Dear Bertrand,
burt wrote:
> I think the remark of this article is quite correct, we, in the
> West, have a different view of the Mulsim Brotherhood that the
> ones from arabic culture have.
>
http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2011/01/30/mu ... nd-arabic/
> In fact because they were "tolerated", as long as they staid
> quiet, we don't know who they are in reality (nobody does) .
I'm well aware of the Muslim Brotherhood's stated policies.
However, the argument that I made has nothing to do with MB's stated
policies. It was based on Egypt's own self-interest, and the
attitudes and behavior of the young generation. From what I've seen,
all of these factors indicate the conclusion that an MB involvement in
Egypt's politics will not mean a change in policies towards Israel.
Ironically, the article you quote even supports that conclusion. The
article points out that the MB's web page in Arabic is much more
bellicose towards Israel than the English language page. The writer
implies that the Arabic page is the "true" policy, while the English
page the "deceptive" page, because it targets a Western audience.
First, I would point out that there's no such distinction in
al-Qaeda's web sites. Everything coming from al-Qaeda, whether in
Arabic or English, reads "Death to America." Nor is there any
such distinction made by the administration in Iran.
So my response to the MB situation is that the evidence on the ground
in Egypt supports the conclusion that it's the MB's English page that
represents the "true" policy, while the Arabic page, targeted to a
broad anti-American Arabian audience, is the one that's deceptive.
I'm guided by what I'm hearing from the kids who are rioting in Egypt.
If suddenly they change direction and start saying "Death to America,"
then I would have to change my conclusion. But right now, the
evidence supports my conclusion.
With regard to your question in another thread, about the 1948 war,
calling it a war between Israel and Egypt doesn't work, because many
other Arab countries were involved -- Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen. Some historians call it the "Arab-Israeli war,"
but I'm uncomfortable with that because of its lack of symmetry. It
would be most helpful if there were a belligerent-independent name for
the war. For example, everyone knows what the "Crimean War" and the
"Hundred Years' War" are, without having to name the belligerents.
But there's no such name for the 1948 war. Hence, "the 1948 war
between Arabs and Jews" is my characterization of choice.
I would add that nobody besides yourself has ever objected to this
characterization. I once referred to it as "the war between Jews and
Palestinians," and I received complaints about that, for good reason.
John