Gaza: Blueprint for Muslim Brotherhood Rule?
These are just a few of the many incidents of harassment by the authorities in Gaza of civil society organizations, media, and political organizations.
Alongside this erosion of the public space, Hamas has been pursuing a policy of gradual Islamization in Gaza. In 2008, the Gaza authorities voted to approve an Islamic penal code. The new code includes punishments such as flogging and chopping off hands for various offenses. The Gaza Public Prosecution office has been replaced by a body based on Shari’a law.
An officially supported “public modesty” campaign has been under way since 2009. This has included the harassment of unaccompanied women, or women not dressed according to Islamic standards of modesty. The Hamas authorities also routinely fail to investigate “honor killings” of females by their relatives in Gaza, which are thought to have increased sharply since the Hamas coup.
All this is of more than local significance. The Hamas regime in Gaza may well be a harbinger of future regional developments. Hamas rule in Gaza, after all, is the only real-world example to date of the Muslim Brotherhood in government. And the Muslim Brotherhood is emerging as the main beneficiary of the eclipse of military-nationalist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and perhaps soon in Syria. The indicators are not encouraging. Hamas achieved its oppressive Gaza fiefdom through the judicious combination of victory in elections and subsequent violent repression.
Nearly six years after its 2006 election victory, Hamas rules in Gaza by fear, the suppression of opposition, and the unilateral imposition of a draconian Islamic legal code. Rather than theorizing about whether power will moderate the Brotherhood, Western policymakers would do better to observe closely the only existing example of the organization in power which currently exists. The Hamas regime in Gaza is a portent of the likely Middle East future unless a rational policy to hold back the advance of the Muslim Brotherhood is achieved.
I remember sitting in a Ramallah cafe in ’08 (while doing research on moderation/radicalism), watching on TV as Hamas brutally beat people protesting their takeover in Gaza. My thought at the time was ‘it’s only a matter of time before the West Bank is next’. I still believe this to be true, but I did not foresee at that time that Hamas would be merging with a larger entity in the greater Muslim world.
And for those who would hesitate to conflate Hamas (more brutal) with the Brotherhood Islamists of the ‘Arab Spring’(less brutal) – the comparison I’d offer is of the PLO, who consistently disavowed ties or responsibility for the more ‘radical’ wing of their own group who would carry out the murderous attacks on schoolchildren, etc.
Sorry – that was June/July of ’07, during the Hamas takeover of Gaza – finished and defended research in ’08, so it’s all a blur.
I am just trying to understand why you think Hamas is less brutal than the Brotherhood. They’re murdering Christians and opposition in droves.
The MB is not murdering anyone let alone in droves.
“The MB is not murdering anyone let alone in droves.”
Please tell that to the Coptic Christians. The muslim brotherhood may not be as blatant about its motives as boko haram, but the objectives are just the same. If you really can’t do better than to make excuses for the islamists, why say anything? Aut tace, aut loquere meliora silentio.
Please source one single instance of the MB being responsible for Coptic deaths in Egypt. Just one. You’ll find that the deaths of Christians in the last 20 years are by disorganized mobs loosely affiliated with Salafis.
There is no doubt the MB has disdain and perhaps even a form of hatred for Christians when it comes to the idea of Copts being full equals but laying death at their door compromises your own position. Tell it true if you have a truth. When you hunt shoot the deer and not the trees.
Huh? The point I’m making is that Hamas (jihadism) and the Brotherhood (Islamism) are different tactical arms of the same movement – each using the other for plausible deniability, the way that the PLO and its military (i.e., terroristic) arms played off one another during the seventies.
What we are seeing are a bunch of inkblots (various Islamist/Jihadist movements throughout the world) allying and merging with one another – at an alarming rate. And the recent revelations of AQ/Iran cooperation show that there is no real Sunni/Shia split when it comes to the Islamist/Jihadist war against the West.
Chop off all Gazans’ hands! Allah wills it (poopy be upon him).
I guess you get what you vote for. Unfortunately for those in the Gaza Strip, there won’t ever be a fair chance to unelect.
As long as what the Muslim Brotherhood has in mind for those who do not wish to say the Muslim statement of confession in Arabic, is as far removed from the following lines of Shakespeare, there is nothing new under the Sun:
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.
Last night I attended a talk by Stephen Coughlin of the Strategic Engagement Group. He is a nationally recognized expert who has briefed many high-level officials. All is not sweetness and light with the Muslim Brotherhood, and he points to many authoritative sources to make this point. Often, there is the issue of vocabulary. For example, when folks like the Ground Zero Mosque imam says he wants peace, his definition of “peace” is probably to have everyone live under Islam. In many documents, specific Muslim countries and the OIC defer to Islamic (Sharia) law. This includes the declaration of human rights and statement against terrorism the OIC filed with the United Nations. Coughlin also noted that Islam is a religion (protected under the First Amendment) and a way of life (perhaps in conflict with Article 8 of the Constitution), and it is important to see both aspects.
Re the vocabulary, there are quite a few words that don’t mean exactly the same in Muslim context as they do in Western context. For instance, arrogance means man-made law, as opposed to god’s law. Given that god gave his law to humanity, it is arrogant of man to create his own law, like assigning to himself a godly status or placing himself above god. A Muslim can use the word ‘arrogance’ in the same meaning we do, but when Ahmedinejad calls the US or the West “the global arrogance” he means it in the Muslim sense. Likewise oppression has a different meaning than what we consider oppression. Humans are supposed to be ruled only by god and not by other humans. Of course, god may have “representatives” on earth, but the function of the human ruler is to carry out god’s law. A ruler that rules by his own law is an oppressor since it means a human that rules over other humans. In this sense democracy is an oppressive system. A devout Muslim that rules faithfully according to sharia law is not an oppressor, no matter how oppressive this system may look to us.
As for Islam being a way of life, I think it’s more important to see its political aspects. Buddhism can also be considered a way of life, but isn’t problematic in a democratic context. A way of life practiced by an individual usually isn’t problematic. The problems begin with the aspiration for the state to be ruled by sharia law and the imposition of this way of life on other individuals against their will.
Pnina, I think we largely agree but would address the “political” versus “way of life” issue. Religions do include guidelines for life that are often private or personal. Not so with Islam. Sharia Law is pervasive and governs public institutions. Our Constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land – Sharia would be in direct conflict with this.
“…his definition of ‘peace’ is probably to have everyone live under Islam.”
You’ve hit it right on the head: when the MB talks of Christians in Egypt being “protected,” they mean as long as it is understood this “protection” is under the “benevolent” umbrella of Islam. You can forget about a Bill of Rights accompanying the next Egyptian constitution which will probably look at lot like the last constitution: sharia inspired and with the understanding that Islam is the religion of the land and with top priority.
This is not only the MB and their inspiration Sayd Quib from the ’60s that say this about “protection” but has been the way of Islam whenever it can manage it which in history has been most of the time. When Islam couldn’t and when India gained independence many Muslims couldn’t stomach the idea of living in a Hindu dominated country and so Pakistan was created.
The funny thing about Islam’s hatred of Zionism is that the middle east is made up of de facto Zionist states, merely with a different religion.
It’s not just that Muslims couldn’t stomach living in a Hindu state – their religion forbids it.
Just curious, where was it that Mr. Coughlin spoke? Three years ago I attended a 2 day seminar where he spoke along with General Jerry Boykin and had the pleasure of having dinner with both men. Frightening how so many are blind or intentionally ignorant to the threat before the world. I wish many more could hear their story.
You are mischaracterizing what happened in Gaza by suggesting Hamas took control by means of the vote and projecting the same thing onto Egypt.
First of all, comparing 1.6 million people with a country of 85 million is problematic for a start. Aside from that, Hamas and Fatah engaged in a civil war and it is that civil war that brought Hamas to uncontested and undemocratic power and not the elections.
You are suggesting that once the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has control of half of parliament that this will pave the way for their takeover. The problem is that people who say this always fail to describe the exact mechanism by which this transition from democracy to an MB dictatorship would take place.
The reason for this is that there is no correlation; the MB would have to abandon parliament and bowing to political reality in favor of seizing power; in short, the vote would have meant nothing and aided the MB in no way. Should the MB seize power it would have next to nothing to do with being voted into parliament and that is where the falsehood resides. So, if the MB had such means to seize power at their disposal they wouldn’t need parliamentary seats to do so but would’ve already done so.
The MB hasn’t already done so because they can’t and they know they can’t. The best they can do is compromise and work through law. Yes they will do everything in their power to bring their agenda to the fore but this idea that the MB will simply have naked power ignores the make up of the revolution a year ago.
Now that Egyptians understand how to fight they will not tolerate a Hamas-style dictatorship. Even should the MB seize power with the help of the army they would then be in the same position Mubarak was: using massive live fire on Egyptians which Mubarak chose not to do. For the MB to attempt to seize power would almost certainly be the end of the MB in Egypt and destroy the credibility of the MB around the middle east.
Your rationale is slightly myopic. A far more radical group holds a smaller percentage of the power now in Egypt and could easily merge with MB; besides surveys show that the vast majority of Egyptians would favor Sharia Law. You optimism is admirable but unrealistic.
The MB and salafi parties are not natural allies, contrary to the temptation there is to simply lump them together. Egyptians are Muslims – why wouldn’t they favor Sharia law? I don’t see the portrayal as optimistic but realistic and the ideas bruited about that oppose this reality as not only cynical but without any basis for their claims other than an eternal disdain for anything that happens in Egypt that doesn’t favor Israel or make them look like George Washington. There are just a few other scenarios in the world than those you favor and the view of the world from inside Egypt is one of them. Get used to it cuz it’ll never change.
“…transition from democracy to an MB dictatorship …”
What democracy? Did the media concealed that fact?
The problem with your assessment is that it is based on western values. Who said that the MB will have to face reality? Why do you think they care about the people? Learn what’s happened in Afghanistan under Sharia law, or at the Gaza strip (by reading this article, for example). They’ve used children, I repeat: children, as human shields. That is, they took kids with them when crossing the street, shot missiles from civilian residence and schools, and so on. After all this, you think they care? that they’ll have different values? Different law?
You want to give it a try? try it at home first, and don’t be brave on other people’s account.
I won’t advice you to go and live there under MB rule. That’s simply because I don’t want your life on my conscience.
Just keep in mind that they’ve said the same about Hitler. Worked fine, didn’t it?
The democracy that is blooming in Egypt. Not being on board with it is not the same thing as saying it doesn’t exist. Get used to the idea of people in other countries voting in ways you don’t agree with. This doesn’t nullify the vote except in your own mind.
As for reality, it should be obvious that reality will for the MB to do this – what else is there? The idea the radicals are impervious to reality flies in the face of the fact that the hostages were released in Iran when Reagan took office; in others words they didn’t want to be invaded.
What does the MB in Egypt have to do with Afghanistan or Gaza? If you have an argument to make about the MB in Egypt then make it.
And what is this MB rule you’re talking about? Where is it, how will it occur; by wishful thinking because you hope for failure in Egypt? The MB has 127 and the salafis 97 lower list seats in Parliament. And to you this involvement in politics signifies the exact opposite and not kowtowing to reality? Do you ever actually read what you write?
‘Democracy blooming in Egypt’
My guess is that you haven’t been to Egypt. I was there shortly before the ‘revolution’ – stayed a couple of blocks away from Tahrir Square. When people in Egypt talked to me about the Ikwan (MB), they looked around and spoke in a whisper – afraid of who would hear them. The degree of societal control that the Brotherhood had in Egypt (even pre-revolution) was frightening. And the degree to which it was a police state was also frightening. The police are brutal (when someone is suspected of some infraction a common tactic is to grab one of their relatives and beat them – sometimes to death, to insure cooperation), corrupt (I was in a car that was pulled routinely over by a police officer for no infraction – just to collect a bribe to be able to drive on), and watch one’s every move (the lack of freedom of information in Egypt is frightening). Now the societal control will become even more official (before the ‘democracy blooming’ the control by the MB was unofficial – but very powerful) – to whit, the talk of new restrictions on the tourist industry, etc. And the police state will be intertwined with the MB in a way that was not possible before the ‘blooming of democracy’ took place.
Your guess is wrong as I was in Egypt before, during and after the revolution. I am here now. I find your portrayal of life in Egypt so wrong I don’t even recognize it. How does your portrayal of fear of the MB jibe with them getting so many votes? It doesn’t.
Fear of Mubarak was palpable before the revolution but if in the end the Egyptians weren’t speaking in whispers but shouting for his downfall, why would they be afraid of the MB or to confront the MB should they feel it necessary? They aren’t.
There is no de facto societal control by the MB and things are freer not worse and to whatever extent they are the same it is because of the army. The MB has no power to put people in jail nor will they when Parliament is seated. You have a very strange understanding of how such things work.
Egypt has gone to a police state to possibly the freest elections in their history – that’s blooming relatively speaking. So it’s not Thomas Jefferson, we all know that. The problem in viewing these things from the West is that we see the MB as having a depraved value system. The populace of Egypt doesn’t exactly see it that way and just because we disagree with that doesn’t mean it’s not democratic. The MB and salafis got almost 70% of the vote and that’s that.
Everyone is giving the MB credit for being far more powerful in a bullish way that they simply are not. The MB couldn’t stage the revolution on their own nor could they seize power on their own. If they could they would have. The notion the MB has to play politics is for some reason seen as not playing politics in what is pure “doublethink.”
I question whether the MB will do anything to the tourist industry but if they do, so what – that’s Egypt. As long as they aren’t doing it in Delaware why would anyone outside of Egypt care? Let ‘em torch their own economy and be voted out of office or worse, panic, try and seize power and have another revolution that will put the MB right next to Mubarak, in prison and in court and out of power.
The world is in for a big shock when the Islamists have a few years in control. The virulent anti-human rights policies of the “religion of peace” will be especially horrific for women and children. Lying to non-Muslims is the norm,so we will soon see the true nature of their hatred turned against us as well.
The people of Gaza deserve everything that’s coming to them. Maybe after a few years of oppression, random beatings and economic implosion they will learn the harsh lessons that other Islamic countries such as Iran are learning –
Political Islam only leads to misery, tyrrany and destitution.
It was a tragedy for those in Gaza that Israel withdrew from it.
It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood has done quite well in final election results in Egypt. Them and a related radical group. Things are getting more interesting in the Mid East daily, but not happier.
thats not good….
Nice to see we were on the same page on the Gaza withdrawal. I relcal feeling like a voice crying in the wilderness in my support for it. Sharon counted on the heedless bloodlust of the Pals and they didn’t let him down. It drove a stake through the heart of ‘land for peace.’ And then Hez volunteered to chop off its head and stuff garlic in its mouth. Even the Four Mothers have now been mugged by reality.
POu4AN rsaldolygnhf