Egypt’s Morsi Investigated for Conspiracy and Murder

Egyptian prosecutors are investigating the now-overthrown president Mohammad Morsi for his alleged involvement in a plot with Hamas to break Muslim Brotherhood members out of jail in 2011—including Morsi himself—that left fourteen prison guards dead.

The Brotherhood claims the charges are politically motivated. That may well be the case. Egyptian prosecutors aren’t exactly above board and honest, not now and not ever.

Far more interesting than whether or not Morsi was involved is that the charges cast Hamas as a bad actor that murders Egyptians. This is not the standard narrative we’re accustomed to hearing in Egypt.

Kickstarter Rewards Delivered

Those who donated to my Kickstarter project to fund my last trip to the Middle East have just received a full color e-book for their iPads, Kindles, Nooks, Kobos, etc.

This book is only available to my Kickstarter supporters. You can't get it anywhere else.

If you wish you had one of these, I’ll be running another Kickstarter project soon and you can guarantee yourself a copy of the next one.

If you donated to my Kickstarter project and did not receive your copy today, send an email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com.

Thanks very much to you all.

Not Even Zombies Can Save the Middle East

Israelis and Arabs aren’t likely to get along in the real world any time soon, but they briefly pull it off in the film adaptation of Max Brooks’ mega best-selling novel, World War Z. People who hate Israel for a living are giving the movie a big thumbs-down because of it.

As’ad AbuKhalil, the self-described “Angry Arab,” quotes a reader named Mohammad who describes the film as “Zionist pornography.”

Here is Jesse Benjamin at the relentlessly axe-grinding Mondoweiss Web site: “Not only is Israel’s fanatical Wall Building proven to be justified, against the hordes of undead invaders, and not only are Jewish victimizations paraded to justify the aggrandizement of Israeli military prowess, but it’s Israel’s supposed humanism, and multicultural inclusiveness, which in the end weakens the fragile post-apocalyptic state and allows the zombies to overrun everything.” He goes on from there on a bizarre racialist rant against Zionism and the American “empire” and concludes by yearning for a tonic against such evils with a story told from the zombie horde’s point of view.

The Associated Press rounds up negative reactions from the Arab world. “It's free propaganda for Israel at a time when it occupies other people,” says Palestinian cartoonist Ramzi Taweel. “It portrays Israel as a moral power that protects human beings. It justifies the wall. ... The Israeli occupation army in the movie is a humane army that protects the world.” “I don't think it was trying to justify Israel's occupation,” says Aleena Khan in Dubai, “but it was glorifying the Israelis by emphasizing peace and harmony of the two nations, which is far from the truth.”

World War Z does portray Israel and Israelis positively. No one is imagining that. But at no point is Israel positively portrayed at the expense of the Arabs.

Most of the kvetchers are tired and predictable, are they’re over-reacting. World War Z is a popcorn movie. It doesn’t even pretend to be a serious geopolitical film. The novel is complex and brilliant. The film version is not. It’s a straightforward summer blockbuster designed to get the main character Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) from one exotic locale to another so he can get chased by zombies.

The book is subtitled An Oral History of the Zombie War. As in Studs Terkel’s classic oral histories, no one appears in the book for more than a handful of pages, so there is no main character. We get a few pages from a man in China who lives in the village where Patient Zero appears. Another chapter is narrated by a blind man in Japan who manages to flee the city and survive in the wilderness. An American soldier describes how the United States army sweeps and clears the continent from one coast to another. And so on.

Because the characters in the book span the entire world over a long sweep of time, there’s no plot in the conventional sense, but there is a story. The story is the human race’s struggle against an extinction event. Humans collectively are the protagonist, and the zombie horde—known by the United States Army as “Zack”—is the terrifying antagonist.

No one could film that in two hours. The movie, by necessity, is only glancingly similar. There is a main character, but he isn’t developed. Gerry Lane is a United Nations researcher who bounces from one part of the world to another trying to figure out where the outbreak started. His quest takes him from Philadelphia to East Asia, the Middle East, and to Europe. The film’s final stretch in Wales is by far the most suspenseful, but Lane’s visit to Israel provides the film’s most interesting, though brief, foray into international affairs, and this of course is where all the controversy is focused.

In the film version, Israel is one of only two countries that survives the initial zombie outbreak. The other is North Korea. Pyongyang pulls out the teeth of the entire population in 24 hours, making it impossible for the virus to spread. But Israel is not a totalitarian police state. The Israelis survive the initial wave intact because they have a clever intelligence tool at their disposal that no other country in the world possesses. I don’t want to spoil the film by revealing it here, but I will say that whoever developed this part of the story understands Israeli history and culture well enough to think of a semi-plausible explanation that, fortunately for the film’s reputation among mainstream filmgoers, has nothing to do with the Palestinians, the West Bank, or Gaza.

The Arab countries have been overrun with zombies, and the Israelis construct an enormous wall to keep them out. If you stop right there you could say the zombie wall is a thinly disguised metaphor for the real-world separation barrier between Israel and the West Bank and that the zombies represent Arabs. But in context that’s ludicrous. The movie makes it clear that zombies are zombies and Arabs are humans. The towering zombie wall is not a stand-in for the real wall separating Israelis from Arabs. In World War Z, the wall separates Israelis and Arabs from zombies. The Israelis let non-zombified Arab refugees pass through the wall to relative safety. The eternally squabbling neighbors are finally at peace, united against a common enemy. “Every human being we save,” says an Israeli intelligence agent, “is one less to fight.”

Israelis and Arabs banding together to fight zombies is the stuff of fantastical science-fiction, of course, but it’s a nice message all the same, one that has been a staple of the genre since its beginning. Our differences as human beings vanish when faced with zombies, alien invasions, killer asteroids, and so on. Harlan Ellison put it this way in his classic science fiction collection Dangerous Visions, originally published in 1967:

Between the time I wrote “The Day After the Day the Martians Came” and now, I met a minister from a small town in Alabama. Like many churches, not only in Alabama, his is torn on the question of integration. He has found a way, he thinks, to solve it—or at least to ameliorate it—among the white teen-agers in his congregation: he is encouraging them to read science fiction in the hope that they may learn, first, to worry about green-skinned Martians instead of black-skinned Americans and, second, that all men are brothers…at least in the face of a very large universe which is very likely to contain creatures who are not men at all.

It’s easy to botch that message and make it sound juvenile and pat, but World War Z takes it seriously. The antagonists in the film are so overwhelmingly violent and hostile that even a Middle Eastern pessimist like me managed to swallow it.

Unfortunately, World War Z’s message of common humanity is lost on much of the real Middle East and its legion of commentators.

You can watch the trailer here.

Israel Strikes Syria -- Again

The United States Defense Intelligence Agency confirms that the Israelis struck another Syrian weapons depot, this time in the Mediterranean city of Latakia. The Israelis are worried that Russian missiles will be transferred to Hezbollah in Lebanon and have repeatedly destroyed them on the ground before they can be moved.

Unlike the United States, Israel doesn't have a foreign policy in the Middle East. It has a defense policy. There is a difference. The Israelis don't have enough power or leverage to shape regional politics to their advantage. They learned that the hard way during the Lebanese civil war. All they can really do is defend themselves and quietly cooperate with the few friends they have over there.

Al Qaeda, including its Al Nusra Front franchise in Syria, has never been particularly interested in Israel. That might change if Assad falls, but so far all the recent Israeli strikes in Syria were against the Iranian-Assad-Hezbollah axis. None were against any faction on the rebel side.

Iran is striving to aquire nuclear weapons. Hezbollah has direct support from Syria and Iran and indirect support from Russsia. The Assad regime ties them all together. As a bloc they are much more dangerous, for now anyway, than ragtag stateless irregulars, and the Israelis are acting accordingly.

Out of Town This Week

I'm taking a professional writing and publishing workshop this week that will occupy me for twelve hours a day, so blogging might be slow. We'll see how much energy I have left at the end of each day. Either way, I'll be back to normal next week.

The Next Syrian War

It has been obvious for some time now that if Bashar al-Assad is overthrown, the next big Syrian war will be fought between Al Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army. There’s no room for both. (There’s no room for anyone to co-exist peacefully with Al Qaeda.)

It made a certain amount of sense for them to wait until Assad is out of the way, but they might start fighting sooner than that.

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian rebels said on Friday the assassination of one of their top commanders by al Qaeda-linked militants was tantamount to a declaration of war, opening a new front for the Western-backed fighters struggling against President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

Rivalries have been growing between the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Islamists, whose smaller but more effective forces control most of the rebel-held parts of northern Syria more than two years after pro-democracy protests became an uprising.

"We will not let them get away with it because they want to target us," a senior FSA commander said on condition of anonymity after members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant killed Kamal Hamami on Thursday.

"We are going to wipe the floor with them," he said.

Yesterday I wrote that nobody can really know anything about the future, but it's pretty unlikely that Al Qaeda will suddenly learn to play well with others.

Getting the Muslim Brotherhood Wrong

Everybody got the Muslim Brotherhood wrong, including me, and starting with the Egyptian people themselves.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammad Morsi won Egypt’s first free and fair election for its head of state. Picking him seemed like a good idea at the time to the typical Egyptian voter, but clearly it wasn’t since Egypt just vomited him and his party up into everyone’s lap.

I figured that would happen eventually, but I’m still astonished that it happened so quickly.

Genuine political liberals are thin on the ground in Egypt, but they do exist. I know several. Some are my friends. Most of them were wrong about the Brotherhood, too. They were right, of course, when they warned the rest of us that the Brothers would transform Egypt into a theocratic dictatorship, but they were wrong when they estimated how much support the Brotherhood had. Hardly any expected the Islamists to win most of the votes, though that’s exactly what happened.

American liberals made a different mistake. Despite warnings from secular Egyptians and former Islamists, the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate and democratic party became an article of faith here in the States, particularly among academics and journalists who should have known better. Even James Clapper—who, as the Director of National Intelligence, really should have known better—said the Muslim Brotherhood is “a largely secular organization.” Surely that ranks among the dumbest things ever said about the organization in all of its 85 years.

Look: the Muslim Brotherhood is not a mysterious new group that no one knows anything about. It was founded in 1928, for crying out loud, and its ideology has been documented exhaustively. Not for even five minutes has it been a democratic or moderate party. It has been struggling for theocracy since the day it was born, sometimes peaceably and sometimes by force. Every Sunni Islamist terrorist organization in the region is a spin-off of the Brotherhood or a spin-off of one of its spin-offs.  

Western liberals should have spent a lot more time listening to their Egyptian counterparts and no time at all swallowing the lies of faith-based gangsters with a Pharaonic complex. This whole business quite frankly baffles me. An American Christian equivalent of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood would be denounced as fascist by every Western-born liberal on earth. We’d hear no end of comparisons to the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, General Franco’s Falangists, and the Crusades. And yet so many Westerners proved incapable of applying the same political analytical skills to Egypt that they use every day in the US and Europe. I’ll leave it to them to explain how that happened once they figure it out.

American conservatives always understood that the Muslim Brotherhood was bad news. Many also seemed to sense instinctively that the Muslim Brotherhood would win the election in Egypt. They were right on both counts.

But then the narrative among some parts of the American right went off the rails. Many argued that radical Islamists were bound to triumph everywhere in the Middle East since they had just triumphed in Egypt, as if nearly everyone who self-identifies as a Muslim yearns for political Islam as a matter of course. This point of view regularly appears in my comments section.

It didn’t seem to register that non-Islamists and anti-Islamists frequently do well in elections in Muslim countries, even in Arab countries and even in the wake of the Arab Spring. Tunisia’s Islamist party Ennahda won less than fifty percent of the vote and was forced into a coalition government with secular parties that block it routinely. Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party lost big. In Lebanon, secular parties have won most of the votes since the nation’s founding, and, except for the Israelis, the Lebanese have held more elections in the region than anyone else. 

More recently, the citizens of Mali cheered the French as liberators when they invaded and routed Al Qaeda in the north. Mali, by the way, is not even close to being a largely atheist nation like the nominally Muslim countries of the former communist bloc.

Islamist victories happen sometimes, but they aren’t inevitable. Karl Marx cobbled together psuedo-scientific arguments for why socialism was destined to triumph over capitalism. He claimed history was teleological, that its endpoint could be delayed but not forever resisted, but that’s not how it worked out for communism, nor is it working that way for radical Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood slogan “Islam is the solution” is but one point of view among many. Sometimes its adherents win and sometimes they lose, just like the proponents of ideas everywhere else.

I got a few things wrong, too. Like Egypt’s liberals and America’s conservatives, I understood all along that the Muslim Brotherhood was theocratic and authoritarian. But I did not think they would win. I knew they’d do well—Egypt is the most Islamicized place I’ve ever been, after all—but I assumed they’d have a hard time breaking fifty percent.

Not only did the Muslim Brotherhood win, a huge percentage of Egyptians who voted against them went for the Salafists, the ideological brethren of Osama bin Laden. Egypt turned out to be even more politically Islamicized than I realized, and I knew it was bad.

Yet in the long sweep of Egyptian history, it lasted about as long as a hiccup.

I think it’s safe to say everyone, regardless of their political orientation and what they got right and wrong a year ago, was surprised by how quickly Egypt rejected the Brotherhood. The United States government has sound reasons for not describing what happened as a military coup, but that’s what it was. The rest of us shouldn’t kid ourselves. Yet it’s clear that the coup was a popular one. Morsi ended up more hated than Hosni Mubarak, and he achieved that dubious honor in one year instead of in thirty.

That ought to make American liberals rethink the notion that the Brotherhood is democratic and moderate. And it ought to show American conservatives that Muslims are perfectly capable of rejecting political Islam whether or not they’re secular Jeffersonian democrats. The Muslim Brotherhood might recover somewhat if the next government fails as badly as Morsi’s, but then again it might not.

No one can predict the future anywhere in the world. It’s even harder in the Middle East than in other places. History doesn’t move in straight lines over there. Sometimes it goes in circles. Other times it veers off in wild directions. Keen observers can figure out what’s happening now, but when it comes to the future, nobody really knows anything.

Terrorizing the Terrorists

Somebody just detonated a car bomb in Beirut’s southern suburbs, Hezbollah’s de-facto capital. Fifty eight people were hurt. No one claimed credit.

One of the creepy things about Lebanon is that it’s not always obvious who is behind this sort of thing. It’s probably related to the Syrian war, but it might not be. 

From the Mouths of Babes

I’m afraid Walter Russell Mead is right when he says, “Egypt has none of the signs that would lead historians to think democracy is just around the corner. Mubarak was not Franco, and Egypt is not Spain.”

Democracy requires democrats, liberalism requires liberals, and Egypt doesn’t have many of either.

But Egypt has some! Take a look at this short video interview with a 12-year-old kid back in October. He’s startlingly sophisticated for someone so young, and he makes the adult person interviewing him sound like an ass.

I’ll have real hope for Egypt when its young people en masse rebel against their parents. It happens sometimes. And it needs to happen in Egypt.

Required Reading

NOW Lebanon columnist Michael Weiss is on fire. His entire piece, Between Sisi and Morsi, is magnificent, so go read it all.

Here is but a taste.

In a way, it’s hard not to sympathize with former anti-Mubarak agitators turned army nostalgics such as Mohammed Badr, now the de facto leader of the Tamarod (“rebellion”) movement to unseat Morsi. If his ideology weren’t a big enough problem on its own, Morsi’s tone-deaf incompetence surely was. Presented with a national complaint that exceeded in both size and scope the one that ousted his predecessor, Morsi has done everything to legitimate the opposition’s argument that, at a time of emergency, Egypt is being lorded over by an authoritarian nincompoop who thinks he’s got all the time in the world. (One way to make the word “coup” suddenly palatable again is to appoint a member of a terrorist group the provincial governor of the region where that group once perpetrated it worst terrorist attack.)

Morsi has indeed treated his opponents as if they simply do not exist, surely a reflex response of decades of having kept only the counsel of his fellow subscribers of a cult movement that seems to borrow from both Bolshevism and Heaven’s Gate. Even as half a dozen or so members of his own cabinet tendered their resignations, even as Brotherhood heavies were being seized and placed under house arrest, and even as Brotherhood HQ was being set alight, the president was neither seen nor heard from. When he finally took to the airwaves at midnight last night to reject Sisi’s ultimatum, Morsi affirmed that the price for his maintenance in power could be his own life – not realizing that this was a price many are eager to see paid.


President Obama has said recently, though only discovered belatedly, that democracy must not be confused with the mere holding of elections. Whatever happens from here, one lesson that should be learned from Egypt’s latest round of convulsions is the sentimental pieties and determinisms with which we continue to approach history require a serious rethink. The image of an ink-stained finger or an old man arriving at a polling station to participate in the first free election of his life are undeniably more captivating for viewers of CNN or Al Jazeera than the latest report from the International Monetary Fund or Human Rights Watch. And yet, because the more significant bricks-and-mortar work that goes into building a functioning state and safeguarding an independent civil society is so easily ignored, that work is usually the first victim of the aspiring tyrants of the ballot box. Critical journalists can thus be fired from their jobs, NGO workers can be put on trial for phantom conspiracies, women can be characterized as Adam’s rib, opposition leaders can be beaten or locked up – all in the name of a concept “democracy” that been fetishized to near meaninglessness. Put it this way: if the ruling party in a true democracy is shown to be running torture facilities out of the official residence of the chief executive, it will not take a new election to remove that party from power.

Read the whole thing at NOW Lebanon.

A Study in Contrasts

Two days after rampaging mobs sexually assaulted 91 women at demonstrations in Egypt, Libya is preparing to make rape during armed conflict a war crime.

A Prediction

Terrorism is coming to Egypt.

Armed Forces Control Egypt

Egypt's Mohamed Morsi is now officially overthrown by the military. Adly Mansour, the head of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court, is the new president.

Military commanders say they don't wish to govern, but they're clearly the real power in Egypt.

This, by the way, is why Iran's Revolutionary Guard was created after the Shah was overthrown in 1979. State armies everywhere in the Middle East are allergic to radical political Islam even though the armies are made up of Muslims.

Genuine liberals exist in the Middle East. In some places, such as in Egypt, they're a tiny minority. Seriously, don't kid yourself. The millions of people out in Cairo's streets are not all Jeffersonian democrats. Some of them are, but those crowds also include a motley collection of Nasserists, communists, socialists, anarchists, reactionaries, garden variety hooligans, and gang rapists.

In other countries, such as Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco, civil society institutions flourish and liberals are much more numerous.

In most of the region, however, this isn't their moment. The contest for power is still being waged between the regimes and the Islamists.

Egypt is right back where it started. I’m reminded of something Lebanese President Amine Gemayel said during the civil war in the 1980s. “Everyone is against everyone else, and it all keeps going around and around in circles without anyone ever winning or anything being accomplished.”

Here We Go


Subscribe to RSS - Michael J. Totten's blog