|
Follow the Middle
East Forum
|
||||
Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your
area.
What to expect from Egypt's Morsi
What to make of Muslim Brotherhood candidate
Mohammed Morsi's election as president of Egypt? What seems to be the most
likely outcome is something analogous to the "constitutional
settlements" of the early Roman Empire. That is, the military, like the
Emperor Augustus in antiquity, will entrust to itself management of foreign
policy, while granting Morsi (and a parliament, if new elections are allowed)
- akin to the Senate in Rome - considerable autonomy with regards to the
direction of domestic affairs, even as the military has assumed control over
the drafting of the constitution.
Indeed, such a settlement would work well for
the military, because, despite its extensive control of the economy, the
burden of resolving the economic crisis would ultimately rest in Morsi's
hands. Currently, as
Reuters reports, the country's depleted foreign reserves can only cover
"three months of import coverage," while the local currency debt
has increased to 600 billion Egyptian pounds ($99 billion), up from 500
billion before the unrest began in January 2011.
The International Monetary Fund has indicated
that a $3.2 billion loan will only be granted if the country gets its
finances in order, but the prospects of such a resolution appear to be bleak.
Having Morsi take responsibility, therefore, can prove useful in directing
potential civilian anger away from the military. On the other hand, the
perception of a settlement between the military and the president could help
to attract foreign investment.
With the military managing foreign policy,
the chances of a full-blown war between Egypt and Israel are slim, despite
bellicose rhetoric emanating from some quarters of the Muslim Brotherhood
calling for the liberation of Jerusalem and establishment of a "United
Arab States." For one thing, Egypt lacks the means to launch and
sustain a war against Israel. At the same time, however, one should not
expect Egyptian firmness in dealing with rocket fire against the Jewish state
or militant activity in the Sinai Peninsula.
In fact, one could well see the military
adopt an approach toward militancy not dissimilar to the methods of the
Pakistani security forces: that is, targeting those perceived to pose a
direct threat to Egypt's stability, while lacking resolve at best, and at
worst playing a double game with other militants in order to continue
receiving U.S. aid.
As for the domestic scene, it is probable
that the Islamization trend that has been apparent over the past five or so
decades will not only continue but could also accelerate. When the likes of
Hosni Mubarak were in charge, the arrangement was such that Islamist ideology
was allowed to disseminate at ground level. Now that Egypt has an elected
Islamist president, it is to be expected that sentiments on the ground will
only become more hard-line.
Although it is easy to dismiss outlandish
claims that Morsi wants to reinstate the discriminatory jizya poll tax -
essentially the equivalent of a Mafia protection racket - on Christians (the
report is an uncorroborated
rumor that can be traced to one obscure Arabic website), there is
evidence that he would like to restrict the rights of non-Muslim minorities
and women. Just under half of voters chose Ahmed Shafiq, but that will not
act as a firm barrier against a gradualist approach to implementing Islamic
law that many in the Brotherhood see as the ideal strategy to adopt.
In
an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine last year,
Morsi made it clear that neither he nor the Brotherhood could tolerate the
idea of a Christian or woman running for the presidency of Egypt.
While much has been made of a recent
announcement by an advisor to Morsi that there are plans to appoint a
Copt and a woman as vice-presidents, it should be appreciated that such
positions are likely to be no more than symbolic. In fact, problems of
discrimination against non-Muslims and women will in all likelihood only
worsen under Morsi's presidency. Further, the spike in Salafist mob attacks
on Coptic churches since the ousting of Mubarak - attacks usually sparked by
the flimsiest rumors and trivialities - is unlikely to subside, and the
authorities will probably continue to do nothing about it.
In the long run, chaos and instability are
most likely to dominate the country's future. Unlike Iran, which has, since
the mid-1980s, implemented a major family planning program that has dramatically
slowed population growth, Egypt's population (83 million as of October 2011)
continues to grow. It
could reach 100 million by 2020, with more than 99 percent of the
population living on an area of land around the Nile only 2.5 times the size
of Israel.
Even assuming Egypt can escape from its
current economic crisis, there is no sign its economy can keep up with the
pace of population growth even to sustain present standards of living. The
Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists have on past occasions denounced
family planning as a Western conspiracy to keep the number of Muslims in
the world in check. They have shown no intention of implementing a program to
reduce the birth rate.
Egypt is unlikely to become a "Somalia
on the Nile" as economist and columnist David P. Goldman has
predicted, but in the long-term, internal stability is a remote possibility.
Update from June 29, 2012: Concerning
Egypt's economy and the Muslim Brotherhood's plans, Martin
Kramer summarizes the situation well:
The Muslim Brotherhood is in a bind, because
it has to deliver. For the masses of people who voted for the Muslim
Brotherhood, the revolution wasn't about democracy and freedom. It was about
bread and social justice.
The Brotherhood has a so-called
"Renaissance" plan for the overhaul of the Egyptian economy. I
won't pretend to judge its feasibility. Could modernization of tax collection
double or triple tax revenues? Can Egypt double the number of arriving
tourists, even while contemplating limits on alcohol and bikinis? Can a
renovation of the Suez Canal raise transit revenues from $6 billion a year to
$100 billion? Can Egypt's economy surpass the economies of Turkey and
Malaysia within seven years? These are all claims made at various times by
the economic thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood, who trumpet Egypt's supposed
potential for self-sufficiency.
To these big promises, one can add Morsi's
pledge to tackle congestion problems within the first 100 days of his
time in office.
Kramer goes on to suggest that the
Brotherhood will try to solicit aid from Gulf Arabs and the West, drawing
attention to remarks
made by Khairat El-Shater, the deputy supreme guide of the Brotherhood,
back in February, when he "strongly" advised Europeans and
Americans to "support Egypt during this critical period as compensation
for the many years they supported a brutal dictatorship."
However, the question of the Brotherhood's
relations with the U.S. and the West at large is a tricky issue. It should
not be forgotten that the Islamists have spent the past thirty years
attacking Mubarak and the establishment for supposedly being too close to the
U.S. and the West, and the popular sentiment in Egypt is deeply
anti-American.
That the military will continue to receive
Western aid is almost certain, but Kramer correctly notes that the
Brotherhood is trumpeting an image of self-reliance. A perception of economic
dependence on America and the West could backfire on the Brotherhood. This is
not like the North Korean regime that has a philosophy of autarky but can
portray its reliance on foreign aid as tribute to the greatness of the
nation.
As for the Gulf Arabs, let's just say that
they have frequently proven themselves to be remarkably stingy when it comes
to helping Muslim brothers in need. Saudi Arabia in particular is still
angered by the 'betrayal' of Mubarak (hence its uncompromising stance on
Bahrain).
* * *
Fawaz A. Gerges
appears to agree with my idea of a "constitutional settlement"
along the lines of the early Principate but with unfounded optimism
proclaims:
After decades of persecution and
incarceration, what is unfolding today clearly shows the weight and influence
of the Muslim Brothers, most of whom are centrist and modernist and accept
democratic values, in shaping the political future of their society…Arab
Islamists are traveling a similar path as did the Christian fundamentalists
and later the Christian Democrats and Euro-communists in Western Europe who
in the 20th century subordinated ideology to interests and political
constituencies.
As Jonathan
Schanzer aptly comments on Twitter: "Fawaz Gerges just slobbers all
over the Brotherhood here. Behold, the personification of MidEast studies
failures today."
Aymenn
Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and
an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum.
|
|||||
To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php |
Friday, June 29, 2012
Jawad in Ha'aretz: "What to expect from Egypt's Morsi"
Rusin in PJM: "Philadelphia and the Burqa Bandits"
Please
take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city
& country location. We will use this information in future to invite you
to any events that we organize in your area.
Philadelphia and the Burqa Bandits
Some scoff
at the idea that face-covering Islamic veils endanger
public safety in any Western nation, let alone the United States, but
Philadelphians do not have the luxury of blissful ignorance. As recent events
highlight, their city has become the American epicenter of robberies and
murders carried out by criminals disguised as fundamentalist Muslim women.
Several factors help explain Philadelphia's place at the forefront of this
trend. Will other U.S. cities be next?
The latest
wave of burqa banditry to target Philadelphia began at a branch of More
Bank in the East Oak Lane neighborhood two days before Christmas. Following
similar heists on January 6, March 14, March 20, and April 4, the
Philadelphia Police Department and FBI issued a wanted
flier for a pair
of black males in "Muslim-like clothing covering their heads and
bodies." Surveillance
images
indicate that the outfits include face veils (niqabs)
and "burqa-like robes," to quote one news
item, leaving just the eyes visible. The same Wells Fargo branch struck
on April 4 was then hit
again on April 13, after which Muslim groups offered
$20,000 for information leading to the perpetrators. No arrests or
further bank robberies have been reported.
The criminal applications of this attire also
were on display during an April 18 homicide at a
barbershop in Upper Darby, a township bordering West Philadelphia. Police
believe that a love triangle inspired Sharif Wynn to enter with a gun and
demand money from the barber, Michael Turner. Wynn insists that he merely
meant to scare the man, but officers say that he shot
Turner intentionally at point-blank range. The police superintendent has revealed
that the attacker was "dressed in Muslim female garb, was covered from
head to toe. The only thing that was showing was his eyes." Authorities identified
Wynn through interviews and his electronic trail.
Though assembling a complete history of
niqab-aided crimes is hindered by the unknown consistency of media reporting,
the seven incidents outlined above appear to be the most that the
Philadelphia area has suffered in any four-month period to date. However, the
city earned its reputation as a burqa banditry hot spot long before this
recent spike.
The worst
episode occurred on May 3, 2008, when three Muslim
men — two dressed in female Islamic apparel and face veils — held up a
Bank of America branch inside a supermarket in the Port Richmond section of
Philadelphia. Police Sergeant Stephen
Liczbinski gave chase, only to be shot to death by robber Howard Cain,
whom officers killed shortly thereafter. Cain's
accomplices were caught, convicted of murder, and sentenced to life.
The Philadelphia area endured many additional
cases between then and now. On November 16, 2009, a man
in a face veil attempted to rob a Bank of America location in the suburb
of Drexel Hill, but he left empty-handed after an employee played dumb; DNA
from a niqab discarded near the scene later led to an arrest. Other
unsuccessful perpetrators have included an armed
man in a "long black dress … and a hijab covering his head and face"
at a Sovereign Bank branch in the city's Mount Airy neighborhood on February
1, 2011, and a niqab-wearing
man at a branch of the same bank in Woodlynne, New Jersey, just across
the river from Philadelphia, on June 13, 2011.
Women have gotten into the act as well.
Police arrested Lashawnda
Jones in December 2010 following robberies of four TD Bank branches
within a 40-mile radius of Philadelphia during the prior two months. Though
Jones had sported a niqab in the earlier
heists, she used only a headscarf (hijab)
for the final
one, in which she lured tellers to the vault, brandished firearms, and
stole $103,000. Soon after showing her face, she was behind bars.
A blog
post by Middle East Forum president Daniel Pipes collects more examples
from the area. Similar cases throughout the West — including many in Europe
and a few others in North America — are listed too, but crimes of this nature
occur with surprising frequency in the City of Brotherly Love. "What is
it about Philadelphia, burqas, and robberies?" he wonders.
The demographics of Philadelphia, whose Muslim
population is among the largest in the U.S., make it particularly fertile
ground. While only a very small percentage of Philadelphians wear niqabs,
they are sufficiently
numerous to be seen with regularity. Desensitizing the public to this
radical attire opens many doors.
"Whatever happened to the mask?" a
local imam said
in response to recent crimes, referring to ski masks often employed by
robbers. Simply put, the increasing prevalence of face-cloaking Islamic garb
is rendering traditional masks obsolete. Both provide anonymity, but a niqab
grants the wearer access that a mask does not. Whereas spotting a masked
individual entering a bank or business strongly indicates a robbery, someone
in a niqab doing so may represent just another patch in Philadelphia's
multicultural quilt. Indecision about the wearer's motives — indeed, most
women in niqabs do not have criminal intent — buys crucial time for a heist
to unfold on the perpetrator's terms. The relatively common sight of niqabs,
as opposed to masks, also enables a robber to travel to the crime scene in
the same face-blocking apparel, further lowering the chances of being
identified.
Moreover, they take advantage of political
correctness, which cautions against scrutinizing people who don such clothes.
A 2009
article in Philadelphia magazine captures how this atmosphere
contributed to the robbery that left Sergeant Liczbinski dead: "To
Western eyes, two of them became hijabi — Muslim women who cover
themselves — by pulling on full-length black burqas. They became, in a sense,
invisible. The bank sat inside a busy supermarket, where shoppers would
surely notice the two monoliths moving among them; but just as surely, those
shoppers would pass by with eyes cast down, or aside, or beyond. They may be
drawn for a moment by the sheer otherness of the hijabi, but
would dependably look away with a twinge of awkward guilt for having
noticed." The journalist explains, "So complete were the robbers'
identities — so perfect their invisibility — that the store's security
cameras recorded the manager as he talked to an emergency dispatcher, and
walked out between two of the disguised figures," utterly oblivious to
them.
Islamists promote this cultural paralysis.
Case in point: the victimhood narrative pushed in the wake of the latest Philadelphia
robberies. One imam declared
them "a hate crime against Muslims," as they allegedly put Muslim
women "in danger of being stereotyped, victimized, and ostracized."
City Councilman Curtis Jones Jr. doubled
down on the persecution theme: "In many ways I'm reminded of the
shooting of Trayvon Martin, stereotyped because of a garment called a
hoodie." Ibrahim
Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
chimed in as well. "Islamophobes love to see this sort of thing, because
it gives them fuel to express their hatred," he claimed.
"Now they can say, 'See, this is why Muslim women shouldn't dress the
way they do.'"
Therefore, banks must run the gauntlet of
"Islamophobia" charges if they pursue a seemingly obvious remedy:
forbidding attire that hides customers' faces from security cameras.
Financial institutions nationwide have worked to deter more conventional
robberies, reportedly with some success, by
implementing dress
codes that ban
hats, hoods, and sunglasses, but Islamists have fought restrictions on
headgear. When disputes
arose several years ago over women being asked to remove
headscarves or be served
in alternate areas, CAIR characteristically demanded
more sensitive policies and issued dubious
calls for federal probes. Just as predictably, the banks and credit
unions tended to cave and exempt
hijabs. No doubt robbers note the deference toward Islam enforced by
Islamists — a phenomenon exacerbated in cities like Philadelphia with copious
Muslims and an aggressive CAIR chapter.
Many Philadelphia Muslims cover their hair,
so banks encounter substantial ambient pressure not to adopt rules that could
affect any religiously motivated garments. This author recently visited
branches of six major banks in Philadelphia and found only one — a PNC Bank
location — with a sign requesting that customers take off hats, hoods, and
sunglasses. (Coincidence or not, there is no record of PNC Bank being struck
by burqa bandits.) As if to dissuade others from launching similar policies,
Amara Chaudhry of CAIR-Philadelphia already
has bemoaned, in the words of an MSNBC.com
article, how a Muslim "was not allowed to enter the branch [of one
bank] before first removing her hijab, making her feel as naked as removing
her blouse and bra." CAIR officials have not specifically addressed
niqabs in banks or complained of women being denied service because of them,
but the year is still young.
How to proceed? The ultimate solution would
entail proscribing
face-covering apparel everywhere in public, as France
and Belgium
have done. Yet American banks enjoy plenty of leeway to ban it on their
premises right now, assuming that they ignore CAIR's specious threats and frequently
bogus
tales
of Muslim victimhood. The First Amendment may protect niqabs on the streets,
but banks are private entities and thus not bound by it. They also are not
listed in Title
II of the 1964 U.S.
Civil Rights Act among "places of public accommodation" where
religiously discriminating against clients is illegal — not that
faith-neutral dress codes are "discriminatory" anyway, regardless
of Islamists' pleas. In addition, though numerous states, including Pennsylvania,
have civil rights laws that are more expansive than the federal version, the
various requirements to accommodate religious practices of customers or employees are
not absolute and typically must be balanced against the hardships imposed on
others.
One can debate whether banks should tolerate
hijabs, which often obscure less of the face than hoodies or caps, but it is
inconceivable that banks are somehow obligated to welcome niqabs that
purposefully hide the face and burden others by undermining safety in a venue
where security is paramount. If ski masks are not permitted, niqabs should
not be either. Drawing the line with clear policies that prohibit all
criminal-friendly garments on bank property would be a significant step in
the appropriate direction — and almost certainly a legal one.
Legend has it that when the infamous Willie
Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, "Because that's
where the money is." If Philadelphia's niqab-clad outlaws were asked why
they disguise themselves as Muslim women, they might offer an equally
straightforward answer: because it works. So long as religious garb
resembling the dress of bandits proliferates and sensitivity toward it trumps
security, the stage is set for actual bandits to adopt such clothing for
their nefarious ends, just as terrorists regularly don
burqas and niqabs in Muslim-majority nations. (Fewer reports of veiled
robbers
emerge from the Islamic world, but one suspects that these crimes would be
less likely to reach Western media than high-profile terrorist attacks.)
Situated at the leading edge of this problem
in the U.S., Philadelphians have a special responsibility to find effective
solutions. Other American cities must stay alert as well, because the
ingredients that make Philadelphia a prime target exist elsewhere; Detroit
comes to mind. If Philadelphia manages to curtail the trend, its approach can
be a template for comparable cities to follow. But if it fails, criminals in
the country's niqab-heavy metropolitan areas may soon thank the trailblazing
burqa bandits of Philadelphia for having provided a successful model of their
own.
Related Topics: Head
Coverings / Dress, Legal,
Lobby Groups,
Mosques /
Imams, Multiculturalism,
Police / FBI
| David
J. Rusin This text
may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole
with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication,
and original URL.
|
|||||
To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.islamist-watch.org/list_subscribe.php
|
6-29-12: ObamaCare becomes ObamTAX (Rubio, Levin, Rush, O’Reilly, and Varney Respond)
|
||
|
||
Click here to sign up for FSM's e-mail updates! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)