Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Why Obama's Support for the Muslim Brotherhood Matters

Michael L.

{Originally published at the Elder of Ziyon.}

obama supported the muslim brotherhood1Anti-BDS / pro-Israel activist and writer, Jon Haber of the Divestthis! blog, and I had an ongoing discussion for a number of months that I wish to briefly revisit.  Our conversation faltered and then stopped on the taboo question of Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood and, therefore, his support for political Islam, more generally.

At this point, I find it rather difficult to imagine how anyone paying attention could possibly still refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood.  It is not a matter of abstract conjecture, nor is it dependent upon whatever may, or may not, have been going on in Obama's mind.

The only things that matter in determining the question of Obama administration support for the Brotherhood is whether or not the Obama administration turned over funds, weaponry, and political support to the Brotherhood before or during its time in power in Egypt.

If the Obama administration did turn over funds, weaponry, and lent political support to the Brotherhood, which it did, then - pretty much by definition - Barack Obama should be said to have supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

In his retort to my latest piece in this conversation, Haber says this:
I continue to take issue with the core assertion that drives much of Mike’s argument (one he claims I agree with in his last piece) that the current President supports (or “supported”) the Muslim Brotherhood, if by “support” he means (1) agrees with the goals of that organization and (2) wishes it to succeed.
That is, actually, not at all what I mean.  The reason that Obama should be said to support the Muslim Brotherhood is because he did, in fact, support the Muslim Brotherhood.

A = A.

Haber claims that Obama gave "endless slack to Islamist foes," yet he denies that he supported those Islamist foes.

Excuse me, but at what point does giving "endless slack" not begin to constitute support?  Certainly giving "endless slack" is not an act of neutrality.  Nor, of course, is it an act of opposition.  This being the case, perhaps I can be forgiven for misinterpreting Haber's claim that Obama gave "endless slack to Islamist foes" as representing "support."

Of course, if that behavior is not oppositional and if it is not neutral, than just what is left?

Supportive seems to come to mind.

Furthermore, Obama's friendliness toward the anti-Semitic, genocidally-malignant Muslim Brotherhood is not dependent upon an ideological alignment between himself and them.  The Brotherhood, as a radical Islamist organization, wants to see the world live under al-Sharia (which, needless to say, means dhimmitude or death to all non-Muslims) and called directly for war against Israel and for the conquest of Jerusalem.  Barack Obama, as President of the United States presumably does not share such goals, but then one begins to wonder what kind of benefit accrues to the American people through promoting the Brotherhood or enabling an Iranian nuclear bomb?

Haber characterizes my argument, as follows:
Premise 1: The Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian organization with goals at odds with the US and the West, which is also the wellspring of Jihadi violence in the Middle East.

Premise 2: President Obama and his administration have made decisions and statements (especially when the Muslim Brotherhood was in power in Egypt) that involved helping and praising that Brotherhood regime.

Premise 3: Only someone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood would help and praise the Muslim Brotherhood regime when it ruled Egypt. 
Conclusion: President Obama supports a totalitarian organization with goals at odds with the US and the West, which is also the wellspring of Jihadi violence in the Middle East.
Haber agrees that premises one and two are valid.  He writes:
But for purposes of this conversation Premise 1 is perfectly acceptable in its present form.  And I think anyone who has followed US foreign policy over the last 5-6 years would agree that Premise 2 is on safe historic ground.
This leaves only premise 3 which is, for all intents and purposes, the same as the conclusion.

Haber wants to argue that support is not necessarily support if the supporter was in the wrong frame of mind.  He writes:
But a reasonable person can come up with a variety of alternatives to Premise 3.  For example, someone might make crappy decisions (like the ones we’ve seen the Obama administration make) because they suck at diplomacy/realpolitique due to incompetence, arrogance or a combination of both.  Or perhaps the President’s ideology blinds him to seeing forces (even Muslim Fundamentalist forces) fighting against an oppressive regime as new totalitarians in waiting (vs. successors to the civil rights heroes of old).
The funny thing is, I have actually argued both of those things in my discussions on just why Obama supports political Islam and, therefore, supports the Muslim Brotherhood.  But whatever the reason why Obama supports the Brotherhood, it is hard to argue that he has not done so and Haber does not bother to try.

So, yes, when an American president offers "help and praise (to) the Muslim Brotherhood" then it supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

When an American president offers help and praise to anyone or anything then he supports that anyone or anything.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood and it is important for those of us who care about the well-being of Israel to wrap our brains around this fact.  Barack Obama supported an organization that exists to promote Sharia and, therefore, promote the dhimmitude and "racist" persecution of all non-Muslims.  Barack Obama supported an organization that called for the conquest of Jerusalem, which is essentially the same as calling for the genocide of the Jews.

I backed off of this conversation for the simple reason that Haber said he wanted to wrap it up.

However, the reason that he wanted to wrap it up is because "our attempts to find major disagreements could devolve into a Narcissism of Small Difference destined to deliver a diminishing return on investment."

But this is not a small difference.

The fact that Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrates that he supports political Islam.

The fact that American Left-leaning Jews support Barack Obama demonstrates that they support an American president that supports political Islam.

The only questions are, why does he do it and why can't we face it?

If one wishes to understand Barack Obama's special relationship with Islamist regimes, like the Brotherhood or Iran, one must first acknowledge that which is directly before our eyes.

It is only then that we can begin to answer the question why and I would suggest that if you want to know the answer to that question, look to his ideologically-academic and religious mentors.

Look to people like Rashid Khalidi, the late Edward Said, and a certain minister in Chicago who shall remain nameless.

9 comments:

  1. Or perhaps the President's ideology blinds him to seeing forces ( even Muslim Fundamentalist forces) fighting against an oppressive regime as new totalitarians in waiting ( vs successors to the civil rights heroes of old.).


    Well, yes. That might be a possibility.
    However, what would that say about such an
    ideology ?

    If you know the Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist organisation, which part of their own stated ideology do you believe you can ignore? Why give them the benefit of the doubt? There is plenty of evidence for what they actually believe, and what their longer term aims are. Plenty.

    As for comparing them with the heroes of the old civil rights movement: What, if anything, do they have in common with Martin Luther King Jr.?
    In what way is that analogous?

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/01/28/think-again-the-muslim-brotherhood/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I noticed ( on the EofZ thread) someone drawing a comparison between the British government's negotiations with the IRA and Obama's dealings with the MB.
    Again, there is no analogy.
    The IRA were a nationalist political movement with a very specific set of political aims. Whatever one may think of them- and people have very different opinions- the IRA chose to further their political aims through the use of violence. That involved severe intimidation and sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. And terrorist attacks over much of the 20th Century in Northern Ireland. Later they perpetrated terrorist attacks on the British mainland. Negotiating with them, which started under the previous Conservative government, was morally difficult, but had the aim to bring about peace in NI and to stop terrorist attacks on the British mainland.
    The IRA had no wider political ambitions. They are not an organisation that has an ideology that requires them to wish to push their beliefs onto any other countries, or parts of the world. Theirs is not a global philosophy or movement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Diethrich · Top Commenter · AP Macroeconomics Teacher at Katy ISD
    "Say what you will about his immediate predecessor, but I kind of liked it when our allies laughed at our President, but our enemies feared him, as opposed to the quite opposite current state of events."

    ReplyDelete
  4. A comment on an article by Daniel Pipes at Powerline

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/daniel-pipes-the-obama-doctrine-serves-up-one-disaster-after-another.php

    ReplyDelete
  5. When it comes to "good deals" with dangerous vicious regimes US Democrat presidents have form. And those who vote them for a second term have short memories.

    You can be certain that this was not overlooked or forgotten in Tehran. Memories are long. Very long. They laugh at us. For them it's like doing a deal with gold fish in a bowl

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=0&v=6TcbU5jAavw

    ReplyDelete
  6. Greg Sheridan in the Australian

    Behind a pay wall but here is an extract


    US President Barack Obama has now effectively guaranteed that Iran will eventually acquire ­nuclear weapons, in what will be a black day for the hopes of peace and stability for anyone in the world.

    The Iranian government has out-negotiated Obama completely. They showed more ­resolve, more cunning and greater strategic patience.

    Obama took a strong hand and played it very badly.

    The Iranians played a weak hand to perfection. They were forced into negotiations by the overall weakness of their position but have emerged with all the main elements of their nuclear program intact. In time, they will acquire nuclear weapons. Obama will go down in history as the president who made this possible.

    The framework that was announced in Lausanne is a most peculiar document. It is unsigned and interpreted differently in Iran, from in the US. It contains very few details. A great deal of the­ ­substance of any agreement remains to be negotiated by June 30. However, as Obama, his Secretary of State, John Kerry, and other senior officials constantly claim that the only alternative to this deal is war, they have effectively given away the last shreds of American leverage.

    The Iranians know the Obama administration is absolutely desperate to conclude a deal.

    All the leverage now rests with the Iranians.

    Even the broad terms of the framework as announced contain all manner of key concessions the Americans not so long ago said they would never make.

    Among these, Iran gets to keep nuclear facilities, such as its underground Fordow plant, which it developed illegally, in secret, in defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Similarly, it gets to keep its heavy water reactor at Arak, although it will convert it to a facility that for the moment cannot produce plutonium.

    It gets to keep 6000 centr­i­fuges to enrich uranium of which 5000 will remain operational. There is no purpose in having these centrifuges other than to eventually produce material for nuclear weapons. It will also be ­allowed to undertake intensive ­research on building more ­advanced centrifuges that can enrich more uranium more quickly. It will not have to export its enriched uranium but merely convert it into a more benign form in a process that can be reversed. And almost all the notional restrictions on Iran run out in 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Iranians did not out negotiate Obama. He is a Jew hater and his base at the Democrat party are Jew haters. They just want Iran to do the dirty job for them. I'm having a hard time figuring out what is it that separates progressives from Nazis anyway. Worship of totalitarian state: check, hatred of individual freedom: check, hatred of Western civilization: check, vicious Jew hatred: check. Hitler would feel right at home.

    ReplyDelete
  8. At the “Empowering Voices” conference (3/20/2015) held by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was not only given an award by our enemy for his outreach and engagement activities with them – for which DHS brags – he said, at the event, “The reading of the Quran reminded me of two things that MLK said a lot, which are quintessentially American values.” [One is, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ Second, ‘I cannot be, what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be in this country.’”]

    ReplyDelete
  9. At this point I'd be happy if Obama just pardons everyone in Gitmo on way out the door, as long as he leaves.

    ReplyDelete