EFTA02681485.pdf

i 21 December, 2011 Article 1. Weekly Standard Blaming the Jews—Again Elliott Abrams Article 2. The National Interest A New Hamas in the Making? Bilal Y. Saab Article 3. NYT The End, for Now Thomas L. Friedman Article 4. The Washington Post In Iraq, a return to old enmities Editorial Article 5. New York Review of Books Egypt on the Edge Yasmine El Rashidi Article 6. INEGMA Syrian Uprising: Its Impact on Iran and Possibility of Civil War Riad Kahwaji Article 7. Foreign Policy Bashar al-Assad Is Every Bit His Father's Son Jerrold M. Post, Ruthie Pertsis EFTA_R1_01992700 EFTA02681485 Article 1. Weekly Standard Blaming the Jews—Again Elliott Abrams December 20, 2011 -- If you were an anti-Semite dedicated to spreading your hatred of Jews, what charges exactly would you make in 21st century America? You would avoid the blood libel—too medieval to write of sacrificing Christian children to make Passover matzo. That kind of stuff circulates in Arab lands or Pakistan, but won't sell in suburban America. And the "Christ-killer" material is also dated, what with Vatican II, Evangelical support for Israel, and the like. There are two charges you would make. First, the rich Jews control our government. Second, those Jews are trying to push America into war so your sons will have to fight for Israel. In the last week that is exactly what we have seen. First came the Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times: "I sure hope that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." Perhaps it was jealousy from seeing Walt and Mearsheimer sell all those books with this line, but Friedman here tips right into the swamps. And now we have Joe Klein, in Time magazine, in a section accurately entitled "Swampland": "Iowa Republicans are not neoconservatives. Ron Paul has gained ground after a debate in which his refusal to join the Iran warhawks was front and center. Indeed, in my travels around the country, I don't meet many neoconservatives outside of Washington and New York. It's one thing to just adore Israel, as the evangelical Christians do; it's another EFTA_R1_01992701 EFTA02681486  3 thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel's national security." Now, Klein has chosen his medium well: Time has a history of anti- Semitism, illustrated by its famous 1977 story about Israel's prime minister that began "Menachem Begin (rhymes with Fagin)." But Klein's thoughts are about as ugly as ever appear outside of Pat Buchanan's publications. "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East-the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States," Buchanan said in 1990. How different is that from what Klein just wrote? After all, Klein is saying (1) neoconservatives are Jews, and Jews are neoconservatives; (2) Evangelicals like Israel but they are real Americans who put their own country first, unlike Jews; (3) and what those Jews/neoconservatives really want is to send American boys off to fight Israel's wars, sparing Israeli kids and of course their own kids, who are apparently not "American kids" and anyway do not fight for their country. Of course Klein simply ignores the possibility that concern about the Iranian nuclear program does not make one a warmongering neoconservative, and actually extends even to Christians. Yesterday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, "The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it....If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it." Bought and paid for? Sending American kids off to fight for Israel's security? These two recent statements are as vicious as it gets in the mainstream media, and here we have two Jews—Friedman and Klein— spreading the two major themes of contemporary American anti- Semitism. Why? Why now? EFTA_R1_01992702 EFTA02681487  4 Why does it matter? Perhaps it is their hatred of Israel's right of center government, or of modern Israel, or of the rise of Orthodoxy in Israel and in the American Jewish community. Let us not descend into such analyses when what matters is not abnormal psychology but the bounds of public discourse. Once upon a time, William F. Buckley banned Pat Buchanan from the pages of National Review and in essence drummed him out of the conservative movement for such accusations. Today, where are the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Committee, and all the Jewish "defense" organizations? Where are all the Jewish groups which have given Klein and Friedman awards, demanding them back? Where are Jewish Democrats in Congress, who have no doubt wined and dined both Klein and Friedman in a thousand dinner parties, and Congressional leaders from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid? And what about our other supposed moral leaders, religious, intellectual, or political? It isn't a small matter, because as we have learned the hard way with Walt and Mearsheimer, once the infection of anti-Semitism enters the mass media and the academy, it grows and grows. What begins as a "controversial statement" ends up on every reading list. Klein and Friedman, whatever their personal motivations for these statements, are helping popularize and make acceptable anti-Semitism in America. Their own publications will no doubt reward them for their advanced thinking. Will the rest of our society? EFTA_R1_01992703 EFTA02681488 Ankle 2. The National Interest A New Hamas in the Making? Bilal Y. Saab December 20, 2011 -- Jane's, an internationally respected British security and defense risk-analysis firm, has recently reported that Hamas, the Palestinian militant group, is on "the brink of renouncing armed resistance and moving to a policy of nonviolent resistance to Israel." Jane's, with which I have been a monthly writer to three of its publications since 2007, has several hard-to-ignore quotes in its report of Hamas leaders saying that the move was not "tactical" but "strategic." Also interviewed are Palestinian Authority intelligence officers who said that Hamas's strategy was "gradual and nuanced," with one senior officer telling Jane's that Hamas "intends to keep its military and security units to control the situation in Gaza, not necessarily to fight the Israelis." The interviewees' names were not mentioned for obvious security reasons. I urge every subscriber to Jane's to read that groundbreaking piece of reporting because, even if it is not publicly confirmed yet by Hamas's leadership, it has all the makings of a fascinating story which I am positive will generate an intense debate not only in the Arab world and Israel but also in Washington and other Western capitals. The story is starting to get serious attention in the international press with the Financial Times, Sydney Herald Tribune and other media outlets covering it. The report, written by my friend and colleague David Hartwell, Jane's Middle East and Islamic affairs editor, argues that the springboard for this new strategic approach by Hamas is the Arab uprising. More directly, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey reportedly played a key role in convincing Hamas to reconcile with its historical rival EFTA_R1_01992704 EFTA02681489  6 Fatah and end armed resistance against Israel. Hartwell writes that Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, in a meeting on November 24 in Cairo with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, accepted "in writing with a signature" the need to embrace peaceful activism. And if this is not controversial enough, echoing Syrian opposition leader Burhan Ghalioun, Hamas's leadership also told Jane's that it will be "downgrading its ties with Syria and Iran and forge new relationships with Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey." In some ways, perhaps, this development could have been foreseen. Even the most ideological and stubborn actors in the Middle East have been forced to adjust to the new political realities created by the Arab uprising. Hezbollah in Lebanon, for example, has been feeling increasingly vulnerable and isolated lately because of the escalating civil conflict in Syria and the threat that poses to its ally, the Syrian regime. Hezbollah recently made significant concessions at home, including its approval of funding for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon—an entity that Hezbollah's leadership for years had viewed as a tool used by Israel and the United States to defeat it. Other signs of Hezbollah's contemplation of life after Syrian president Bashar Assad include its decision to move most of its military hardware that has been stored in Syria back to areas under its control inside Lebanon, including the South and the Bekaa. Yet despite its evident tactical adjustments, Hezbollah hasn't suggested any intent to disarm, forge new strategic alliances or end its military struggle against Israel. In fact, in a rare public appearance this month, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah declared that his party will remain defiant, side with Assad's Syria and never relinquish its arms. If Hamas, an ally of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran (the so-called Resistance Axis), truly intends to reinvent itself, that would be a historic development with massive political and security implications EFTA_R1_01992705 EFTA02681490  7 not just for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also for the whole of Middle East politics. There are numerous questions surrounding Hamas's reported decision, the most obvious being why it could have possibly adopted such a stance. It is one thing to say that Hamas felt motivated and/or pressured by Turkey, Egypt and Qatar to renounce violence. But it takes much more for an organization to abandon everything it has stood for and create for itself a new identity. After all, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have tried countless times in the past to shape Hamas and lure it, with financial and political rewards, to leave the pro-Iran- Syria-Hezbollah camp and give up armed struggle. The strategy did not work simply because Hamas felt it had much more to lose than gain. The Resistance Axis was always on the rise, especially after the 2003 Iraq war as Iran and Syria gained influence in the region at the expense of their rivals. No more. Today, with Iran feeling more cornered by the international community (minus Russia and China) than ever because of its controversial nuclear program and with Syria's regime fighting an existential battle against its own people, the balance of power is shifting in the Middle East, and this has not gone unnoticed by Hamas. It is foolish to deny that Hamas's decisions and behavior have been partly driven by ideological convictions and motivations, but it is also wrong to argue the organization has not acted rationally, based on material interest. The decision it reportedly has currently taken may be further proof of that. While it is important to remember that Hamas's leadership has not gone public with its decision, it is worth noting that the majority of its external political staff has already evacuated Damascus, where it has a key office managed by Meshal. Their next destination is likely to be Cairo and Doha, where leaders there have committed to sponsoring the movement politically and financially. Unlike EFTA_R1_01992706 EFTA02681491  8 Hezbollah, Hamas has refused to say publicly that it is siding with the Syrian regime, a move that has angered not only the Syrian leadership but also the mullahs in Tehran—causing them, according to Jane's and other sources, to stop providing financial assistance. With money drying up and winds of change rocking the region, it is no wonder Hamas was fed up with Syria and Iran. One also cannot exclude the sectarian underpinnings of Hamas's decision. While llamas never allowed its religious identity—Sunni—to prevent it from forming necessary and strategic alliances with Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, the party is pragmatic enough to realize that positioning itself against the Sunni Islamist tide that is currently sweeping the region (in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, possibly Syria and elsewhere) is against its long-term interests. Having operated in the Iranian strategic orbit in the past, Hamas might now wish to embrace its old identity as a branch of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas's decision, if real, will take time to implement. Since its founding in 1987, the organization's bread-and-butter stance has been armed resistance coupled with terrorist activity. Should Hamas's leadership publicly state its new strategy, the first thing it will have to do is come up with a new charter as evidence to the world that its move is not propaganda. The organization will also need substantial help from Arab countries and others interested in such a development. The world, including the United States, will not accept Hamas's transformation if it is half-hearted. In other words, Hamas will have to integrate its military into the security forces of the Palestinian Authority in order to get the attention and support it desires. The implications of such a Hamas decision could be huge. Theoretically, it will create a united Palestinian front. In other words, there would be few divisions within Palestinian society to inhibit progress in negotiations with the Israelis, a major boost for the EFTA_R1_01992707 EFTA02681492  9 Palestinian cause. Two things remain unclear, however: how Hamas's constituency and Israel would deal with this massive shift. It is not unreasonable to assume that Hamas would not make such a dramatic move without testing the waters and feeling the mood in the Palestinian street. Hamas knows its constituency well enough to realize that the costs it might suffer as a result of such a decision are likely to be tolerable. Furthermore, Hamas's support base is not necessarily ideological. Many credible polls suggest that those who have voted for Hamas over the past few years have done so out of pragmatic reasons and anger toward Fatah for its governmental failures. As far as Israel is concerned, the suspicion is that moderates and those truly committed to peace and a two-state solution will be supportive of Hamas's transformation. The hard-liners will remain critical and will always find an excuse to object. Marking its twenty- fourth anniversary this week, Hamas leaders did not even hint that they may switch strategy. They insisted instead that they will never recognize Israel. For Israeli hard-liners, this is reason enough to remain skeptical of any move by Hamas. If Hamas actually seeks to pursue such a decision, the United States will be confronted with a crucial choice. It can lend its verbal and material support for the move and cite its concerns and reservations. Or it can stand against it and endorse whatever the Israeli government says and does on the matter. Hence, a large onus likely will rest on Washington as well as on Hamas. Bilal Y. Saab is Visiting Fellow at the James Martin Centerfor Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. EFTA_R1_01992708 EFTA02681493  10 Article 3. NYT The End, for Now Thomas L. Friedman December 20, 2011 -- With the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from Iraq, we're finally going to get the answer to the core question about that country: Was Iraq the way Iraq was because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq is the way Iraq is — a collection of sects and tribes unable to live together except under an iron fist. Now we're going to get the answer because both the internal iron fist that held Iraq together (Saddam Hussein) and the external iron fist (the U.S. armed forces) have been removed. Now we will see whether Iraqis can govern themselves in a decent manner that will enable their society to progress — or end up with a new iron fist. You have to hope for the best because so much is riding on it, but the early signs are worrying. Iraq was always a war of choice. As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice: Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track? After 9/11, the idea of helping to change the context of Arab politics and address the root causes of Arab state dysfunction and Islamist terrorism — which were identified in the 2002 Arab Human Development Report as a deficit of freedom, a deficit of knowledge and a deficit of women's empowerment — seemed to me to be a legitimate strategic choice. But was it a wise choice? My answer is twofold: "No" and "Maybe, sort of, we'll see." EFTA_R1_01992709 EFTA02681494 I say "no" because whatever happens in Iraq, even if it becomes Switzerland, we overpaid for it. And, for that, I have nothing but regrets. We overpaid in lives, in the wounded, in tarnished values, in dollars and in the lost focus on America's development. Iraqis, of course, paid dearly as well. One reason the costs were so high is because the project was so difficult. Another was the incompetence of George W. Bush's team in prosecuting the war. The other reason, though, was the nature of the enemy. Iran, the Arab dictators and, most of all, Al Qaeda did not want a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, and they tried everything they could — in Al Qaeda's case, hundreds of suicide bombers financed by Arab oil money — to sow enough fear and sectarian discord to make this democracy project fail. So no matter the original reasons for the war, in the end, it came down to this: Were America and its Iraqi allies going to defeat Al Qaeda and its allies in the heart of the Arab world or were Al Qaeda and its allies going to defeat them? Thanks to the Sunni Awakening movement in Iraq, and the surge, America and its allies defeated them and laid the groundwork for the most important product of the Iraq war: the first ever voluntary social contract between Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites for how to share power and resources in an Arab country and to govern themselves in a democratic fashion. America helped to midwife that contract in Iraq, and now every other Arab democracy movement is trying to replicate it — without an American midwife. You see how hard it is. Which leads to the "maybe, sort of, we'll see." It is possible to overpay for something that is still transformational. Iraq had its strategic benefits: the removal of a genocidal dictator; the defeat of Al Qaeda there, which diminished its capacity to attack us; the intimidation of Libya, which prompted its dictator to surrender his nuclear program (and helped expose the Abdul Qadeer Khan nuclear EFTA_R1_01992710 EFTA02681495  12 network); the birth in Kurdistan of an island of civility and free markets and the birth in Iraq of a diverse free press. But Iraq will only be transformational if it truly becomes a model where Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the secular and religious, Muslims and non-Muslims, can live together and share power. As you can see in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain, this is the issue that will determine the fate of all the Arab awakenings. Can the Arab world develop pluralistic, consensual politics, with regular rotations in power, where people can live as citizens and not feel that their tribe, sect or party has to rule or die? This will not happen overnight in Iraq, but if it happens over time it would be transformational, because it is the necessary condition for democracy to take root in that region. Without it, the Arab world will be a dangerous boiling pot for a long, long time. The best-case scenario for Iraq is that it will be another Russia — an imperfect, corrupt, oil democracy that still holds together long enough so that the real agent of change — a new generation, which takes nine months and 21 years to develop — comes of age in a much more open, pluralistic society. The current Iraqi leaders are holdovers from the old era, just like Vladimir Putin in Russia. They will always be weighed down by the past. But as Putin is discovering — some 21 years after Russia's democratic awakening began — that new generation thinks differently. I don't know if Iraq will make it. The odds are really long, but creating this opportunity was an important endeavor, and I have nothing but respect for the Americans, Brits and Iraqis who paid the price to make it possible. EFTA_R1_01992711 EFTA02681496  13 Ankle 4. The Washington Post In Iraq, a return to old enmities Editorial December 21 -- PRESIDENT OBAMA struck a "mission accomplished" tone when he greeted Nouri al-Maliki at the White House last week, heaping praise on the Iraqi prime minister and declaring that he "leads Iraq's most inclusive government yet." It didn't take long for those words to boomerang. No sooner had Mr. Maliki returned to Baghdad than he launched what looks like an attempted coup against the country's top Sunni leaders. Though the outcome is still in doubt, Iraq's fragile political order appears in danger of crumbling just days after the departure of U.S. troops. Mr. Maliki's strike took the form of criminal charges against Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni known for his attempts to find accord with Shiite leaders. Three security guards arrested last week were paraded on state television Monday, where they confessed to acts of terrorism and alleged that Mr. Hashimi had directed them. Mr. Maliki, meanwhile, asked parliament for a no-confidence vote against Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlaq, another Sunni. Sunni members of parliament and cabinet ministers responded by suspending their work — threatening a governmental collapse. We haven't seen enough to judge the charges against Mr. Hashemi, and few Sunni or Shiite leaders are free of any link to the violence that has wracked Iraq since 2003. But both the timing and the televised form of Mr. Maliki's charges against the vice president were blatantly political. They followed what has been a mounting campaign by the prime minister, a Shiite with close ties to Iran, against perceived Sunni enemies. Hundreds of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party have been arrested in recent weeks. EFTA_R1_01992712 EFTA02681497  14 Security forces controlled by Mr. Maliki have surrounded the compounds of Sunni leaders in Baghdad. The Obama administration appears blindsided by the crisis. It shouldn't be so surprised. It risked just such a breakdown when it disregarded the recommendation of its military commanders that some U.S. forces remain in Iraq to help guarantee against a return to sectarian conflict. Sunni and Kurdish leaders also urged U.S. officials to broker a deal for a stay-on force with Mr. Maliki; now they say their worst fears may be coming to pass. "The Americans pulled out without completing the job they should have finished," Iyad Allawi, the leader of the secular political bloc supported by most Sunnis, told the Reuters news agency Tuesday. The U.S. withdrawal was forced in part by a deal struck by the Bush administration, as well as domestic pressure on Mr. Maliki from Iran's proxies. But White House aides who argued that no stay-on force was necessary will now see their argument tested. U.S. diplomats in Baghdad are trying to help Iraq's Kurdish president and foreign minister defuse the incipient conflict; Vice President Biden was on the phone Tuesday to Mr. Maliki and the Sunni speaker of parliament. Washington's leverage includes the promised sale to Mr. Maliki's government of F-16 warplanes and training for Iraqi pilots. Mr. Maliki has said he wishes to maintain a strategic partnership with the United States. If that's true, Mr. Obama might still rescue the situation by delivering the message he failed to communicate in public last week: Such an alliance cannot be maintained with an Iraqi government that pursues a sectarian agenda or seeks authoritarian power. EFTA_R1_01992713 EFTA02681498 Article 5. New York Review of Books Egypt on the Edge Yasmine El Rashidi January 12, 2012 -- It has been almost one year since Hosni Mubarak gave up power, and in the months since then, the future of a newly democratic Egypt has been uncertain. The political transition all but stalled this past summer, as tensions between Muslims and Copts erupted, street violence flared, and the various post-Mubarak political factions repeatedly disagreed on the form the new Egypt should have. This fall, the military council now ruling the country—the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF)—was itself drawn into violent conflict with protesters, leading to more than forty deaths in a single week. Many wondered, amid all this, if a democratically elected civilian government would ever take office. In late November, as Egyptians finally went to the polling stations, the direction the country would most likely take was at last becoming clear. If the preliminary results of the parliamentary elections are any indication, most Egyptians want a country governed by the Islamists, whom Mubarak and his allies had aggressively tried to suppress. In the first of a three-stage election process, which began on November 28 and ends on January 10, the Islamist factions emerged with 69.6 percent of the votes. Only nine of Egypt's twenty-seven governorates voted in the first stage on November 28, and there are several weeks to go until the rest cast their ballots—there are some 52 million registered voters in all—but since many of the remaining electoral districts are ones in which the Islamists are known to have a strong popular following, it seems likely that their lead will be maintained, if not strengthened. EFTA_R1_01992714 EFTA02681499  16 That the country's first free and fair elections will likely result in a parliament in which the Islamists have a dominant majority is casting doubt on the promise of the democratic state that many who took part in the revolution hoped to achieve. When youth protesters first took to Cairo's Tahrir Square on January 25, they chanted their desire, among other things, for a state that promised social justice, unity, and equal rights for all. For eighteen days last winter, that model for a new and democratic Egypt seemed plausible; it was being lived in Tahrir. Copts and Muslims, women and men, youth and the elderly, secular and religious protested and prayed together and shared tents and meals. The Copts shielded the Muslims against possible attacks by thugs while they knelt down and prayed, and hundreds of the youth members of the Muslim Brotherhood surrounded the square as guardians for all, searching bags, checking IDs, and trying to ensure that informants or people hoping to disrupt the demonstrations would be swiftly escorted out. In the aftermath of the first election results, many are wondering if the unity that came to typify the Tahrir protests is now a dream of the past. What is the fate of an Islamist-dominated Egypt? And what does it mean for the country's liberal minorities—the Coptic Christian community, the moderate Muslim upper class, the remaining handful of Jews, and middle-class Muslims who in spite of their adherence to the rituals of Islam are committed to preserving the cosmopolitan Egypt they grew up in? The concerns of some of these groups are largely about the ways they will live. Will women be prevented from working? Will the veil become compulsory? Will public spaces be segregated to separate men from women? (Such measures are supported by the Salafist Al-Nour Party, which has so far received 18.5 percent of the vote.) For the Copts, who make up some 10 percent of the country's 82 million people and who have faced increasing persecution since Mubarak stepped down on February 11, EFTA_R1_01992715 EFTA02681500  17 whether they will be left to freely practice their faith is an acute and daily concern. Many people are also worried that tourism and the economy might suffer a ruinous blow if laws are passed to ban bathing suits and alcohol and to cover pharaonic monuments-as several Islamists have proposed in recent months. Although the Muslim Brotherhood in particular has so far expressed its commitment to building a democratic and moderate society, many fear that once the Islamists settle into power, their tune might change. The likelihood of Egypt transforming from a moderate and open society to one resembling Saudi Arabia or Iran seems highly improbable, at least in the short or medium term. After 498 members of the 508-seat "lower parliament" are finally installed on January 14 (the remaining ten members will be appointed by the SCAF), there will be elections for the parliament's "upper house." This will be a consultative council of 270 seats-180 of which will be filled by elections, and 90 by members appointed by the SCAF, a clear sign of the continuing powers of the military. Once that entire structure is in place, the parliament's immediate task will be to select a committee to draft the long-awaited new constitution. Since the revolution last winter, the subject of the constitution has proved to be divisive, pitting political factions against one another for eight months. The Islamists, confident of winning the elections, were demanding that the newly elected parliament be granted absolute authority to draft the constitution to its liking. The liberals for their part wanted a supraconstitutional declaration promising respect for religious minorities, as well as the broader vision of a democratic state. To each draft of such a document (proposals were made by both leaders of the Muslim Al-Azhar University and the interim deputy prime minister) the various factions have had objections. On December 7, the SCAF further complicated matters by announcing EFTA_R1_01992716 EFTA02681501  18 that it would appoint a council to oversee the drafting of the constitution in order to limit the influence of religious extremism. The de facto military rulers now seem intent on using the rising threat of Islamist rule as their excuse for remaining involved in the country's affairs, and the future power of the army, which has large economic influence and holdings, remains a central question for Egyptian politics. Under current rules, for example, the parliament will have limited powers. The military council that is now running the country will continue to have overriding authority, which it has used to curb media freedoms and arbitrarily subject civilians to military trials. It is expected that the parliamentary majority will try to put pressure on the military by passing legislation giving itself the absolute right to appoint a new government and to draft the constitution that will shape the country's future (already this week the Brotherhood accused the military of trying to undermine the parliament's authority and said they would boycott the advisory council being formed by them to oversee the drafting of the constitution). With the political balance of the new parliament favoring the Islamists, the liberals worry about the ideological direction Egypt might take. As such concerns have increased, many liberals have slowly shifted away from their previously staunch opposition both to the SCAF and to the remnants of the former regime—the felool. The largest liberal coalition, El-Kotla or the Egyptian Bloc, includes many former MPs who had strong influence under the Mubarak regime. Liberals now view them as preferable to the Islamists. Members of the Egyptian Bloc are also now advocating the continued involvement of the SCAF in the country's affairs so that it can guarantee that the basic tenets of the constitution remain untouched— namely, that Egypt remain a democratic, modern state, a commitment the SCAF has repeatedly made. EFTA_R1_01992717 EFTA02681502  19 What will happen, then, when the new parliament begins its first session in March? Most likely we can expect continuing arguments over the extent of the parliament's authority, the timetable for transition and the handing over of powers from the military, and what the new cabinet should look like. In the debate over the constitution many of the Islamists, in particular those of the Muslim Brotherhood, will probably try to exert influence not through outright demands that it be based on Islamic sharia law—already, Article 2 in the current constitution states that Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence—but rather through a subtle play on words and syllables in the Arabic language that can convey double meanings. They will favor a constitution with provisions that provide leeway for later reinterpretation. There will no doubt be fanatical members of the ultra-orthodox Salafis who push for a constitution that asserts boldly and clearly that Egypt is an Islamic state—indeed, some Salafis are already supporting this—but it is doubtful that they will form an overriding majority. The transitional parliament could be in power for what might be as little as a one-year term, while a regular term in the previous Egyptian parliament was five years. The two largest political factions in the so-called "lower house"—the Muslim Brotherhood (represented by its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP)) and the Salafi Al-Nour Party—are well aware that within that term, their constituents will expect them to deliver on some of their promises. Among the failures of both the SCAF and the various interim cabinets in recent months have been their responses to the demands of the revolutionaries, which have resulted in large-scale protests calling for them to step down. Egyptians will expect that the parliament deliver some tangible and immediate results—a pressure that will be felt by the liberal MPs as well. EFTA_R1_01992718 EFTA02681503  20 The Muslim Brotherhood has decades of organizational and administrative experience. Aside from its expansive nationwide networks, its services to the needy have included selling meat at wholesale prices, offering subsidized school supplies, helping with medical treatment, and providing handouts of fresh produce, sugar, cooking oil, and other items. These activities have won it popular followings. The Brotherhood has also long had leading and instrumental parts in the country's various professional syndicates and labor unions. The doctors', lawyers', and engineers' syndicates, for example, have historically been dominated and led by Brotherhood members. At the journalists' syndicate, reporters say that some of the board members affiliated with the Brotherhood have provided the best and most efficient services to the syndicate's members to date—health care plans, for example. It is the Brotherhood's strengths in such different spheres of life— both in municipal welfare and as prominent business owners themselves—that give rise to hopes that it will be a positive force in Egypt. Essam el-Erian, deputy head of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the group's long-time spokesperson, told me this week: "We are ready for democracy and this parliament will work to rebuild this country for all Egyptians." The party's secretary- general, Mohamed el-Beltagy, said something similar, insisting that the parliament, and his party in particular, would serve as "the representative of the people": "we have to respect one another and defend the rights of all Egyptians—of the entire nation and its people." The FJP seems to know that it has little choice but to act in a moderate and strategic manner. Issues of education, the economy, and rising inflation are of critical concern and need to be tackled immediately. In both their pre-election campaign rallies and recent press conferences, the Brotherhood leaders have promoted moderate EFTA_R1_01992719 EFTA02681504  21 positions. They have included among their supporters a variety of liberal and secular professionals. At the FJP's first public rally before the elections in the working-class district of Bulac, a leading member of the liberal Egyptian Bloc coalition was among the invited speakers. It also has women and Copts among its members. Many of the hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood women I have encountered at its events work, and some hold full-time jobs. During the years immediately ahead, there is little reason for the party leaders to radically change their tone. For Islamist factions, the coming parliamentary term offers an opportunity to widen their support and allay fears of Islamic domination. The FJP will doubtless take advantage of its plurality to show that it does not menace the rights of others. But among the MPs of the Salafi Al-Nour, it seems likely that there will be a divide; many Salafist members of parliament envision an Egypt on the model of Saudi Arabia. During the next year the laws regarding codes of dress or matters of faith and worship will probably remain unchanged. Transformations are more likely to take place in subtle ways. As the social and cultural landscape of the country is altered, the visibly orthodox Muslims will become freer in their movements. Under the Mubarak regime, the Salafis with their bushy beards and ankle-length galabiyas were very closely watched; many of them were virtually under house arrest. In the months since Mubarak was ousted, and certainly in the center of Cairo, there has been a visible rise in the number of bearded men and of women who are fully veiled. The men, in particular, say that they were persecuted for their beards under Mubarak's regime, often keeping them trim if they grew them at all. Or as many told me, they simply stayed in their Islamist governorates or city suburbs, where the state's informants kept them under watch. Now it is probable that EFTA_R1_01992720 EFTA02681505  22 the more liberal Muslims, and the country's Copts, will feel increasingly out of place. When I went out to vote on the morning of November 28, a topic of discussion as we stood in line for six hours waiting to cast our ballots was what our futures might hold if the Islamists took power. Many women, my mother and her cousins and friends included, shared stories of the past—how they used to take public transportation wearing short skirts or open V-neck tops. "The good old days," they called them. But many women like my mother, and the others who stood in line in the well-to-do neighborhood of Zamalek, also understand that they are a minority in a country where 40 percent of the population is living on two dollars a day. For many, but certainly not all, such poor people, a sense of security and basic guarantees of survival are paramount. At polling stations in poorer districts of Cairo, like Imbaba, Shubra, and Ain Shams, people told me that they wanted "stability and a strong economy," and that "ultimately it is in God's hands." During the campaign, liberals spoke of a secular state; Islamists, trying to speak for the masses, concentrated on the cost of food. It is on such promises of better conditions that the Islamists will be expected to deliver. Some of the election results were not unexpected. The Muslim Brotherhood has long been known to be the country's largest and most organized movement, with widespread networks and growing popular support. As it offered increasing numbers of Egyptians social services where the government had failed, it came to be considered the greatest threat to the Mubarak regime. The deposed leader had often warned that if he left power, the Muslim Brotherhood would rise. Indeed, in the 2005 parliamentary elections, Muslim Brotherhood members—forced as an outlawed political group to run as independent candidates—won the largest bloc of seats, eighty-eight, EFTA_R1_01992721 EFTA02681506  23 in opposition to the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which won 311 seats. The ballots, moreover, were significantly rigged in the NDP's favor. What is surprising, then, is not that—with a voter turnout of 52 percent—the Brotherhood won 47.6 percent of the votes in November, and seems likely to win more in the remaining elections. What was unexpected was that the ultra-orthodox Islamist Salafis, newcomers to electoral politics, won 18.5 percent of the votes. (The moderate Islamist Al-Wasat Party took 2.4 percent, and the liberal parties and coalitions collectively just 20.5 percent, 7.1 percent of the vote going to the nationalist liberal Al-Wafd and 10.7 percent to the Egyptian Bloc.) The success of the Salafis—mainly represented by the Al-Nour Party, which was formed after the revolution—seems partly owing to recent miscalculations of the Brotherhood, which has repeatedly been absent from Friday protests and demonstrations that had the support of most other political groups, even the Salafis. The Brotherhood boycotted the May 27 "Day of Rage," or "Second Revolution," angering many of the million people who took part. Over the months, the Brotherhood leaders also changed and changed again their positions on a variety of issues—including the status of Copts and the end goal of an Islamic state—earning them the reputation, as I often heard said, of "never speaking the entire truth." In conversations with voters in poor neighborhoods during the November 28-29 vote, I frequently heard: "The Brotherhood can't fully be trusted; they don't stick to their words. The Salafis are pure." Perhaps their biggest mistake came on November 18, when tens of thousands of Egyptians—responding to a call by the Brotherhood— returned to Tahrir Square to protest a government draft document that seemed, among other things, to give the ruling SCAF control over the writing of the new constitution. The demonstration went off EFTA_R1_01992722 EFTA02681507  24 peacefully, and when darkness eventually fell, the Brotherhood packed up and left, satisfied with the show of force. In the early hours of the following morning, riot police stormed the square, forcefully clearing it of the remaining protesters, mainly activists and revolutionary coalitions. In the days that followed, clashes between the police and protesters escalated, with the state's various security forces unleashing a kind of violence that had rarely been seen since the revolution. Tear gas was fired in toxic amounts, poisoning many and killing some; specially trained forces seemed to be targeting protesters' eyes. In the course of a single day, five young men lost sight in one eye, and one man—Ahmed Harara—was blinded (he had lost his first eye on January 28). Egyptians were outraged at the level of violence—forty-two people were killed—and at the SCAF's refusal to take responsibility, withdraw the state's security forces, and issue an apology. Many liberal parties suspended their campaigns, and some called for the elections to be postponed. The interim cabinet resigned in response to the violent attacks, and the presidential candidate Mohamed Elbaradei offered to forgo his presidential ambitions and instead serve as temporary prime minister to deal with the crisis. The country's highest Islamic authority, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, succeeded in brokering a truce on the streets so that elections could go forward. Throughout it all, the Muslim Brotherhood was conspicuously absent, cau- tious about taking sides. On TV programs and talk shows, the liberal candidates went to great lengths to explain why it was not moral to continue their election campaigns while people were dying in Tahrir. The Brotherhood leaders, for their part, insisted that elections take place soon; they knew they were far ahead of the other parties and coalitions. They had been waiting for this moment for eighty years; they weren't prepared to let it slip away. EFTA_R1_01992723 EFTA02681508  25 On the night of November 24, members of the Brotherhood reappeared in the square with the intention of clearing it—along with the embattled Mohamed Mahmoud Street—of the remaining protesters. "They did everything they could to get people to go home," a friend told me. "They would assess the type of person you are, and speak to you in a way that they thought would persuade you. They were willing to go to any lengths to make sure that people left that night." It is widely believed that the Brotherhood leaders had made a deal with the SCAF. They would clear the main demonstration site and calm the protesters, and the SCAF in return would hold the elections on time. Many blamed the Brotherhood for how long the clashes lasted and how many lives were lost. In Tahrir on November 25 the Islamist researcher and political analyst Ibrahim El Houdaiby told a group of us: "It would have taken a completely different direction had the Brotherhood come out last weekend and put their weight behind the people." Even Islamists and some preachers and veiled women spoke of their disappointment with the Brotherhood; they hoped that it wouldn't win the polls of the following week. Still, the liberal parties were not able to find much support from the underclass, whether in poor urban districts or rural Egypt. They could not penetrate the decades-old informal networks that have long been dominated by family and tribal alliances, religious affiliations, or agents of the former regime. Even if they had succeeded, the most prominent of the liberal coalitions, the Egyptian Bloc, was headed by the Free Egyptians Party, founded by the telecom tycoon Naguib Sawiris, whose popularity plummeted in June when he tweeted a cartoon of Mickey and Minnie Mouse wearing Muslim gowns and headdresses—Mickey with a bushy beard, and Minnie in a face v