The Underdog
Any opposition is good opposition - or so they believe.
The usual suspects are at it again (h/t wretchard):The Egyptian opposition daily Al-Masryoon reported that high-level diplomatic sources said that Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef, several members of his office, and Muslim Brotherhood MPs had been invited by U.S. Democrat congressmen to visit the U.S. next month and to speak to Congress.
Let's see here: Congress is planning to bypass foreign policy - nothing new - with regard to Egypt and thus jeopardise relations with Mubarak - who so happens to be one of the few Middle Eastern leaders not seeking direct confrontation and displaying belligerence towards Israel and the US. Never mind that it blatantly violates the Constitution, or that every deceitful measure intended to be implemented by Congress desecrates the sacred document even further.
What do the Democrats have to say to justify this? Do they suddenly believe in democracy again, while threatening to abandon Iraq altogether on another front? What they intend to achieve with engaging with the Brotherhood - the overthrow of Mubarak would precipitate an about-face in Egyptian foreign policy that would spell trouble for Israel as it did during Nasser's reign.
This is so replusively typical of the progressivists: always side with the underdog against the hegemon. Democrats are willing to support just about any entity if it means equality in power-sharing - never mind that it undermines national sovereignty, democracy and civilisation itself. They tend to miss the irony that the Brotherhood is an enormous entity that spans across Nations and borders - not exactly the underdog.
Or perhaps the fact that the Brotherhood is a transnational entity that they figured it would serve their progressivist ideals best.
If, however, the Brotherhood has actually fabricated rumours in hopes that Congress would interpret this initiative taken by the opposition in Egypt as an invitation towards diplomacy that conveniently bypasses the highest levels of representation and government, then I must say, the Brotherhood has been paying close attention to the antics of this warped legislature and the Democrats' "new foreign policy" - or lack thereof. Defeatocrats have assured radical Islamist groups across the Middle East that the latter will not be judged on their murderous intentions - even if those are directed at the West - but instead be given a chance to defend their principles, all for the sake of relativism. Now isn't that true democracy in practice?
Egyptian-Israeli relations have consistently been rather tenuous - that is the stable status quo, a mainstay of Middle Eastern politics vis-a-vis Israel. It is helpful, however, to take a retrospective glance back in the 1960s when Nasser's reluctance to eject UNEF in Sinai - Egypt had the sovereign right to remove UNEF forces from its border with Israel and in Gaza - factored in heavily in the dynamics that avoided an earlier crisis. Nasser then was fearful that without UNEF, it would have no reason not to take a more belligerent stance towards Israel, thus it would be goaded towards war by other Middle Eastern regimes, especially Syria.
Nasser knew very well that Egypt's military was nowhere near on par with the IDF, and probably suspected Syrian motives: an IDF victory would render Egypt humiliated and in shambles, the Arab street would look towards Syria as its leader, and Nasser's reign would almost surely come to an end. Nasser could not possibly guarantee that Egypt would successfully come to Syria's defence and defeat the IDF - there was the fear of the domino effect in the region, resulting in the collapse of Ba'ath regimes. Thus, Nasser sought caution in crisis management despite constant haranguing by Syria for being incapable of upholding the Palestinians' "right of return".
Egypt under Mubarak has maintained a relatively moderate foreign policy that is more amenable to Israeli and US interests in the Middle East as compared to belligerent states like Syria and Iran who are attempting to reclaim the mantle of Arab nationalism - with Ahmadinejad seeking to replicate what Nasser attempted to do: to become a modern-day Salah al-Din and unite all Arabs against Israel. The consistencies are eerily familiar: Syria exporting terrorism and funding the Palestinian cause in Palestine, and in Jordan in hopes of overthrowing the Hashemite monarchy that was accused of collaborating with the Mossad and the US. Iran has stepped into the fold and relieves some of the financial burden by contributing to the survival and propagation of aQ and Shiite radical groups. In this continuing atmosphere of tension and pressure to pander to the Arab street, Egypt and Jordan are under constant besiegement from:
Have Democrats factored these considerations in before they decided to embark on another foreign policy initiative of which the sensitivities and repercussions seem lost on them? Mubarak and King Abdullah are the more rational individuals in seeking more amicable ties with Israel and the US - to attempt to subvert their sovereignties by pandering to their opposition groups and carrying out diplomacy of dubious intent reeks of an agenda of coup-planning for all the wrong reasons.
If the Defeatocrats are dead-set on embracing every belligerent Middle Eastern regime as an example of its flexibility of foreign policy and appeasement strategy, and if they believe turning every other regime amenable to Israeli and US interests into disarray such that they become more easily exploitable and manipulable as proxy battlegrounds from which to export terrorism more effectively, then one must wonder how long before the American public decides to convict Congress of treason.
Labels:
Egypt,
Transnational Progressivism,
U.S.
1 spoke up:
Just got to the MB and the Rep. Hoyer visit and why it was a bad idea. Apparently folks on the D side have forgotten that there is a difference between being in opposition and moving over to the other side. It is one thing to disagree about policy, but quite another to work with the Enemy. And no matter how you look at it, the MB is the Enemy, along with quite some number of others.
Post a Comment