as a strategic pose, and those who do not;
[b] Those who are strongly confident in the moral value of the essential tenets and principles that support and define modern western civilization and those who are ambivalent and confused about the stakes;
[c] Those who think that our civilization can survive by merely existing in a bubble, without an active and proactive defense.
Given the undisputable history of Islamic fundamentalism, the fact that the “brotherhood” has never been associated with any other ideology, and the Brotherhood’s own history (including its collaboration with Hitler and its support of the holocaust), I am compelled to conclude that Mr. Hamid’s comments belong in one or more of the following categories:
The deliberate dissimulation by a closet Islamist
The deluded product of a deeply misguided mind, infected by the marriage of multiculturalism and moral relativism
The product of a mind so saturated with naiveté that it hides a death wish – not for Mr. Hamid, but for Western civilization.
The New York Times, again —
“…the Brotherhood formally renounced violence as a means of achieving power in Egypt. The group did not, however, reject violence in other circumstances, and its leaders have endorsed acts of terrorism against Israel and against American troops in Iraq.
“But even among specialists, the degree of uncertainty about the Brotherhood’s future is striking. Several admitted they could not say for sure whether participation in government would have a moderating effect on the group, or whether moderation might prove to have been a convenient false front to be cast off if the group attained real power.
….and (surprise!) the Times’ piece concludes with ambivalence.
“Ms. Wickham, of Emory… admitted that after 20 years of studying the group, whose internal deliberations are secret, … found it difficult to predict what it might do after Mr. Mubarak left power. Is the Brotherhood willing to be one party among equals in Egyptian politics, or is it merely biding its time before seeking a monopoly? The answer is elusive, Ms. Wickham said…”
We can readily acknowledge the fact that the USA needs to be perceived as treading lightly here, but that is no excuse for equivocation about the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Islamic group strongly linked to extremist fundamentalists.
Democracy in a setting like Egypt cannot withstand a full-on attack by militant, authoritarian Islamists who are fanatically committed to achieving the vision of an all powerful theocracy by any means necessary.
Would we allow criminal gangs of drug dealers a “place at the table” in grade school politics? To even hint, as this administration already has, that the USA wants to be in conversation with a ruthless opponent of Western democracy, a psychological clone of the mendacious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is read as weakness.
In fact it is weakness: in moral awareness, in prudence and yes, in courage.
The projection of American ambivalence does nothing to strengthen the sober and rational forces within the Egyptian military who have – quite properly – kept the ruthless forces of radical Islam under control…so far.
Not everyone gets to bring an allegedly “tamed” lion to a picnic that children will attend. And the least reliable reassurances of good behavior will come from the beast itself or its handlers or apologists.
What are we in the West defending? If you haven’t already done so, it is now time to download and read, Creativity & Survival, still posted at — http://jaygaskill.com/CreativityAndSurvival.pdf .