Egyptian Election: Islamist Victory - or Deceptive Strategy?
It is counterproductive for the West to eat straight out of the Brotherhood's hands and unquestioningly disseminate its unsubstantiated information, as the Islamists would like: It works to their advantage.
Has anyone stopped to ask where the headlines "Muslim Brotherhood wins Egypt's presidential election!" originated? They came, of course, straight from the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, particularly the Qatari Islamist propaganda machine, Al Jazeera, and were then helpfully perpetuated by the mainstream media and talking-heads.
That allegation might sound suspiciously like a "conspiracy theory" were it not for the countless statements by the non-Islamist Egyptian media that were left unquoted by the western media, as well as many analysts who had a different tale to tell: The election was actually won by the secular candidate, Ahmed Shafiq.
What does the Muslim Brotherhood have to benefit by claiming victory now, if it might be proven otherwise three days from now, on June 21, when the results will be officially announced? Simple: they will be able to scream foul play—and gain the world's sympathy. For days the world will have been inundated with news that the Brotherhood won; when and if it hears that Shafiq won, it will naturally conclude that there has been electoral fraud -- as serves the Islamists' interests.
Mahmoud Baraka, a Shafiq campaign spokesman, maintains that "their candidate won the presidency, with 52% of the votes"—precisely the same number the Brotherhood is claiming—adding that the Brotherhood's claims to victory "are bizarre and unacceptable," a "big act."
Similarly, talk show host Tawfik Okasha appeared, emphatically saying that the Brotherhood's claims are "all lies," that most polls indicate their candidate, Muhammad Morsi "failed," and that the Islamist group's motive is simply to sow "discord and dissension." He then provided several examples of how the Brotherhood's claims are incongruous with reality.
Why believe Shafiq's spokesman and staunch secularist Okasha? Good question. Here's a better question: Why believe the Muslim Brotherhood?
Knowing the Brotherhood's deceptive tactics—"War is deceit" as their prophet said—there is good reason to think that they may have planned a propaganda victory well before the elections. They could claim victory, won fair and square; they could have their Islamist and Western media supporters trumpet it; they could embed it in everyone's mind for over three days before the results were formally announced— all to set the playing field to their advantage. If Shafiq wins, everyone—from militant Islamists in Egypt to a grandstanding US Secretary of State—will shout, "foul play!", thereby exonerating the long promised civil war Egypt's Islamists vowed to wage if the election did not go their way. So much for democracy. The rebellion they have threatened to stage would then be portrayed in the West as the result of a of a "grievance."
At this moment, no one knows which candidate won. The race is close. In the meantime, even though it is naturally the business of every news bureau to "break the news" and not be left behind, it is counterproductive for the West to eat straight out of the Brotherhood's hands and unquestioningly disseminate its unsubstantiated information, as the Islamists would like: It works to their advantage.
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum
Comment on this item
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Soeren Kern
Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam and as a central hub for European jihadists to fight in Syria.
The proposed revisions would, among other changes, regulate the training and hiring of Muslim clerics, prohibit the foreign funding of mosques, and establish an official German-language version of the Koran to prevent its "misinterpretation" by Islamic extremists.
Muslims would be prohibited from citing Islamic sharia law as legal justification for ignoring or disobeying Austrian civil laws.
Leaders of Austria's Muslim community counter that the contemplated new law amounts to "institutionalized Islamophobia."
Official statistics show that nearly 60% of the inhabitants of Vienna are immigrants or foreigners. The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible.