American liberals have made "Islamic Fundamentalism" and "Islamic Terrorism" politically unacceptable terms. As they see it, it's "Terrorism" not "Islamic Terrorism." Islam being a religion much like all other religions, e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. should not be called out in a public discussion. And, to an extent, that's true. But, the fundamentalist branch of Islam today is very different from the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Buddhist fundamentalists. Members of other religions may have no choice, but to die as martyrs, but only extremist Muslims actively seek out martyrdom. Who else has caused death to civilians by causing planes to crash? That's martyrdom?
Now we see fundamentalist Muslims in Egypt behaving much as they would wish to elsewhere in the world. The choices before the Egyptian people had been relatively simple. Did they want a dictator like Mubarak continuing to run the country and torture, imprison, and murder political adversaries? Did they want to see Mubarak's buddies run all major businesses in Egypt and reward friends with wealth that belonged rightly to the nation? No.
As opposed to that state of affairs, the Egyptians clearly preferred virtually anything else. Moderate Islamists (or, at least, that's how the Muslim Brotherhood described itself) seemed far preferable. And, when they had tossed Mubarak out of office, that's who they installed -- Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
But, once the Islamists were in power, ordinary Egyptians began to realize that the Muslim Brotherhood was too extreme for them. They wanted their women to continue living as they had before; enjoying certain freedoms. (Perhaps not what they enjoyed in Western nations, but far more than what they were granted most Islamic nations.) They had lived for generations in a Muslim culture strongly influenced by secular, Western values, and they didn't want that to change.
Now, with Morse elected to the presidency, they see he has no plans to improve the economy. All they see, is his party moving in the direction of Shariah. It's not simply that he's acting as an Islamic president. It's more. He's beginning to shape all of Egypt's institutions in a way that will allow them to become more fundamentalist. He wants the judiciary and the Egyptian parliament to reflect more closely fundamentalist thinking.
That's not what the people wanted. And, when Gen. Sisi deposed Morsi, he did so with the support of more than 50% of the Egyptians. The 10% of Egyptians who were Christian rejoiced.
Of course, there was push back by fundamentalist Muslims. They obstructed daily life by camping in various city squares. They abused Christians and burned their churches. What was General Sisi to do?
When he attempted to clear the city squares, the fundamentalism Muslims put their women and children in the front lines to serve as human shields. This, of course, resulted in high casualties. When the army finally entered the camps, they discovered that the fundamentalists had tortured Christians and secular Muslim. They also discovered weapons and ammunition; the ordinance they had used to fire on Egyptian troops. And, now international opprobrium is to be heaped on General Sisi?
Had Obama, upon entering office, identified the true enemy of Western values, as Islamic extremism, he would now be in a far better position for pursuing a coherent foreign policy. Instead, he finds himself bogged down in the quick sand of political correctness.
Free elections are a tool of democracy. They are not, of and by themselves alone, democracy. If that seems too obscure, consider the elections that installed Hitler, or Hamas, or any number of like elections won by anti-democratic forces.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)