Nicholas Kristof, "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home": Another Useful Idiot

Walter Duranty was a journalist who served as the Moscow bureau chief of the New York Times from 1922 through 1936 and received a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his stories in 1931 on the Soviet Union. Exalting Stalin, Duranty denied the existence of famine in the Soviet Union, which resulted in the deaths of some 10 million people between 1931 and 1932.

Fast forward to 2009: Columnist Roger Cohen sought to indoctrinate New York Times readers that Iran is "not totalitarian" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02cohen.html).

Today, Nicholas Kristof wishes to convince us that the US has nothing to fear from Egypt's ascendant Muslim Brotherhood. In his latest New York Times opinion piece "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/kristof-joining-a-dinner-in-a-muslim-brotherhood-home.html?hp#comments), Kristof describes his chatter over dinner with an educated, 24-year-old hostess, who seeks to allay Western anxiety over the Brotherhood's goals. Kristof concludes:

"Revolutions are often messy, and it took Americans seven years from their victory in the American Revolution at Yorktown to get a ratified Constitution. Indonesia, after its 1998 revolution, felt very much like Egypt does today. It endured upheavals from a fundamentalist Islamic current, yet it pulled through.

So a bit of nervousness is fine, but let’s not overdo the hand-wringing — or lose perspective. What’s historic in Egypt today is not so much the rise of any one party as the apparent slow emergence of democracy in the heart of the Arab world."

Having read Kristof this morning, I am trying to keep my breakfast down.

Notwithstanding the assurances of Kristof's enchanting hostess, consider a June 8, 2011 interview published by the Egyptian daily Al-Shorouq (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/5404.htm), in which Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawy, a former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in the West, stated:

"There will be no contradictions. Our thinking and our affiliation are to the exalted Allah. Our affiliation is to Islam. The global state of Islam is our ideal."

Reflect upon a June 11, 2011 article on the Muslim Brotherhood's Website (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/5432.htm), which declared:

"[However,] we must not impose Islamic shari'a, forcing the people to adopt something about which they are ignorant and with which they are unfamiliar... If we do this, [various] ploys will be used to circumvent it, and there will be hypocrisy. [People] will exhibit Islamic [behavior] only outwardly...

. . . .

"There is no other way but gradual action, preparing the [people's] souls and setting an example, so that faith will enter their hearts... Gradual action does not impose Islam at once, but rather step by step, in order to facilitate understanding, studying, acceptance, and submission."

Listen to a February 7, 2011 interview with Kamal Al-Hilbawi, former speaker of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, on Al-Alam TV (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4990.htm), in which he says:

"We think highly of a country whose president is important, courageous, and has a vision, which he presents in the UN, in Geneva, and everywhere. We think highly of a country that has a wise government, a country that confronts Western hegemony, and is scientifically and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, these characteristics can be found only in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Chew over the January 30, 2011 interview with Muhammad Ghanem on Al-Alam TV (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4972.htm), during which the Muslim Brotherhood representative in London asserted:

"I am absolutely certain that this revolution will not die, and that the next step must be one of civil disobedience. This civil disobedience will generate strife among the Egyptians. This disobedience must include halting passage through the Suez Canal, stopping the supply of petroleum and natural gas to Israel, and preparing for war with Israel."

Dwell upon the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's political platform (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4970.htm):

"On our part, we believe that the burdens of presidency must not be placed on a woman's shoulders – any more than supervising and leading the army – since they contradict her nature and the rest of her social and humanitarian roles."

And contemplate the words from a 2010 sermon delivered by Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi' (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/193/4650.htm):

"Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it. The peoples know well who is [carrying out] resistance and who has sold out the [Palestinian] cause and bargained over it. We say to our brothers the mujahideen in Gaza: be patient, persist in [your jihad], and know that Allah is with you..."

. . . .

The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise."

By now, you've probably got my drift. Kristof, however, doesn't understand that in the Muslim Middle East, prevarication, i.e. taqiyya (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/taqiyya-when-lying-is-ordained-from.html), is sanctioned from above when seeking to vanquish non-believers.

Yet another useful idiot. It's fast becoming a New York Times tradition . . .

Thomas Friedman, "Egypt, the Beginning or the End?": Reality Slaps Tom in the Face

Do you remember the horse apples that Thomas Friedman tossed at his readership earlier this year concerning events in Cairo's Tahrir Square? Let me remind you. In an emotive February New York Times op-ed entitled "They Did It" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman), Friedman wrote:

"They did this all by themselves. That is so important. One of the most powerful chants I heard in [Tahrir] square on Friday night was: 'The people made the regime step down.'

This sense of self-empowerment and authenticity — we did this for ourselves, by ourselves — is what makes Egypt’s democracy movement such a potential game-changer for the whole region.

. . . .

This could get interesting — for all the region’s autocrats. Egypt’s youthful and resourceful democrats are just getting started."

Needless to say, Friedman began to backtrack from his jubilance later in the year. In a May New York Times op-ed entitled "Pay Attention" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29friedmanOpEd.html?ref=opinion), Friedman quoted an Egyptian "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.”

20 percent? Yeah, right. The Muslim Brotherhood took 40 percent in the first stage of the election process, and the Salafis, who make the Muslim Brotherhood appear moderate, took another 25 percent.

Today, Friedman is back with more twaddle in "Egypt, the Beginning or the End?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/opinion/friedman-egypt-the-beginning-or-the-end.html?ref=opinion), seeking to excuse the poor election showing of the "liberal Egyptian Bloc," which received only 15 percent of the vote. Friedman, showing signs of sobriety, writes:

"The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more fundamentalist Salafist Nour Party have garnered some 65 percent of the votes in the first round of Egypt’s free parliamentary elections since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak should hardly come as a surprise. Given the way that the military regimes in the Arab world decimated all independent secular political parties over the last 50 years, there is little chance of any Arab country going from Mubarak to Jefferson without going through some Khomeini.

But whether this is the end of the Egyptian democracy rebellion, just a phase in it or an inevitable religious political expression that will have to coexist with the military and secular reform agendas remains to be seen. The laws of gravity, both political and economic, have yet to assert themselves on whoever will lead Egypt, which is why today I am in a listening and watching mode, with more questions than answers."

The election results "should hardly come as a surprise"? Nice try, Tom. What happened to your prior rosy assertion that "Egypt’s youthful and resourceful democrats are just getting started"?

Unlike Friedman, as far back as February I warned that Egyptian-style "democracy" would prove unpalatable to Western tastes (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/02/roger-cohens-hosni-mubarak-agonistes.html), observing that a recent Pew Research Center poll found, for example, that more than 75% of Egyptian Muslims favor the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim faith. Given the Pew statistics, and given that the oppressed Christian Coptic minority in Egypt, comprising 9% of the population, would never side with the Brotherhood or the Salafis, the some 65% of the vote received by the Brotherhood and the Salafis was carved in stone from day one.

Friedman asks whether this is the beginning or the end for Egypt. The answer is simple. As reported by David Rosenberg in an article entitled "Plunging foreign reserves pose new threat to Egypt" (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=248066), published by the Jerusalem Post on Sunday:

"Egypt’s political and economic clocks are running on dangerously different speeds: While Egyptians make repeat visits to the polls over the next three months to elect a new government and debate the future of their country under Islamist rule, the country’s foreign currency reserves are rapidly running down to perilous levels.

The reserves dropped to just over $22 billion in October from $36 billion since the start of the revolution last January. But with the latest round of unrest and the prospect of Islamist rule, the pace of the decline has picked up. On Thursday, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) forecasted that the figure would plummet to just $15 billion by the end of January.

. . . .

Plunging forex reserves are symptomatic of economy coming apart. Egypt eked out some economic growth in the second quarter of the year, but not enough to claw back the 4.2% drop in gross domestic product that occurred in the first quarter. The IMF expects the GDP to grow just 1.2%, down from 5.1% in 2010.

Revenue from tourism, a major source of foreign currency for Egypt as well as a major employer, dropped by more than a third in the first half of the year."

Let me put it in simpler language: Egypt stands ready to implode, and the Frankenstein monster that most likely will emerge from the rubble will not take after Western democracies. I hope that answers Friedman, who has lost all semblance of credibility.

Roger Cohen, "Come Home to Israel": More Unbalanced Self-Hatred

The onslaught against tiny Israel on the op-ed page of The New York Times continues. On November 18, in "The Voice of a Woman" (http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/the-voice-of-a-woman/), Shmuel Rosner highlighted instances where ultra-Orthodox Israei soldiers have walked out of performances when women began to sing. On November 22, Sarah Schulman wrote an inane piece entitled "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Sarah%20Schulman), claiming that Israel was promoting gay rights in order to disguise oppression of Palestinians. Today, Roger Cohen feeds his anti-Israel obsession in "Come Home to Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/cohen-come-home-to-israel.html?hp), in which he complains about a short-lived advertising campaign intended to persuade Israelis living in the US to return to Israel. Cohen begins by stating:

"I have several reactions to this little saga. The first is that I know several Israeli expatriates or would-be expatriates and their feelings are consistent. They are troubled by the illiberal drift of Israeli politics, the growth of a harsh nationalism, the increasing influence of the ultrareligious, the endlessness of the 'situation,' and the tension inherent in a status quo that will one day threaten either Israel’s Jewishness or its democracy.

They have left or seek to leave because they don’t want all that and no longer believe there is going to be significant change. The ads play to Israeli patriotism, but it’s not patriotism that expatriates lack. It’s hope that their Israel can be salvaged and a two-state peace achieved."

Cohen knows several Israeli expatriates or would-be expatriates? Fascinating. I know seven million Israelis who would not consider leaving, including many, like myself, who favor a two-state solution, hope that one day there will be a Palestinian entity willing to accept a Jewish state, and oppose any attempts by Israel's ultra-religious minority to limit their freedoms.

Cohen continues:

"My second reaction is that if Netanyahu could show a fraction of the nimbleness evident when American Jews are offended in instances where Turks are offended (by the killing of their citizens in international waters), or where President Barack Obama is offended (by ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank against his express request), or where Egyptians are offended (by Israel’s dismissal of their democratic aspirations), then Israel would be in a better, less isolated place today."

Of course, no mention that the UN's Palmer Commission determined that Israel's interception of the Mavi Marmara in international waters was lawful, although excessive force was said to have been used (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=236380). Regarding ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank which purportedly offended Obama's sensitivities, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat acknowledged, based on aerial photography, that settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/17/settlements-obstacle-to-peace/).

With respect to Israel's "dismissal" of Egypt's "democratic aspirations," the results of Egypt's recent elections, in which the Muslim Brotherhood and extremist Salafis received an overwhelming majority of the ballots cast (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/egypt-stripping-away-democratic-veil.html), speak volumes. In fact, the results of Egypt's elections should come as no surprise, given that more than three-quarters of Egyptian Muslims favor the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim faith (see: http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/). Forgive me, if I, too, dismiss Egypt's "democratic aspirations."

Cohen's op-ed comes at a time when a scandal has arisen involving a speech by Howard Gutman, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, blaming Israel for anti-Semitism (see Jonathan Tobin's excellent analysis in Commentary: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/05/gutman-anti-semtism-obam-administration/), and shortly after US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta blamed Israel, as did Cohen, for its isolation (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/world/middleeast/panetta-says-israel-must-mend-ties-with-arab-neighbors.html?_r=1&hp).

Are there problems in Israel involving racism, discrimination and inequality? Absolutely. However, Israel is a vibrant young democracy in which an independent legal system addresses these and other problems with which I have personally had to contend in Israeli courts.

Is Israel isolating itself? My answer is that no matter what concessions Israel should and ultimately will make in order to achieve peace, if and when there is finally a Palestinian counterparty able to accept Israel's existence, Israel, as a homeland to the Jews in the Middle East, will always be isolated, and there is no concession that Israel can make, other than national disbandment, i.e. suicide, that will satisfy al-Qaeda, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Salafis in Egypt, or the mullahs in Iran.

Paul Krugman, "Send in the Clueless": And What Will Happen Then?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Send in the Clueless" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman observes that given the "dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph." However, claiming that Romney is "totally cynical" and that Gingrich is "totally clueless," Krugman thinks that the Republicans "may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." He concludes:

"The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?"

Indeed, what will happen then? In fact, perhaps we already have an answer.

Obama is certainly not clueless, but he is cynical. He was perfectly willing to lie about his 20-year relationship with the racist Reverend Wright in order to be elected. And given the "dire economic situation" of 2008, Americans and the liberal American media were willing to ignore his relationship with Tony Rezko, who helped Obama purchase his Chicago home by way of a sweetheart real estate deal, and who was sentenced last month to 10 1/2 years in prison for corruption and extortion.

Of course, Rezko's sentencing escaped the attention of Krugman and his columnist friends at The Times. Regarding Rezko's conviction, Obama stated, "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew." Yeah, right.

Deemed the most "liberal" of American senators, Obama needed to lie about his relationship with Wright and disguise his thoughts, e.g., hostility to Israel, in order to be nominated and elected. Moreover, the exigencies of office, at least during his first term, have demonstrated that Obama is anything but honest. As observed in a previous blog entry, consider how Obama has reversed himself over the past three years:

• He promised to close Guantanamo.
• Although he has been a primary beneficiary of donations from financial institutions over the years, he now understands the underpinnings of OWS.
• Although he condemned Bush administration "extra-legal" behavior, he has actively engaged in targeted killings using drones and has come out in favor of "prolonged detention."
• He deviated from his timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
• No one would have ever imagined that he would escalate US ground involvement in Afghanistan.
• He promised to recognize the Armenian genocide, but now avoids the topic in order to pacify Turkey.
• With the economy in a tailspin, he has not kept his promise to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
• Although he signed an executive order restricting former lobbyists from working in his administration for at least two years, William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, was appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Freed from the constraints of re-election, no one knows how far left Obama could veer if given a second term as president.

My response to the question posed by Krugman at the end of his opinion piece, "And what will happen then?": First, all politicians are cynical, i.e. lie. Moreover, if a cynical politician, who needs to disguise his centrist, as opposed to rightist, positions in order to obtain the Republican nomination, is elected president in 2012, it will certainly be no worse than what America experienced under Obama, who needed to disguise his leftist, as opposed to centrist, positions. My concern is "what will happen" if Obama no longer needs to hide his radicalism during a possible second term.

Maureen Dowd, "Out of Africa and Into Iowa": An Ejaculation Problem

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Out of Africa and Into Iowa" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-out-of-africa-and-into-iowa.html), Maureen Dowd again savages would-be Republican presidential nominee Newt Gingrich:

"Newt Gingrich's mind is in love with itself.

It has persuaded itself that it is brilliant when it is merely promiscuous. This is not a serious mind. Gingrich is not, to put it mildly, a systematic thinker.

His mind is a jumble, an amateurish mess lacking impulse control. He plays air guitar with ideas, producing air ideas. He ejaculates concepts, notions and theories that are as inconsistent as his behavior."

Gingrich "ejaculates" inconsistent notions and theories? I agree, Maureen, that Gingrich is not -- like Herman Cain before him -- presidential timber, but the choice of words? Why the need for the salty language?

The op-ed page of The New York Times is becoming a bit like tag team wrestling. On Sunday's, Maureen Dowd stomps on Newt, while on Thursdays and most Saturday's, Gail Collins predictably slams Mitt.

I don't know about you, but I never found professional wrestling intellectually stimulating, or, for that matter, entertaining.

Thomas Friedman, "This Is a Big Deal": This Is a Little Moronic

Thomas Friedman, no longer seeking salvation from a third party presidential candidate (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html), is back to pandering to Obama. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "This Is a Big Deal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-this-is-a-big-deal.html?_r=1), Friedman begins by acknowledging Obama's dismal environmental record:

"In many ways, President Obama has been a disappointment on energy and the environment. He has been completely missing in action on the climate debate. His decision to block his own Environmental Protection Agency from setting new rules to cut smog levels was disappointing. And, while I believe in using the balance sheet of the U.S. government to spur clean-tech research and start-ups, Solyndra was a case of embarrassing excess — precisely what happens when you rely too much on government push not consumer pull, spurred by price and regulatory signals."

However -- you guessed it -- all is forgiven, inasmuch as Obama is backing a deal with US automakers, which will go into effect in 2017 and require annual mileage improvements of 5 percent for cars until 2025.

Excuse me, but let's suppose Obama is re-elected in 2012, he isn't going to be around as president in 2017, if the automakers don't deliver on their promise. 2025? I may not be around at all by then.

This is a big deal? Poppycock! But just go right on groveling, Tom.

Egypt: Stripping Away the "Democratic" Veil

Think back to January and February of this year, when demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir Square brought down Hosni Mubarak.

Remember how the three op-ed musketeers of The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen, converged upon the scene with a horde of other foreign journalists, all seeking out English speaking professionals with higher educations ready to extol the virtues of the Arab Spring. Needless to say, the primitive sorts with the rotten teeth from the Muslim Brotherhood, who formed the shock troops in the street battles with Mubarak loyalists, never appeared behind Western journalists' microphones.

Fast forward some ten months: The first results of Egypt's staggered election process are now in, and lo and behold, Muslim Brotherhood candidates have captured some 43% of the vote, while radical Salafi Muslim candidates, who remarkably make the Muslim Brotherhood appear moderate, took some 30% of the vote. In short, Islamist candidates took almost three-quarters of all ballots cast. While pondering the runaway success of the Islamist candidates, take into consideration that Egypt's Christian Copts, who want nothing to do with radical Islam, comprise approximately 9% of the population, which makes the success of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis that much more of a landslide.

A shocker? Some Western journalists, disappointed by the election results, note that only the Muslim Brotherhood was prepared for the vote with a longstanding political organization at the ready. However, this excuse fails to explain the success of the Salafis.

For readers of this blog, the results of Egypt's election process should come as no surprise. Compare the 75% of voters who supported the Islamist parties with the some 75% of Egyptians, who, according to a December 2010 Pew Research Center poll (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/), adhere to strict Islamic tenets:

"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."

In fact, the results of Egypt's elections were preordained. "Arab Spring"? My derrière!