Justifying Military Actions Against the Muslim Brotherhood

There are many Egyptians today that claim any killing of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood is justified because they are religious extremists. Nothing can be further from the truth. Although there are many complaints about how the Muslim Brotherhood governed the nation, the entire course of their one-year political history cannot provide any conclusion as to whether or not they were the best or worst decision made by the people of Egypt. The only fact on the ground that can be confirmed is that they were the first free democratically elected party in Egypt’s long history.

Many who followed the political progress over the last year had legitimate claims over their poorly organised conduct in cleaning up the country, especially with regards to a lack of short term "wins" in the hearts and minds of citizens. This included dealing with sanitation, fuel & petrol, traffic conditions and many others. Although expecting to pass judgement on a party after one year in office to clean a 30-year mess may be a little premature, no one can deny that there were urgent matters that could have been resolved to keep the people of Egypt satisfied in knowing that the wheels were indeed in motion. It's all about the PR campaign and how you sell yourself to your clients, and in this case the Brotherhood's clients were the people who elected them into office in the first place.

That being said, there were also many who didn't follow the political progress over the last year. Rather they occupied their time with a myriad of false accusations and rumours that left us wondering whether or not Egyptians were capable of distinguishing between a devout Muslim and an extremist. Ill-informed claims posted on Facebook and Twitter flooded feeds with noise louder than that of the parliamentary debates, and it reached levels of ignorance and even bigotry.

The Muslim brotherhood is simply a membership club, comparable to an Australian RSL club. Some claim that one in every ten Egyptian is an "Ikhwani" (of the Brotherhood). That includes women & men, bearded men & shaven men, members who dress in the traditional Islamic garments or wear suits & ties. They are doctors, lawyers, taxi drivers, teachers, and Islamic scholars. They are regular people who are part of an Islamic group; much like the Islamic Egyptian Society is an Islamic group in Australia (only that their numbers aren't large enough to contest a seat in parliament). The only thing that makes them stand out as an Islamic organisation is that they are comprised of practicing Muslims who simply pray their five obligatory prayers daily and read the Quran regularly rather than having it left on a shelf as an historic ornament. That is primarily the only thing that differentiates them from anyone else who earnestly rejects the concept of having the political scene flooded by "Islamists"; dubiously named as though it were a movement like Communist, Fascist or any other “-ist” that could instill fear in the "moderate" populous of society. Apart from their duties, devout Muslims still go out on weekends, they watch TV, and celebrate birthdays. More importantly, they reject hard-line Sharia-run countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran; just like anyone else in Egypt considered moderate. It is concerning that people like the Muslim brotherhood are attacked not for their political direction, but for being extremists simply because they prefer their religion as priority over their culture. Nothing more.

Any Islamic group that enters the political scene is immediately attacked with non-constructive criticism such that the following statements begin spreading throughout social networks like wildfire: "Just wait until they force all women to wear the Burka"; "They are going to knock down the Sphinx because they think idols are prohibited"; "They will close all the beaches because they don't like bikinis"; "Look at that bearded man on TV; he thinks he is a Sheikh trying to be an expert in politics"; And worst of all: "The army killed them? Good riddens!"

As a practicing Muslim, I am saddened to hear such anti-Islamic sentiment sweeping Egypt far worse than any discrimination I've ever experienced here in Western society.

15 reasons why a 'YES' vote on Egypt's Draft Constitution makes more sense

Dostor (Arabic)

Constitution (English)

Based on the above links to the constitution in Arabic and English, the following reasons are why a 'YES' vote makes more sense.

1. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests, explicitly or implicitly, that Islamic organisations will directly benefit from the Constitution itself, nor are there any special privileges given to them.
   
2. Contrary to what people have said, if Islamic organisations gain more influence in politics, women's statuses are elevated and protected with regards to the following principle: "there is no dignity for a country in which women are not honored; women are the sisters of men and partners in all national gains and responsibilities." as well as in Article 10 which states: "The State shall provide special care and protection to female breadwinners, divorced women and widows."
   
3. The Constitution gives the right for Christians and Jews to worship freely and implement their own rules based on their faiths as mentioned in Articles 3 and 43, which also provides them with the right to choose their own spiritual leaders.
   
4. There is now a clear separation of control. The real power of the government will be handed to the people through the House of Representatives and removed from the President and any other executive positions, as mentioned in Article 116.
   
5. There are no dictatorial powers bestowed on the President. He does not have the will to dissolve Parliament at his own discretion, and even if he tries to push for a dissolution, it must be put to a public referendum. If the majority disagree with the President's decision and support the legitimacy of Parliament, then the President has lost his credibility in government and must be forced to resign. Article 127
   
6. In the event that Parliament does actually get dissolved, power of legislation is handed to the Senate (Shura Council) as priority above the President as mentioned in Article 131.
   
7. If the President declares a state of emergency to give him temporary powers, it must be approved by Parliament, and has an expiry of 6 months. If it needs to be extended, only the people, through public referendum, can agree for an extension of emergency powers. Article 148.
   
8. Police can no longer arrest civilians and keep them detained indefinitely without the right to fair trial. They are obliged to provide legitimate reasons for their arrests and treat the detainees with respect and dignity without harm or interrogation. Articles 35-36.
   
9. Internal affairs can no longer tap phones or spy on civilians with internet technology using their own discretion. People's privacy is now sacred as mentioned in Article 38.
   
10. People have the freedom to voice their opinion (without insult, or risk to national security) whether verbally, through blogs or even via Media outlets and the press, which is a new concept for Egyptians. Article 45, 48, and 215
    
11. Education is planned to improve, and illiteracy is planned to be removed. Article 61
    
12. Free healthcare services to all poor citizens, as mentioned in Article 62, which is something the United States haven't even been able to provide.
    
13. The government is willing to implement a minimum wage plan, with all workers having equal rights and safety in the workforce. Article 63.
    
14. Civilians can no longer be tried in Military courts if they commit a civil crime. Article 198.
    
15. The transitional period is solid, providing the Shura Council, NOT the president, full authority of legislation for the current transition towards a new elected Parliament. Article 230

The arguments that oppose the Constitution have not been strong enough to convince me to vote otherwise.

Population of Jews and Arabs in Israel, West Bank and Gaza

Nationality	Location	Population
Jews	Israel	6.20 million
Jews	West Bank Settlements	0.53 million
Arabs	Israel	1.57 million
Arabs	West Bank	2.50 million
Arabs	Gaza	1.20 million
Arabs	Refugees	4.50 million

Total Population
Jews	6.73 million
Arabs	9.77 million

Why is Israel not a forebearer of human rights given Jewish history with the Nazis?

After the holocaust the Jews adopted a quote that is now found on some of their structures: "Never again"...

Never Again means first and foremost that Jews will never again go quietly and submissively to their deaths. Never Again means that Jews will not bend to the will of oppressors. Never Again is a motto shouted with the recognition that Jews are not commanded by God to be downtrodden and victimized - quite the opposite. Never Again is the motto of the post-Holocaust Jew, who knows that the world can be a dangerous place and that it often gets much more dangerous for Jews when they fail to assert their rights as human beings.

[JDL http://www.jdl.org/index.php/ideology-advocacy/core-ideology/never-again/]

The problem with this quote is that it should have been more specific:
"Never again to anyone" not "Never again" to the Jews.

The "chosen people" as it were, believe that it is their God-given right to return to the land of Palestine to establish a state for the Jews. This is not a generic state, it is a state solely for the Jews. This is in contrast to countries described by their dominant nationality such as Turkey which is considered a Turkish state simply because of its majority. This Jewish state exists regardless of the demographics.

Technically speaking, those who believe in the concept of a God-given Jewish state have nothing against Arabs at all (in fact their zeal is focused more on Christians for the movements in Europe during the late 1800s / early 1900s); Arabs just so happen to inhabit the land they want.

As the Iron Wall teaches us (and as many in this movement today believe), the land must return to their own kind and be maintained by the Jews alone, at all costs, even if that cost is just as severe as the history that was inflicted upon them.

So there is no direct relationship between Nazi treatment and the belief that their race should have a Jewish state of their own, although it is a good means to gain simpathy for their cause.

Why did Palestinians elect Hamas if most view them as a militant organisation?

This is a common trait in a state of conflict where people naturally choose the hard-lined leader in order to protect their people with strength and courage against an external threat, rather than with their PhDs in diplomacy.

We saw the same scenario with the rise of a General who became Prime Minister in Ariel Sharon, or Binyamin Netanyahu who was part of the General forces unit and a captain, and even Menachim Begin who was part of the Irgun terrorist group that bombed several British buildings and traded with illegal weaponry.

This is even evident between two military leaders who took separate paths in their methods of leadership regarding the zealous persona of Gamal Abdel-Nasser who was popular in Egypt because he promoted protection against the Zionist invasion, rather than the more diplomatic approach to peace in Anwar Sadat, who subsequently was assassinated for his attempts at peace. This similarity can also be seen in Israel when Yitzhak Rabin was also assassinated for his attempts at peace in a heightened time of conflict.

This stems from the propaganda created for warfare. The classic situation where newspapers and radios promote the perception of "near-annihilation" as troops battle to defend their country's existence. While a people face the depressing realities of daily bombardment, they need a hero to turn to in order to give them hope of victory.
In the first world countries today, we witness people naturally inclined to seek justice in internal affairs rather than in warfare against an external entity. This is especially common amongst the youth who have lived all their lives in a world without any direct imminent threat from external entities, as was the case before their forefathers fought to win their own independence.

Gaza is no different. Rather than the people seeking a government that can provide them financial stability, economic opportunities, and social justice, they believe that none of this can be achieved with the constant humiliation of occupation and a disruption of normality with ongoing checkpoints and land confiscations in areas that were replaced with settlements, as was the case before the seige began in Gaza in 2006. With absence of peace in their everyday lives and the uncertainty of their future, those who become popular were the highest bidders for security.

Hamas' militant approach is the strongest and most secure option for the people of Gaza because no one else can provide them with the protection they need. It is unfortunate that since they have taken office their militant approach has been like punching the apartheid wall with their bare fists; achieving nothing but reactions from those who imposed the blockade around the Strip, rather than a stable solution for the people's livelihoods. These reactions by the occupying powers continually result in civilian casualties even after democracy was implemented in the region with Hamas. That particular democracy was shunned, and was still frowned upon even after Hamas were willing to accept a truce with Israel based on the pre-67 borders in the same year they were elected into office.

What resulted from the elections that birthed Hamas' political careers was evidence that violence ultimately spawns violence, just as the Gaza siege in 2008/2009 will undoubtedly bring up another child who witnessed brutality with the horrific scenes of burned bodies and the pools of blood. Those scenes could only traumatize a collective group of youth that will grow up in a violent environment and a vengeful disposition.

Israel's mistake in dealing with the situation of trying to remove Hamas has not yet been realised. Rather than a collective punishment imposed on Gaza because the people elected the "wrong leaders", the withdrawal of violence will actually have a positive effect, and it will naturally dissolve support in such reactionary groups amongst popular Palestinian opinion.