Monthly Archives: February 2011

Jew-Hating “Freedom-Fighters”

Muammar al-Gaddafi is a tryant and mass-murderer who deserves everything he’s getting and more, but again, as with Egypt, the media is utterly credulous and naive about the opposition.

John Rosenthal notes the Jew-hating nature of the Lybian “freedom fighters.”

Advertisements

Standing Up To Ignorance…Selectively

Foe Of Ignorance


Yesterday on Meet the Press, host David Gregory berated Speaker of the House John Boehner thusly:

…MR. GREGORY: And, indeed, members of Congress speak publicly and are outspoken and will say what their views are. And sometimes they have an effect on what people believe around the country . And there was a — something that caught my eye this week that was on Fox News on the Hannity program, a focus group with voters in Iowa led by Frank Luntz , the Republican strategist, and he had this exchange with them. I want to show it to you.

Unidentified Woman #1: I believe that Barack Obama ‘s religious beliefs do govern his foreign policy .

MR. FRANK LUNTZ: And what are his religious beliefs ?

Woman #1: I believe that he is a Muslim.

MR. LUNTZ: You do?

Woman #1: Yes.

Unidentified Woman #2: No.

Unidentified Woman #3: Yes.

Unidentified Man #1: Yes.

MR. LUNTZ: How many of you believe that here?

Unidentified Man #2: How many believe it?

MR. LUNTZ: Wow. You believe he’s a Muslim.

Unidentified Man #3: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: As the speaker of the House , as a leader, do you not think it’s your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: David , it’s not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people . Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.

MR. GREGORY: But isn’t that a little bit fast and loose? I mean, you are the leader in Congress and you’re not standing up to obvious facts and saying, “These are facts. If you don’t believe that, it’s nonsense.”

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I just outlined the facts as I understand them. I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I’ll take him at his word. But, but…

MR. GREGORY: But that kind of ignorance about whether he’s a Muslim doesn’t concern you?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: Listen, the American people have the right to think what they want to think. I can’t — it’s not my job to tell them.

MR. GREGORY: Why isn’t it your job to stand up and say, “No, the facts are these”?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I am…

MR. GREGORY: Didn’t John McCain do that…

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I, I, I just did.

MR. GREGORY: What you’re saying, “It’s good enough for me,” is that really standing up and saying, for those who believe that or who would talk about that — you had a member of Congress , you had a new tea party freshman who was out just yesterday speaking to conservatives, and he said, “I’m fortunate enough to be an American citizen by birth, and I do have a birth certificate to prove it.” That was Raul Labrador , a new — a congressman from Idaho . Is that an appropriate way for your members to speak?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: The gentleman was, was trying to be funny, I would imagine. But remember something, it’s not — it really is not our job to tell the American people what to believe and what to think. There’s a lot of information out there, people read a lot of things…

MR. GREGORY: You shouldn’t stand up to misinformation or stereotypes?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: …but, but, but, but, but I’ve made clear what I believe the facts are.

MR. GREGORY: But is, is it, is it because it weakens the president politically, it seeks to delegitimize him that you sort of want to let it stay out there?…

Gregory’s breathless outrage in defense of Obama’s assertion that he is a Christian and a natural born American citizen is admirable and…selective. I just don’t remember Gregory or any of his liberal media colleagues badgering any Democratic office holders like, say, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to denounce those on their side of the political aisle for spreading the following “ignorant” claims:

1. That Bush and Cheney knew about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred.
2. That Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks and warned Jews not to go to work at the World Trade Center that day.
3. That Bush/Cheney knew that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq before the war and thus “lied” in order to avenge Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of Bush’s father.
4. That the “neo-cons” (read: Jews like Wolfowitz, Pearl, Libby, and Feith) in the Bush administration manipulated the dumb Gentiles (Read: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) to go to war against Saddam Hussein to benefit Israel.

Victor Davis Hanson provides some more examples of “ignorant” beliefs that Democrats were never pressured to renounce by the likes of David Gregory and Company.

Rahm: An Anti-Semite’s Dream

A funny, terrific piece by Joseph Epstein on the comical Chicago mayoral election and “Rahmbomb”:

…One of the delights of this mayoral campaign is watching the performance of what one assumes is the currently highly self-suppressed Rahm Emanuel. The volatile pol, famous for his temper and foul mouth​—​“feisty,” I believe, is the favored euphemism​—​has been coming across cool and serene, positively rabbinical. (At a roast of Emanuel, Barack Obama recounted that, working at a delicatessen as a boy, Rahm had lost a good part of the middle finger of his right hand, which “rendered him practically mute.”) In commercials he speaks of his sadness at viewing poor children going off to Chicago public schools with “no hope in their eyes,” and how he is intent upon changing that. During what must have been the infuriating legal battle over his residency status, he appeared, with impressive sangfroid, before the Chicago election board committee and the screeching questions of the local press as if he were auditioning for the part of Father Flanagan.

When Emanuel appears in his often-shown television commercials, I think of him as the Rahmbomb, after the great 12th-century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, who, in an anagram of the initials of his name in Hebrew, was known as the Rambam. Rahmbomb because one is waiting for one of those famous f-bombs of Emanuel’s to explode on a tape or a microphone he might mistakenly have thought was turned off.

On the other hand, the one with the middle finger intact, there is no reason for Emanuel to explode. Once the residency business was out of the way, his campaign became smooth sailing, and on a luxurious yacht. With a campaign chest of $12 million, at last reporting, the Rahmbomb had three times more money to spend than all his opponents combined.

(Emanuel, taking a brief break from politics between 1999 and 2002, quickly accumulated a fortune of his own​—​estimated at $16 or $17 million—while working for an investment banking firm called Wasserstein Perella. Bill Daley, Richie’s younger brother, who has taken over Emanuel’s post as Obama’s chief of staff, before starting his new job had to divest himself of more than $7 million worth of stock from his days working for JPMorgan Chase. Amid all their high public service and good works, these boys always manage to connect for a little jackpot of $8 or $15 million of their own.)

With his vast campaign funds, with his pathetic field of competitors, does the Rahmbomb have anything special in mind for the city he desires to govern? If so, he has thus far pretty much kept it to himself. Like everyone else, he lisps in clichés: He is going to improve the schools, get crime off the streets, relieve the municipal debt. He claims to be able to accomplish that last by streamlining the city’s tax system and increasing efficiency among city workers. (Old joke: Why does it takes 14 Chicago Streets and Sanitation Workers to change a light bulb? Answer: Because 13 of them, after having someone sign in for them, are at work doing business with the city at their privately owned asphalt companies.)

Why does the Rahmbomb want to be mayor of Chicago? Naturally no mention is made of his enjoying power of the kind that being mayor of a Democratic stronghold like Chicago confers. Might sheer egotism backed by effrontery have anything to do with it? Not in his version. In his version he loves the city. (He actually grew up outside it, on the North Shore, and went to New Trier High School, one of the most academically competitive secondary schools in the country, where the students speak of their days as Preparation H: preparing, that is, for Harvard. Emanuel made it only to Sarah Lawrence.) He suffers from acute idealism, he tells us, learned from his pediatrician father and psychiatric social worker mother. The man wants to do good. His religion, he tells us, has reinforced this idealism.

Emanuel’s being Jewish is a question of genuine interest. Chicago isn’t a very Jewish city. With roughly a quarter million Jews, the city is only 3 percent or so Jewish. Apart from Jewish aldermen elected from the city’s two or three heavily Jewish wards, Jews have never taken an out-front position in local politics. Powerful Jewish pols such as Jacob Arvey, the man behind Adlai Stevenson’s career in Illinois politics, functioned as éminences grises. A Jewish mayor is something else again.

Chicago is a city of peasants, or, more precisely, people of peasant background: Poles, Italians, Irish, Greeks, blacks. Peasants, I think it fair to say, don’t get Jews. And the Rahmbomb is an anti-Semite’s dream. He is wealthy, aggressive, he even took ballet lessons, for God’s sake; all the anti-Semitic stereotypes are in place, except for his not being highly cerebral.

Jews, a character in the movie Barney’s Version says, are not more intelligent than anyone else; they are just more wary. Whether Chicago does or doesn’t elect Rahm Emanuel its mayor will, either way, constitute another little chapter in the history of anti-Semitism in America. American universities that once strictly enforced quotas against Jewish students have now all had Jewish presidents, almost all of whom, let it be said, have shown themselves quite as mediocre as their predecessors. Has the time come when the country is also able to support Jewish politicians quite as mediocre as their predecessors? Let us hope so…

Please read the entire piece to access a hilarious portrait of former and first black woman U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun.

Harmless as An Enemy, Treacherous As A Friend

Mike Lester

Mark Steyn on the “glorious” revolution in Egypt:

…This is not a happy ending but the beginning of something potentially very dark… After the fall of Mubarak, what remains to hold up the Hashemites in Amman? Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood is more radical than Egypt’s, the regime is less ruthless, King Abullah’s Arabic is worse than his English, and pretty westernized Queen Rania, who seems so cute when CNN interviewers are fawning all over her, is openly despised outside the palace gates.

Iran is nuclearizing, Turkey is Islamizing, Egypt is …what exactly? Well, we’ll find out. But, given that only the army and/or the Muslim Brotherhood are sufficiently organized to govern the nation, the notion that we’re witnessing the youthful buds of any meaningful democracy is deluded. So who’ll come out on top? The generals or the Brothers? Given that the Brotherhood got played for suckers by the army in the revolution of ’52, I doubt they’ll be so foolish as to make the same mistake again – and the hopeychangey “democracy movement” provides the most useful cover in generations. Meanwhile, James Clapper, the worthless buffoon who serves as the hyperpower’s Director of “Intelligence”, goes before Congress to tell the world that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “secular” organization. Americans ought to take to the streets to demand Clapper vacate whatever presidential palace in DC he’s holed up in.

Amidst all this flowering of democracy, you’ll notice that it’s only the pro-American dictatorships on the ropes: In Libya and Syria, Gaddafy and Assad sleep soundly in their beds. On the other hand, if you were either of the two King Abdullahs, in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and you looked at the Obama Administration’s very public abandonment of their Cairo strongman, what would you conclude about the value of being an American ally? For the last three weeks, the superpower has sent the consistent message to the world that (as Bernard Lewis feared some years ago) America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.

And here are the words of James Traub, a useful idiot if there ever was one:

…It’s not only the regime’s apologists who profess to fear the Muslim Brotherhood; I had no trouble finding secular Cairenes who took an equally dim view. The group’s slogan is, after all, “Islam is the solution,” and the appeal its political leaders make to the rank and file is long on religious orthodoxy. Still, I spent two weeks talking to members of the Brotherhood — something the secular critics rarely do — and though I did feel they were putting their best foot forward for a Western journalist, I was struck by their reluctance to impose their views on others and their commitment to democratic process. They had been drawn to the Brotherhood not only by piety but also by the group’s reputation for social service and personal probity.

Many of these men were lawyers, doctors, or engineers. But I also spent several evenings with an electrician named Magdy Ashour, who had been elected to parliament from a dismal slum at the furthest edge of Cairo (he’s now an independent, after being ousted from the Brotherhood in December). He was at pains to counter what he assumed were my preconceptions. “When people hear the name Muslim Brotherhood, they think of terrorism and suicide bombings,” Ashour conceded. “We want to establish the perception of an Islamic group cooperating with other groups, concerned about human rights. We do not want to establish a country like Iran, which thinks that it is ruling with a divine mandate. We want a government based on civil law, with an Islamic source of lawmaking.”

And just what is an “Islamic source of lawmaking?” Muhammad Habib, then the Muslim Brotherhood’s deputy supreme guide — its second-ranking official– explained to me that, under such a system, parliament would seek the advice of religious scholars on issues touching upon religion, though such views could never be binding. A democratically elected parliament, he asserted, would still have the “absolute right” to pass a law the Brotherhood deemed “un-Islamic.” And the proper redress for religious objections would be a formal appeal process in the constitutional court.

Maybe they were lying. But I didn’t think so…

Pusillanimous Incoherence

Michael Ramirez

Melanie Phillips praises British PM David Cameron for his speech attacking multiculturalism, but also notes that Cameron was way too kind to Islam:

…the Prime Minister did not go far enough. Despite the welcome advances in the previous remarks, he qualified them by reverting to some of the pusillanimous incoherence that lay at the heart of the previous failed thinking. The problem – as ever – is that although he identified ‘Islamist extremism’ as the problem, he simultaneously tried to suggest that this was nothing to do with Islam:

‘We should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens…

We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority…

It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing…

The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not.’

This is a muddle. ‘Islamist extremism’ is not a ‘warped perversion’ of Islam. It is rooted in authentic Islamic theology and history. What is certainly true, however, is that it is merely one interpretation of Islam. That’s a very different matter. Many millions of Muslims do not sign up to it, and it is important to make that clear; they themselves are amongst its potential victims. That is why I use the term ‘Islamist’, to permit a distinction between the jihadis and those Muslims who pose no threat to anyone.

But to deny the Islamic nature of Islamist extremism is absurd. It reminds me of the conversation I had a while back with a government official, who told me that the approved Whitehall line was that the cause of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims was ‘ideology’. But ‘ideology’ on its own is of course meaningless. ‘What kind of ideology?’ I inquired. ‘Political? Racial? Religious?’ The official looked pained. ‘Just ideology’, he sighed.

Not only is this ludicrous, but denying the religious nature of this fanaticism means it will continue to be misunderstood and thus there will be a continued failure to deal with it appropriately.

…does the Prime Minister really mean what he has said? For if he does, then in spite of the caveats above the implications of his words are enormous. Listing the criteria by which the government will henceforth judge whether or not to treat with Muslim organisations, he said:

‘So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home. At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons.’

Golly. If this is followed, then it means that not only the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Muslim Association of Britain but the supposedly more mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, along with most if not all of its affiliates, will now be deemed to be beyond the pale. Is the government really going to take that approach? Will it, as this also inescapably implies, sack the Brotherhood types who are now acting as advisers on Muslim extremism within Whitehall? Will it finally take action against Islamist groups preaching jihadi subversion on campus? Will it arrest the spread of sharia law, end the Saudi funding of mosques and university Islamic studies departments, and row backwards on sharia financing?

I’ll believe it when I see it.

He Will Eat And Then Be Eaten

Jerry Holbert

Another terrific David Warren column:

…My reader should make no mistake about the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the very fount of the “Islamism” that stalks so terribly through the Muslim world. They are the pioneers of this ideology, whose roots go back to a lively parliamentary interlude in Egypt, between the world wars. Al-Qaeda is the wayward child of this ideology, but Hamas simply its Palestinian branch.

Here is the formal “credo” or “mission statement” of the Muslim Brotherhood, shared by Hamas and all parallel organizations, in Jordan, Yemen, and elsewhere through the Sunni Muslim world:

“Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”

This is the definition of Islamism. And western statesmen are as wise to negotiate with it, as they were wise to negotiate with the author of Mein Kampf. But of course we are told that the Muslim Brotherhood only wishes to be included in a coalition. Which was precisely the demand of Ayatollah Khomeini’s minions, when they marched through the streets of Tehran in 1978, arm in arm with all the leftists and progressives and spoilt children of Iran’s middle classes — demanding the deposition of the Shah.

Shapour Bakhtiar was the name of the interim leader, in that case; the Kerensky of the Persian revolution, as it were. Soon he, too, was fleeing the country; to exile in Paris until agents of the Islamic Republic terminated him in 1991. The fate of all the other nice, secular, “civil society” types, who leaped aboard that revolutionary bandwagon, was likewise grim.

Throughout central Europe, after the Second World War and Yalta, Communists came to power in coalitions: “governments of national unity” and the like. But there is a rule when you put scorpions in a bottle: the bigger eats the smaller.

To my observation, ElBaradei — now presenting himself as a Kerensky for Egypt — is a creature governed by vanity. He is an opportunist, whose peculiar combinations of malice and naivete exactly suit his prospective coalition partners. He declared himself only recently against the Mubarak regime — having enjoyed a favoured friendship with the Egyptian dictator, until last year. Having judged that his octogenarian friend is now done for, he has generously come home to lead the opposition.

History is littered with figures of his sort.

To say ElBaradei is two-faced would be misleading, for no one advances in Middle Eastern politics with only two faces. But we can already distinguish the face which supplies sweet plausibilities to the western media, while dispensing to each Egyptian class what he thinks it wants to hear.

He is the smooth presence before the western cameras, assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood has been misrepresented, and that they will make perfectly safe partners on the usual roadmaps to peace. And only the Copts of Egypt, and the Jews of Israel, will not be fooled. ElBaradei will even fool himself: for as I said, he is a man of formidable vanity.

He will eat, and then be eaten.

The transition from good friend to stabber-in-the-back is of course not uncommon in human affairs. President Obama had declared himself among Mubarak’s most reliable friends and admirers. Suddenly he, his secretary of state, and most of the leaders of Europe, are saying things that can only encourage the Cairo mob. It is as if they were singing in chorus: “We have abandoned him now, you may have him for your lunch.”

And there will be no reward for this; as there was no reward to Jimmy Carter when he inserted the last knife into the back of the Shah of Iran. Carter would have commanded more respect from the incoming ayatollahs — they would have thought twice about occupying the U.S. embassy — had he stuck resolutely to U.S. policy, and backed the Shah to the last trench.

The Right, But Irrational, Side Of History

Democracy Demonstrators?

A really annoying cliche has taken hold among the pundocracy: that America should be “on the right side of history” when it comes to the “protests” in Egypt. Revolutionaries have always cited the “forces of history” to mobilize mobs; apparently no self-respecting intellectual would want to be caught dead on “the wrong side of history.”

Of course, Charles Lindbergh and Joseph P. Kennedy cited history when they urged America to get on the Nazi train before it left the station. And countless leftist intellectuals claimed to have seen and admired the inevitable, irresistible future in places like the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba and the Islamic Republic of Iran. One thing is for sure: they never seem to learn from their disastrous misreading of “history.”

Another honest, incisive column from Israeli Caroline Glick on the cluelessness of American Middle East policy under both Democrats and Republicans:

… If the [Mubarak] regime was the biggest problem, then certainly removing US support for it would make sense. However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.

Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

What all of this makes clear is that if the regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism. The US’s greatest Arab ally will become its greatest enemy. Israel’s peace partner will again become its gravest foe.

Understanding this, Israeli officials and commentators have been nearly unanimous in their negative responses to what is happening in Egypt. The IDF, the national security council, all intelligence agencies and the government as well as the media have all agreed that Israel’s entire regional approach will have to change dramatically in the event that Egypt’s regime is overthrown.

None of the scenarios under discussion are positive.

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?

Distressingly, the answer is that indeed, the US has no idea what it is doing. The reason the world’s only (quickly declining) superpower is riding blind is because its leaders are trapped between two irrational, narcissistic policy paradigms and they can’t see their way past them.

The first paradigm is former president George W. Bush’s democracy agenda and its concomitant support for open elections.

Bush supporters and former administration officials have spent the last month since the riots began in Tunisia crowing that events prove Bush’s push for democratization in the Arab world is the correct approach.

The problem is that while Bush’s diagnosis of the dangers of the democracy deficit in the Arab world was correct, his antidote for solving this problem was completely wrong.

Bush was right that tyranny breeds radicalism and instability and is therefore dangerous for the US.

But his belief that free elections would solve the problem of Arab radicalism and instability was completely wrong. At base, Bush’s belief was based on a narcissistic view of Western values as universal.

When, due to US pressure, the Palestinians were given the opportunity to vote in open and free elections in 2006, they voted for Hamas and its totalitarian agenda. When due to US pressure, the Egyptians were given limited freedom to choose their legislators in 2005, where they could they elected the totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood to lead them.

The failure of his elections policy convinced Bush to end his support for elections in his last two years in office.

Frustratingly, Bush’s push for elections was rarely criticized on its merits. Under the spell of the other policy paradigm captivating American foreign policy elites – anti-colonialism – Bush’s leftist opponents never argued that the problem with his policy is that it falsely assumes that Western values are universal values. Blinded by their anti-Western dogma, they claimed that his bid for freedom was nothing more than a modern-day version of Christian missionary imperialism.

It is this anti-colonialist paradigm, with its foundational assumption that that the US has no right to criticize non-Westerners that has informed the Obama administration’s foreign policy. It was the anti-colonialist paradigm that caused Obama not to support the pro-Western protesters seeking the overthrow of the Iranian regime in the wake of the stolen 2009 presidential elections.

As Obama put it at the time, “It’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the US president meddling in the Iranian elections.”

And it is this anti-colonialist paradigm that has guided Obama’s courtship of the Syrian, Turkish and Iranian regimes and his unwillingness to lift a hand to help the March 14 movement in Lebanon.

Moreover, since the paradigm claims that the non-Western world’s grievances towards the West are legitimate, Obama’s Middle East policy is based on the view that the best way to impact the Arab world is by joining its campaign against Israel. This was the central theme of Obama’s speech before an audience dominated by Muslim Brotherhood members in Cairo in June 2009.

Like the pro-democracy paradigm, the anti-colonialist paradigm is narcissistic. Whereas Western democracy champions believe that all people are born with the same Western liberal democratic values, post-colonialists believe that non-Westerners are nothing more than victims of the West. They are not responsible for any of their own pathologies because they are not actors. Only Westerners (and Israelis) are actors. Non-Westerners are objects. And like all objects, they cannot be held responsible for anything they do because they are wholly controlled by forces beyond their control.

Anti-colonialists by definition must always support the most anti-Western forces as “authentic.” In light of Mubarak’s 30-year alliance with the US, it makes sense that Obama’s instincts would place the US president on the side of the protesters.

So there we have it. The US policy towards Egypt is dictated by the irrational narcissism of two opposing sides to a policy debate that has nothing to do with reality.

Add to that Obama’s electoral concern about looking like he is on the right side of justice and we have a US policy that is wholly antithetical to US interests…

As for Israel, America’s behavior towards Egypt should put to rest the notion that Israel can make further territorial sacrifices in places like the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley in exchange for US security guarantees. US behavior today – and the across-the-board nature of American rejection of Mubarak – is as clear a sign as one can find that US guarantees are not credible.

As Prof. Barry Rubin wrote this week, “There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.”

Unfortunately, given the cluelessness of the US foreign policy debate, this situation is only likely to grow worse.

And Barry Rubin:

…then there’s the history of the Brotherhood: it was financed by the Nazis from the 1930s on and tried to deliver Egypt to them in World War Two, used the Nazi weapons it had been given in 1942 to try to destroy Israel in the 1948 war, had a terrorist wing and assassinated a number of officials including an Egyptian prime minister, was repressed because it tried to kill President Gamal Abdel Nasser, supports terrorism not only against Israel but also U.S. forces in Iraq, and has a current leader who calls for a jihad against the United States.

Has anyone in the Western media or governments ever read anything from Brotherhood leaders’ speeches or publications? Apparently not. In fact, regarding the media I have seen zero evidence that it has any idea what these people say every day.

Let’s look at [a] cogent reaction… to the situation… President Bashar al-Assad, dictator of Syria. Read this carefully: “Syria is stable. Why? Because you have to be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence…you will have this vacuum that creates disturbances.”

What does this mean? That if you line up with Iran, support revolutionary Islamism, and oppose the United States, you are going to be popular and strong since that demagoguery appeals to the masses. Do you think the oppositionists in Egypt are aware of that fact?…