With Foes Like These...

Yglesias assesses the opposition to Obama's Cairo speech, and likes the line-up:

Mark Kleiman: "Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, John Bolton, Hugh Hewitt, and the Republican Jewish Coalition, and John Boehner all disliked the President's speech."

And, look, it's no coincidence. Extreme elements on both sides of a conflict are in a symbiotic relationship. Islamist violence against the west strengthens the hand of the nationalistic right in the United States. But nationalist militarism from the United States strengthens the hands of violent radicals in Muslim countries.

Comments

drumwolf June 5, 2009 9:20 AM

Exactly.

On the American side of things, I've been convinced for a long time - in fact, even before 9/11, starting with the spy plane dustup with China in the first few months of Bush's first term - that our wingnuts are not genuinely concerned about defusing threats from external enemies, so much as they just like having enemies that they can hate.

I don't have the slightest doubt that same thing holds true for Islamists. They have their agenda, which is the implementation of the most regressive, ignorant Taliban-style end of their religion. They're not interested in righting the perceived injustices against the Muslim world, they want to exploit those injustices to fuel more support for them.

Reply

muzz June 5, 2009 9:48 AM

Hamas’s political leader Khaled Meshaal shared his reactions with freelance journalist Helena Cobban:

Of course I listened to the speech. The words are different from those used by Bush. The speech was cleverly written in the way it addressed the Muslim world-- using phrases from the Holy Kor'an, and referring to some historical events. And also, in the way it showed respect to the Muslim heritage. But I think it's not enough!

What's needed are deeds, actions on the ground, and a change of policies.

For example, if the Palestinians today don't find a real change from the situation of siege in Gaza, there's no point; the speech by itself doesn't help them. What they're looking for is an end to the siege and an end to occupation.

We want to see practical steps by the United States such as ending Israel's settlement activity, putting an end to Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land and its campaign to Judaize Jerusalem; an end to its demolitions of Palestinian homes; and the removal of the 600 checkpoints that are stifling normal life in the West Bank.
....
....

>Foreign Policy Magazine

sounds more like a wait and see attitude than outright rejection

Reply

boldface June 5, 2009 11:12 AM

To me, the fact that Yglesias thinks Republican Jews are the mirror image of Hezbollah tells me more about Yglesias than it does about either the Republican Jews or Hezbollah.

Reply

GregSanders June 5, 2009 11:32 AM

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't a violent radical group. I'm rather surprised Yglesias listed them in that line up. Even more surprising, here's a defense of them from TNR (specifically by Michael Crowley:

To the typical American, the Muslim Brothers may sound more sinister than they are: Dedicated to an Islamist society in Egypt, they are a badly weakened political party which--although linked to terrorism in past decades--now operates nonviolently in the Egyptian parliament, in what precious little breathing room Mubarak's security state allows.

How tame are the Brothers? Enough that your relatively green foreign correspondent visited with one of their senior leaders today...

Reply

GregSanders (Replying to: GregSanders) June 5, 2009 11:45 AM

Did a little extra checking, think Yglesias just slipped up here as he's made this distinction in the past.

To put it bluntly, the trouble here is that the Muslim Brotherhood just isn't a violent terrorist organization, and certainly doesn't commit acts of violence against the United States. It's an extremely traditionalist multinational civil society organization. It's true that a lot of violent types used to be in the Brotherhood and now they're in terrorist groups, but used to be is the key phrase here, they left the Brotherhood because the Brotherhood wouldn't sign on for their agenda. In one clause, Romney's just gone and broadened the war to include a huge new category of people who have no intention of waging war against the United States or even against Israel.

Reply

GregSanders (Replying to: GregSanders) June 5, 2009 11:45 AM

Did a little extra checking, think Yglesias just slipped up here as he's made this distinction in the past.

To put it bluntly, the trouble here is that the Muslim Brotherhood just isn't a violent terrorist organization, and certainly doesn't commit acts of violence against the United States. It's an extremely traditionalist multinational civil society organization. It's true that a lot of violent types used to be in the Brotherhood and now they're in terrorist groups, but used to be is the key phrase here, they left the Brotherhood because the Brotherhood wouldn't sign on for their agenda. In one clause, Romney's just gone and broadened the war to include a huge new category of people who have no intention of waging war against the United States or even against Israel.

Reply

Shawn June 5, 2009 12:01 PM

"...our wingnuts are not genuinely concerned about defusing threats from external enemies, so much as they just like having enemies that they can hate."

There's a corollary quote out there that says to the effect that not every religion needs a God but every religion does need a Devil. That pretty much sums of the cornerstone of the Kristol/Cheney worldview.

Reply