"could inject restrictions on women, alcohol, dress, and the relations between mosque and state."
Tom quotes a "reform party leader" as saying:
“We as secular forces prefer to have some time to consolidate our parties. We must thank the army for the role it played. But it was our revolution, not a coup d’état. ... If there are fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood will only get 20 percent.”
Let me get this straight: September elections will not be "fair" because they will come too soon and bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power?
Tom goes on to say:
"[I]t is important that senior U.S. officials engage quietly with the generals and encourage them to take heed of the many Egyptian voices that are raising legitimate concerns about a premature runoff."
In other words, Obama should plead with the Egyptian general staff to delay the vote?
What makes Friedman think that if the so-called "liberal" parties are given time to organize that they will be able to garner a larger number of representatives in the new Egyptian parliament? Perhaps he should pay attention to the statistics released by the Pew Research Center in December 2010 (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/):
"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt . . . say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion."
Could it be that the "Arab Spring" is already behind us and that we are soon to witness a Middle East ice age? One thing is clear: Friedman has been mugged by reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment