Why Egypt is a Problem for Christian Zionists

by Richard on February 14, 2011

From the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism

Christian Zionist leader, John Hagee, is on record prophesying that Egypt will become the next Iran, meaning, a new head for the many-headed beast that is Islam, and this despite the fact that those who understand the dynamics of Egyptian history and society (not to mention the way the Egyptian revolution came about) say that this is not going to happen. Which underscores why Egypt is a problem for Christian Zionists.

When Hal Lindsey wrote his Christian Zionist potboiler, The Late, Great Planet Earth, in 1969 he spoke with great assurance about the critical nature of the alliance Egypt would make with the Soviet Union in an aggressive move against Israel as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ. Then Egypt broke relations with the Soviets followed by the later demise of the Soviet Union itself. By the time Lindsey wrote his next book this scenario was no longer tenable, forcing him to pin his apocalyptic hopes on another political demon. (which has now more or less become Islam).

One wonders what Hagee and Lindsey others like them are going to do when Egypt and possibly other of the Middle Eastern states Christian Zionists love to villianize in their apocalyptic scenarios, become secular democracies. Or even worse (from an apocalyptic Christian Zionist perspective) what will they do if a new democratic Egyptian government helps bring about a legitimate peace treaty with Israel, one that leads to the dismantlement of illegal settlements and the creation of a viable Palestinian state on land Christian Zionists insist belongs to the world’s Jews. The point is, what if these events lead to a political settlement that makes the Christian Zionist End Times scenario no longer tenable? Will Hagee and company continue to raise the apocalyptic flag even when there is no wind to keep it flying? Or will they simply close up shop, turning their backs on Israel because she didn’t keep her side of the apocalyptic bargain? Given that this is the primary basis upon which Christian Zionists like Hagee build their support for the Israeli state (despite Hagee’s assertions to the contrary) such a scenario is not beyond possibility.

Stay tuned.

John Hubers
Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism

Via Stephen Sizer

{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }

1

Kim 02.14.11 at 11:17 am

One things is for sure: they will never give up re-writing the script of their end-time horror shows, reading into the imaginative world of apocalytpic literature whatever pathological narrative they want to get out of it. There is always some Other to fear and hate, they will never be short of an Anti-Christ or two, and they could turn on Israel in the twinkling of an eye (after all, Jews are only foils in the Christian Zionist plot: if they don’t ultimately covert to Christianity, they will share the same fiery fate as communists and Muslims). No, the nefarious ingenuity and adaptability of the millenarians is endless, for the rapture is good business and a sucker is born every minute.

2

Mitch 02.14.11 at 5:31 pm

Mr. Huber is absolutely certain that the overthrow of Mubarak will not result in the Egypt moving toward the extremist end of Islam? I hope he’s right. There are truly democratic aspirations in Egypt, but USAToday reports that a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood is working for a different outcome. USA Today is not a Christian Zionist publication, is it?

The fact is that no one can tell how things will ultimately turn out when you create a power vacuum: in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq, anywhere. Every freedom loving person wants the dictator gone, but all you get from that is an opportunity for genuine freedom to emerge. There are no guarantees.

And he seems to discount the legitimacy of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, a treaty that cost Anwar Sadat his life at the hands of … what group was that again, and what was their ideology?

3

Doug 02.14.11 at 8:10 pm

Amen Mitch, perfectly said.

4

Kim 02.14.11 at 10:51 pm

No, no guarantees, Mitch. That’s why the people of Egypt need our prayers - and don’t need disinformation and fearmongering.

As for Every freedom loving person wants the dictator gone, well, you’ve got two choices here. Either (a) American governments who have been underwriting Mubarak’s brutal tyranny for the last three decades did not want him gone, or (b) American governments are not at all freedom-loving, and will gladly sacrifice democracy on the altar of self-interest. In fact, of course, both (a) and (b) are true.

5

Doug 02.14.11 at 11:14 pm

Kim, and we don’t need ideolistic thoughts to think that there isn’t ANY chance of the Muslim Brootherhood promoting what the Amadinajad regime is and/or close to it. I agree we need to pray for the nation and the people of Egypt but I want to be a realist and the chance for a Western-like democracy and a Muslim extremist regime are the same. To suggest that the possiblility of Egypt becoming Iran is “fearmongering” is ignorant of the realities. Carter regime treated the Shah with disrespect and the people wanted “democracy” and look what it is now. Iran is democratic but as a government tyrants to the rest of the world. I pray Egypt will not be that but I’m not going to be ignorant in light of Iran history from 1979 till now.

If it is a choice between Mubaruk and Amadinajad I would much rather have Mubaruk and I hope the people feel the same as well so as to democratically elect someone opposite of Amadinajad. Otherwise this revolution is for naught. That isn’t fearmongering but realism at its best.

6

Kim 02.15.11 at 12:44 am

It is precisely comments like this one that make me so sympathetic with Wood’s recent diatribe. The comparison between Iran in the seventies and Egypt 2011 (apart from the unmentioned similarity of the US banknoting a monstrous dictator who is overthrown in each case), including the silence about the crucial centrality of the army in Egyptian politics, the reference to the Muslim Brotherhood as a monolithically Islamist organisation, and the either/or scare choice of Mubarak and Amadinajad - it demonstrates (once again) Doug’s ignorance or malevolence or both.

It makes me livid and sick. So I just shut up, refuse to engage such Fox trash, leave the field to Doug, and trust others to respond, but equally with no hope whatsoever of actually engaging the guy? You know, if I did not love and respect Richard as much as I do, I would seriously consider an ultimatum: either Doug goes or I go. Of course I won’t. But I will resolve (again) never to respond to Doug’s shite again. So good luck to the rest of you. And, Doug, one final request: spare me one of your fuckin’ smilies if you respond to this Dear Doug letter.

7

Boonton 02.15.11 at 12:57 pm

“Carter regime treated the Shah with disrespect and the people wanted “democracy” and look what it is now.”

This myth is often floated on the right that if only Carter had been a little bit more of a ‘realist’ and not so concerned with silly, idealistic ideas like human rights the Shah would have stayed in Iran and all would be well.

First, the people of Iran hated the Shah and unless the US was willing to actually put troops on the ground to support him he was going to go. The current Iranian regime uses the old US’s support of the Shah endlessly to justify their abuses. If the US had done more to support the Shah the resentment fanning would be even more effective.

Second, in the big scheme of things it’s not clear that Iran is the worst possible case. For years Iran was a counter balance to Iraq and the split between Iran and the Sunni states kept the Arab world divided between itself rather than united against Israel. Likewise, it’s not at all clear that ‘friendly but oppressive’ states are much of an asset. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iran. They did come from Egypt and Saudi Arabia….so much for having a state we are ‘friends with’. While Iran is a thorn in Israel’s side, fighting proxy wars with it by funding Hezbollah and such, the fact is oppressive ‘friendly’ regimes may not be attacking the west directly but they do generate disgruntled terrorists as a ’side effect’.

Third, I don’t think a valid reading of the revolution in Egypt or Tunisa is that the people of those countries want a massive wave of Islamist oppression and a suicidal war on Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood is well organized and respected in Egypt but still it probably doesn’t have more then 30-40% of the population and it has a history of pulling back from its Islamism and concentrating on practical governing when given a chance (the party was banned in Egypt but everyone knows wo the MB candidates are ….initially the MB suffered as the party that offered no solutions other than to say ‘women should cover up’….they then started to be more practical). This is not to say that the MB is Egypt’s Democratic Party these days….but I think the MB doesn’t have enough support internally to run the country all by itself and as a result will have to accomodate itself to other parties ino order to build a coalition. You also have a very secular military that is embedded in all aspects of the Egyptian economy who turned against Mubarak after listening to him for decades declare that he was the thin line between a free state and radical Islamists. Everyone is looking at them as current saviors of freedom but also as a source of a potential “Ceasar Moment” where they will take control and declare themselves a new dictator. Unlike Iran, I’m sure the MB is aware that pushing the Islamist stuff too far increases the chance that the military will feel they could get away with such a stunt.

I agree revolutions are rather dangerous and history is full of them going the wrong way (Russia, Cuba) and even ones that turned out OK had some very bad periods (France). We just don’t know. But the opposite path, betting everything on the regime of a despited dictator hated by his people whose pushing 90 years old is hardly a nivana of stability.

8

Wood 02.15.11 at 3:43 pm

“silly, idealistic ideas like human rights”

You just invalidated your whole post.

9

Doug 02.15.11 at 5:40 pm

I didn’t invalidate my post because I didn’t mention “human rights” as being idealistic. I just don’t see people supporting Amadinajad as being a supporter of human rights. The fact is with a choice solely between the Shah or Amadinajad/Ayatollah I would choose the Shah. To suggest indirectly that being against the Shah is being for human rights is a misnomer in the grand scheme of what reality is currently in Iran.

Also, I said we DO need to pray in support of what Kim says. I’m not saying that Egypt will be Iran. However, I’m not going to be ignorant as to what might, I repeat, might happen in the future in Egypt. I’m not promoting fear but there are some concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood but that doesn’t mean that they are as bad as they have been portrayed or worse than I have presented them.

Kim, are you saying there is no chance of Egypt becoming like Iran in the future? Again for the upteenth time I’m not saying Egypt is going to be that or that the revolution in Egypt is that but one cannot ignore the possibilities of that in the future. I’m not fearful of that but it must be in the back of our minds or one is living in lala land.

Boonton, I totally disagree with your first two points but your third I DO agree with. I will say that there are times where the only choice for the limiting of loss of life that one must support difficult people. Again if it is a choice between Mubarak or Amadinajad I would support Mubarak any day and I would hope and pray that the people of Egypt would support neither.

10

Doug 02.15.11 at 5:42 pm

Kim, why the hostility? I haven’t been hostile to you or anyone else on this thread. Why the need to be so “over the top”?

11

Boonton 02.15.11 at 6:03 pm

“I just don’t see people supporting Amadinajad as being a supporter of human rights. The fact is with a choice solely between the Shah or Amadinajad/Ayatollah I would choose the Shah.”

OK, but what relevance is that impossible choice? And more importantly are they not two sides of the exact same coin? The Ayatollah came to power on the back of the abuses of the Shah. In fact many Iranians were not even fully aware of just how undemocratic the Ayatollah was because they weren’t even allowed to read his books because of, guess who, the Shah’s control of media and publishing in Iran. Adding a few more years to the Shah’s rule would have, IMO, just as likely have made Iran more anti-western when he finally would have fallen.

“To suggest indirectly that being against the Shah is being for human rights is a misnomer in the grand scheme of what reality is currently in Iran.”

OK that’s not what I meant to suggest, but politics does create strange bedfellows. An alternative history where the US was even more supportive of the Shah would have put the US even more in the wrong in the eyes of Iranians for human rights making anti-westernites like the Ayatollah seem all the more appealing and would have earned him even more good will. Today there seems to be a sizeable minority in Iran that supports Amadinajad because of lingering resentment, real or imagined, of the US’s role in the Shah’s rule.

I think we are generally in agreement. I think Kim is optimistic about Egypt and there’s good reason to be, but that’s still no gurantee that things will turn out good. We just won’t know until we do…so to speak. One area though that I think is clear is that there’s few niches of crackpotism that are as useless as the genre of Christian prophesying current events. How many rounds must we go through of predictions based on tying Revelations to current events that end up totally wrong before the entire field gets written off? I suppose it’s a generational racket where its practicers prey upon those who are young or ignorant of the previous generation of ‘current events prophets’.

One last note, in terms of Israel while Iran has been a problem the other Arab states haven’t been all peaches and cream either. Many Arab gov’ts have a slight of hand type policy where they attack Israel endlessly as a kind of outlet for the venting their domestic populations are not permitted to do against their government, but officially while they aren’t on friendly terms with Israel they don’t directly attack it. Hence they create perfect terrorist incubators where disgruntled citizens asorb the idea that their troubles come from complicated conspiracies from vague ‘outside powers’ like the US and Israel while the authoritarian regimes restrict any real criticism of the actual gov’t but let you vent all you want against other governments…. All things being equal I’m not quite sure the case can be made that Iran is much worse over the long term than, say, Saudi Arabia. At least Iran’s problems seem quite clear and obvious while SA’s seem to fester under the surface of pretty diplomacy and nice words.

12

Doug 02.15.11 at 6:56 pm

“OK, but what relevance is that impossible choice? And more importantly are they not two sides of the exact same coin?” Because the Ayatollah is worse than the Shah was. and no, they are not the same side of the exact same coin.

“An alternative history where the US was even more supportive of the Shah would have put the US even more in the wrong in the eyes of Iranians for human rights making anti-westernites like the Ayatollah seem all the more appealing and would have earned him even more good will. Today there seems to be a sizeable minority in Iran that supports Amadinajad because of lingering resentment, real or imagined, of the US’s role in the Shah’s rule.” I obviously disagree. Having the Shah who would have rejected the Soviets and the Ayatollah would have done more to make the situation more stable than otherwise. I do think that the US could and hopefully would have helped to promote democracy at the same time with the Shah in power as opposed to the Ayatollah/Amadinajad in power. One must recognize why they dispised the Shah and it was because of radical Islam not the US. For if the people of Iran didn’t support radical Islam then the need to dpose the Shah would not be there.

“I suppose it’s a generational racket where its practicers prey upon those who are young or ignorant of the previous generation of ‘current events prophets’.” This seems way over the top.

I also believe strongly that the SA is WAY better than Iran. ARe there small minority groups that have problems? yes but the SA gov’t is one that doesn’t support Iran in anyway nor terrorism. It is the minority groups within SA that is doing this.

13

Wood 02.15.11 at 7:12 pm

“I didn’t invalidate my post because I didn’t mention “human rights” as being idealistic.”

I wasn’t quoting you.

14

Doug 02.15.11 at 7:21 pm

Well then Wood. My post wasn’t invalidated.

15

Boonton 02.15.11 at 10:00 pm

“I do think that the US could and hopefully would have helped to promote democracy at the same time with the Shah in power as opposed to the Ayatollah/Amadinajad in power. One must recognize why they dispised the Shah and it was because of radical Islam not the US. For if the people of Iran didn’t support radical Islam then the need to dpose the Shah would not be there.”

This would seem to be a contradiction. If the majority of Iranians wanted a radical Islamic state then what would efforts to promote democracy under the Shah’s authority have accomplished other than to undermine him? I think a portion of Iran was/is Islamic but another portion hated the Shah for his corruption and human rights violations. As I said politics makes strange bedfellows and there was probably the idea that an Islamic republic would/could be democratic. Iranian democrats probably gave the Ayatollah the benefit of the doubt and by the time they saw they had been had it was too late.

“yes but the SA gov’t is one that doesn’t support Iran in anyway nor terrorism. It is the minority groups within SA that is doing this.”

OK but SA seems to generate a lot of terrorists, not Iran. And the terrorists they generate are not minority groups but majority groups. Bin Laden’s ideology is not unorthodox in Saudi Araiba. It’s in line with the official wahabbism (sp). His argument is that the Saudi leaders are corrupt and hypocritical for basically promoting a ‘infidels are dammed and should be killed line’ at home while they are friendly with the west abroad. Why does SA do this? Because they do not want an open gov’t so they direct discontent into anger abroad (against Israel, against ‘Zionists’ etc.) and at home give radicals full control of the Mosques and schools and ‘virtue police’, free to promote just about any abuse they want *as long as* they don’t challenge the royal family’s rule. When this works it may indeed provide some short term stability but it’s a balance i think is unnatural in the long term.

16

Doug 02.15.11 at 10:10 pm

“If the majority of Iranians wanted a radical Islamic state then what would efforts to promote democracy under the Shah’s authority have accomplished other than to undermine him?” Not if the Shah was able to promote a better attitude toward himself but the fact is there were more Islamic radicals and those happened to be the Shah’s dowfall and the reason they didn;t like him was his strong hand against radical Islam. Some called this “human rights abuse” others saw it for what it truly was which was to prevent Radical Islam from within Iran.

Just because the SA generates a lot of terrorists doesn’t mean the government supports terrorism. I stand a little corrected by you so let me rephrase. SA is in a difficult position because the majority of the SA people support radical Islam but the SA government does not and is “outnumber” and as such cannot crack down as much or face a revolution like Iran faced in 1979.

17

Paul F. 02.16.11 at 12:47 am

What’s the fuss with terrorists or radical Islam, Doug? They seem like alright chaps to me. An angry man with an AK has gotta do what an angry man with an AK has gotta do. Besides, the Bible doesn’t say anything about terrorists.

18

Kim 02.16.11 at 8:15 am

Except (in the Apocrypha) the Maccabeans - and they were heroes. Oh, and Simon the Zealot - and he was a friend of Jesus.

19

Wood 02.16.11 at 8:29 am

“Well then Wood. My post wasn’t invalidated.”

I wasn’t even talking to you, fool.

20

Kim 02.16.11 at 10:54 am

Three salient points about the situation in Egypt.

(1) Events there are, in fact, the latest chapter in the conclusion of the historical narrative of colonialism in the Middle East and the advent of national self-determination, despite the atavistic efforts of imperial powers like the US to keep things under their control by proxy.

(2) The revolution in Iran was monolithically Islamic, whereas the multicoloured popular uprising in Egypt is anything but. The Muslim Brotherhood itself, from the get-go, declared its support for truly democratic government, not a state under sharia law.

(3) Poor bigoted, Islamophobic, Fox News westerners and Christians - they are fuming that their caricatures of towel-headed fanatical violent Muslims have been so visibly demolished in just a few weeks. Alas, they will continue to panic people with their propaganda, and villainously and hypocritically try to undermine efforts at peaceful democratic reform in Egypt. Even as you pray that they will not succeed, please commend these lost souls to the mercy of God.

21

Doug 02.16.11 at 3:54 pm

Kim, the Muslim Brotherhood supports Hamas a known terrorist organization. If the Muslim Brotherhood are limited then this revolution will be a success. The fact is there is a “power-vacuum” in Egypt and many of the other nations. I’m like you Kim and are praying that there is truly a democracy with no terrorist’s in leadership. However, I’m not naive to think that there is no chance of terrorists or radical Islamist’s filling in the gap even if they might be a minority. A minority with somewhat advanced weapons can overwhelm a majority.

Kim, I’m not fuming, bigoted or trying to undermine the efforts. I’m just as naive as you to think at all of the possibilities that could go wrong. I pray as you they don’t but past history beyond just Iran doesn’t support in the natural what you and I are desiring.

22

Tony Buglass 02.16.11 at 5:11 pm

“A minority with somewhat advanced weapons can overwhelm a majority.”

It doesn’t need more advanced weapons - a minority can work just because of the way a democratic process can leave openings for them. Hitler came to power in 1933 on a minority vote.

23

Doug 02.16.11 at 5:16 pm

Tony, I agree but you get my point as an addition to that. What you said is an additional thing that I agree with that shows “concern” of the “possibilities” for “problems” in the future. As I mentioned to Kim, I’m praying as much as he that those “concerns” don’t occur but like I mentioned I’m not going to be naive of the concerns and it appears from your reply that you are like me on that as well.

Thanks for the additional sidebar that paralells what I was trying to say. Great additional insight Tony, :)

24

Doug 02.16.11 at 8:35 pm

I bring this up not as alarm but for prayer. Please pray for Egypt, Israel, etc. for stability in the region:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_iran

25

Pam 02.16.11 at 11:25 pm

I’ve just read this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald of a female CBS News correspondent being hospitalised after a “brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating” in Tahrir Square. Sexual harassment of women is an all-too-common occurrence on the streets of Cairo. Maybe this subject deserves some discussion, and prayer.

26

Doug 02.17.11 at 4:51 pm

Pam, absolutely. Thank you so much for bringing this up. This is definitely an additional prayer item to what I mentioned earlier. If we read some of the naive responses of others, Pam, one gets the impression “This is all a peaceful protest” or “There is no chance of Egypt and other nations being another Iran. Your input is the perfect compliment to what I said.

Pam, I will no doubt and definately stand with you in prayer on this as I hope you would for the issue I brought up. God bless you Pam. :)

27

Doug 02.17.11 at 8:25 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110217/wl_nm/us_egypt

Kim, is this propoganda from Yahoo? Is yahoo “right-wing”? I don’t think so. Again, I pray for all of the things you are praying about regarding Egypt but the reality and not the fear of the situation is one that seems similar to Iran. Again Muslim Brootherhood supports a known terrorist organizaton in Hamas. So to label them “moderate” is being naive to the Muslim Brootherhood as a group.

28

Joseph W 02.17.11 at 10:43 pm

I doubt the US is behaving in an imperialist way here. In fact, Obama can’t seem to make up his mind who or what he’s supporting in Egypt. That’s why the White House even described its attitude to Egypt as “fluid” just before Mubarak stepped down.

Following the Bush years, Obama is rightly very sensitive as to how the US is perceived abroad, particularly in the Middle East.

Bush was keen to advance democracy at all costs, and the elections held in Gaza in 2005 must have represented a huge step forward for America’s democracy project.

The people spoke and Hamas won the 2005 election in Gaza. Since then however, Hamas rooted out its internal Palestinian opponents, clamped down on protests, and began killing rivals. There are no plans for another elections in Gaza.

In a real democracy, you don’t only vote in the government you want, you must also be able to vote them out again. Obama should encourage real democracy in Egypt, and that he is clear and firm with Egypt’s rulers that they must listen to the voice of the people. He should also be wary of Hamas’ “parent organisation” the Muslim Brotherhood, and their plans for Egypt’s future.

If the Muslim Brotherhood were to win an election in Egypt, would it be possible to vote them out again?

29

Doug 02.17.11 at 10:54 pm

Joseph W, I agree with what you say here. However, it was the Bush administration which has pointed out the “problems” of the Muslim Brotherhood unlike Obama who has been neutral. I believe that Democracy is good but a Democratic Republic is way better. Majority rule, while good on the surface, respect for the minority (if they don’t support atrocities) is necessary for the opportunity to “vote them out again”.

30

Earl 02.18.11 at 2:44 am

Some people take Scripture seriously. Some even go so far as to take Scripture so seriously that they seek to understand current and developing events in the light of Scripture. Bravo! They are to be applauded. Better to take Scripture seriously and even make mistakes than to simply take ones cues from elsewhere and be… mistaken. In the above post and some of the typical comments one can hear a bit of thunder and even see that odd half-light of almost close lightening… but nothing more. It is noise without rain.

31

Mendip Nomad 02.18.11 at 8:12 am

Earl, one of the greatest natural wonders on God’s earth that I have ever had the fortune of witnessing were the great lightning storms I witnessed in Mississippi - not a drop in sight but unbelieveable visions of lightning streaks - so I’m afraid I don’t get your allusion - the greatest displays of light always come without rainfall. :)

32

Kim 02.18.11 at 9:36 am

From an interview on The Immanent Frame with Gene Sharp (GS), described as “the foremost strategist of nonviolent social change alive today”.

NS: There have certainly been stereotypes suggesting that Muslims couldn’t do something like this, that they can only use violence.

GS: It’s utter nonsense. In the North-West Frontier Province of British India, the Muslim Pashtuns, who had a reputation for great violence, became even braver and more disciplined nonviolent soldiers than the Hindus, according to Gandhi. It’s a very important case. And when my essay “From Dictatorship to Democracy” was published in Indonesia, it carried an introduction by Abdurrahman Wahid, a Muslim leader who later became president.

NS: Are you concerned about whether Egyptian Islamist factions will be reliable partners in bringing about a more democratic society?

GS: I don’t really know Egyptian society, much less Egyptian Islamists. But I do know that the Muslim Brotherhood is interested in nonviolent struggle, and several years ago it became—to my knowledge—the first organization in Egypt to put “From Dictatorship to Democracy” on their website in Arabic.

33

Earl 02.18.11 at 1:47 pm

“I’m afraid I don’t get your allusion .” Understandable. Some people are very aware of how much they depend on rain. Others just find it gets in the way of having fun at the beach and golf course.

34

Earl 02.18.11 at 1:57 pm

Unfortunately, the MB are not known for having a warm fuzzy feeling about broad pluralistic democratic freedom. They are more known for their advocacy of “sharia.” And everybody knows how very good sharia works out for everybody in society… as long as they are muslim males.

35

Doug 02.18.11 at 5:21 pm

“I do know that the Muslim Brotherhood is interested in nonviolent struggle”

Sounds like naivete’ to me in that the Muslim Brotherhood supports Hamas which is clearly violent. Heck, even Amadinajad stated his support for what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing in Egypt. While Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t seem to support Iran government, the fact that violent people, groups, etc. happen to support them should “beg the question” as to the true intentions of the group in the future. Notice I said future in that we all can pray that a treu Democratic Republic results in all of these nations at issue.

36

Joseph W 02.18.11 at 6:49 pm

“I do know that the Muslim Brotherhood is interested in nonviolent struggle”

I’m sure they are, but they also seem interested in violent struggle. Hamas is their Gazan chapter, and they have no interest in democracy.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt thinks that Bin Laden is a hero:

??????? ???????? ???????.. ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????????
??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???.

Question: Regarding resistance and jihad…do you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid?

Akef: Certainly, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, drawing closer to God Almighty.

So there are fair reasons to be concerned about the political power of the Ikhwan, even as we hope for the best in Egypt.

37

Doug 02.18.11 at 7:16 pm

Amen Joseph. You couldn’t say more perfectly than that. Thanks for the support of my Hamas comment. Clearly a “violent organization”. Loved the additional quotation in reference to their apparent support of Bin Laden.

38

Kim 02.19.11 at 8:46 am

It’s kind of: we like what Mubarak did but we don’t like the way he did it (but though he was a bastard, he was our bastard). And we really like democracy if it endorses the Mubarak agenda of supporting US geostrategic interests in the Middle East, silencing protest against Israeli inhumanity against the Palestinians, and endorsing neoliberal economic policies that, as usual, have impoverished millions and created massive unemployment.

Oh - and maintain the Orientalist rhetoric that implies that Muslims are uppity at best and - let’s face it - inclined to fanaticism and violence, and, conversely, begrudge any sense of awe and joy that the peaceful protests of thousands and thousands of people - professionals, urban youth, students, workers, women, judges, et. al. - have rid the world of a tyrant. Keep the fear simmering.

39

Paul F. 02.19.11 at 12:56 pm

On a Facebook page titled “Egyptians condemning the attack on Lara Logan”, here are some of the postings. Note the names:

Ayman Makhlouf
“Things some times go wrong ,,it seems she got trapped among a bunch of sick low class guys.We all feel sorry for this ugly situation.We welcome you among us any time you need to visit Egypt for any coverage”

Mohamed Amer
“We are deeply sorry and regret what has happened to you while trying to do your brave job and we promise after what has happened to our country (thanks to the free journalism and media support) that this will never happen again in free Egypt.”

Mohamed Sohail Lasheen
“On behalf of the egyptian people let me express my deep sorrow and appology for what happened”

Essam Zakaria
“As an Egyptian I was surprised during the days of the revolution that the sexual harassment disappeared in Tahrir square and beyond…except for the thugs and members of the old regime, who formed mobs circulating Tahrir square to harass, beat and even killed, the protesters. They did harassed and injured an Egyptian T.V female prese…nter ( Bothaina Kamel ). Let me say that I am almost sure that Miss Logan and her crew was followed by security and police thugs to Tahrir Square, where they found an opportunity to take revenge of her. They did the same with Al-jazeera and other T.V. correspondences even days after Mubarak stpped down ( During the policemen demonstations for examble). I am very eager to see the results of an invistigation to be sure that the criminals belong to the regime gangs.”

40

Pam 02.20.11 at 8:19 am

Paul F
My husband (also Paul) and I visited Egypt two years ago and I can still remember the visit as being a very confronting one. I saw great poverty, overcrowding, the Nile greatly polluted. Not to mention one hairy taxi ride from the airport. I’m following the events there closely.

41

Joseph W 02.20.11 at 5:53 pm

“And we really like democracy if it endorses the Mubarak agenda of supporting US geostrategic interests in the Middle East, silencing protest against Israeli inhumanity against the Palestinians, and endorsing neoliberal economic policies that, as usual, have impoverished millions and created massive unemployment.”

I think it’s great that there are demonstrations in Egypt and the Arab world, and it’s good that Mubarak has gone. There should be democracy in Egypt. That is a positive thing.

It is an issue to be discussed on its own merits for sure. But you seem to think it is worth discussing in the same breath as a narrow branch of Christian Zionism.

You can support Egyptian society’s quest for freedom, and still be afraid of what regime may end up in charge.

I’m sure most Egyptians desire freedom, yet also worry about who will be in charge in 6 months’ time, and how they will run the country.

42

Beth 02.21.11 at 1:16 pm

If we read some of the naive responses of others, Pam, one gets the impression “This is all a peaceful protest”.

But, Doug, look at what Pam said: “Sexual harassment of women is an all-too-common occurrence on the streets of Cairo.” You’re reading this attack as a result of the protests, when it may as easily be the kind of opportunist attack that happens every day in busy cities, particularly in crowds, during festivals, etc. This doesn’t make it any less hideous, but taking this one example to undermine the fact that these were largely peaceful protests is, itself, opportunist. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t sound like that was what Pam intended to do by bringing up this story.

43

Pam 02.21.11 at 7:52 pm

Gosh, Beth, I’m starting to like you!
My intention was to draw attention to the plight of women, who are especially vulnerable, in this situation.

44

Doug 02.22.11 at 4:08 pm

Beth, just because that doesn’t sound like that was Pam intent doesn’t take away from the fact that it wasn’t “all” peaceful. Did you all see the rocks flying from the protesters? Did you all see the molotov cocktails? Aren’t these things “violent” and not the “non-violence” that you so readily bring up? You all seem blinded by all of the “revolution talk” and not look at the reality of the day. Did you see who the Muslim Brotherhood supports?

Joseph W., thanks for your response. That is exactly what we all need to have in the back of our minds.

45

conchovor 03.25.11 at 11:42 pm

This article is a load of rubbish. It defines ‘Christian Zionism’ in the narrowest, most extreme possible sense.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>