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 Lawrence A. Franklin
There is no change in U.S policy toward Israel that will win any true allies in the Middle East, despite what Arab leaders claim. They often assert that if only we would solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem first, relations would improve. This is a tactic. These leaders employ it simply to divert Western officials from making demands on them, instead of on Israel. The reality is that most Arabs view the U.S., its European allies and Israel with ineradicable contempt.
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.