Egypt’s new Islamist president

Veteran Israeli journalist Pinchas Inbari discusses the Egyptian elections.

By DAVID PARSONS
Mursi (370) (photo credit: Amr Abdallah Dalsh/ Reuters)
Mursi (370)
(photo credit: Amr Abdallah Dalsh/ Reuters)
After a week of suspense, Mohamed Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for president in Egypt, was finally declared the winner of the June runoff election to replace Hosni Mubarak, who was deposed some 16 months ago. This victory could carry huge implications for the region, given the Muslim Brotherhood’s historic hostility toward Israel and its ultimate agenda of a global caliphate under Sunni Muslim domination. To find out more about what we should expect from the incoming Mursi government, The Christian Edition turned to Pinchas Inbari, a veteran Israeli journalist specializing in Arab affairs.
From a historic perspective, is this the first time the Muslim Brotherhood has gained power in an Arab state, which in this instance happens to be the largest Arab state? Just how historic is this moment for the Islamist movement?
First of all, it’s not the first time the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over an Arab state or territory. We have the example of Hamas in Gaza, and also of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. If you recall, Hamas [the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood] won control of the PA parliament before the split with Fatah. We also cannot forget Sudan, under the leadership of Hassan al- Turabi.
And Turkey?
Yes, it’s also the Muslim Brothers.
Don’t be misled by any other definition. Erdogan and company are Muslim Brothers.
But isn’t Egypt a watershed? After all, it’s the largest Arab country in terms of population, and diplomatically it’s the center of Arab diplomatic activity.
Yes, this is the first case in which a major Arab state, such as Egypt, has fallen into the hands of the Muslim Brothers. It’s a new chapter in the Muslim Brotherhood’s history.
Among all the candidates for president – whether from a military, religious or secular background – they were all talking about “reviewing” the peace treaty with Israel. Now many Israelis are wondering: How is this ascension of a Muslim Brotherhood leader to the presidency in Egypt going to impact relations with Israel?
I would like to first mention that Ahmed Shafik, who finished close behind Mohamed Mursi in the runoff for the presidency, said that he would keep the peace with Israel, and he regarded the peace with Israel as a main Egyptian asset. He, of course, was Egypt’s former air force commander, and he saw value in peace with Israel.
I’m very much encouraged that half of the Egyptians who voted, did so against Mursi. The final count was 51.7 percent to 48.3 and this shows a fairly evenly divided society. I think that we have to be very much encouraged that Egypt is split halfand- half in the case of the peace treaty with Israel. So I think that if the Muslim Brothers will try to push Israel as the main banner of their policies, the Egyptian people will not accept it.
This was the surprise, that a person like Ahmed Shafik, who was the last prime minister under Hosni Mubarak and is part of the military establishment, got half the votes.
That means Egypt is not lost.
So do you think that many Egyptian voters were trying to balance it out; that parliament was already going to be 75% Islamists, and they wanted to try to balance that with a secular leader?
If I was a Muslim Brother, I would evaluate the result of the election as a defeat and not as a success. First of all, only half of the Egyptian populace voted. Half of those voted for Mursi. It means that the Muslim Brothers, who are quite disciplined – and you may be sure that all Muslim Brothers went to the voting booth – only a quarter of the eligible votes went to Mursi.
And now they have to rule and put food on the tables.
Yes, this is the disadvantage. The Muslim Brothers are only a quarter of the Egyptian population. Many people did not go to vote because they didn’t want to vote for a candidate that represented the old regime, but at the same time they also didn’t want to vote for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Was the number of people voting for parliament several months ago higher than 50%?
Yes, there was a dramatic drop-off in voter participation from the parliamentary elections to the initial presidential ballot to the latest runoff election.
So what do you think is the more immediate agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Here you have to evaluate Mursi’s inauguration speech, which I listened to very carefully. I know Arabic, and I can tell you that there was a lot of double talk. He first wanted to satisfy the United States. There are a lot of reports that he gave some commitments to Washington already, before we knew the outcome of the elections. One of them is to keep the peace with Israel; second, protect women’s rights; and third, protect Coptic rights. I think the Americans intervened in the outcome with the Muslim Brotherhood winning – a regretful decision, but it is already done.
So now there are commitments that the Muslim Brothers must meet.
Regarding peace with Israel, in one part of the speech Mursi said, “We should respect all international commitments.” But in another part of the speech he said, “We shall defend our borders against all aggressors.”
Of course, the “aggressor” he had in mind is not Sudan and not Libya; it is Israel. So he sent a threat to Israel.
Now as you know, Israel is not an aggressor. But we can expect that he will activate the Sinai and Gaza, put Israel in a position to defend itself, and then if Israel retaliates into Gaza or at terrorists in Sinai, Egypt can claim Israel is the aggressor, and that could end the peace.
And we see that at least Hamas understood this specific point as a victory for them. For the first time after a long silence, they took responsibility for an escalation in missile launches into Israel, soon after the election. Until now, they would launch missiles, but they never claimed responsibility for those missiles. This time, they said, “Yes! It is us! We did it!” What does it mean for the peace with Israel? Mursi will try to make Israel into the aggressor.
So within the Palestinian camp, Mursi’s victory was a win for Hamas and a loss for Fatah?
I went to Ramallah yesterday and the feeling is that the military hold over Egypt is questionable. They don’t know who is going to support Fatah now.
We just had an incident along the Sinai border, where Israel is rushing to build a security fence. Some al-Qaida terrorists infiltrated in an area where the fence wasn’t up yet and shot some of the workers. What if they are just sitting on their side of the border, shooting into Israel? What does Israel do?
It’s a good question. We don’t know, really. The story in Egypt is not over yet. We cannot say that the Muslim Brothers took over all Egypt. It is far from that, because the military has kept much of the control out of the hands of Mursi. Now the conflict within Egypt will be over presidential authority.
The powers of this president versus the military?
Yes, there is still a revolution going on.
But it was a democratic exercise, where you had a clear choice and it was almost 50/50? Let’s say this. The Muslim Brothers, on the eve of publishing the results of the elections, made it clear that if the electoral committee did not announce Mursi as president, they would “put Egypt on fire.”
So do you think the results were tampered with?
I just don’t appreciate those declarations as being democratic in spirit. To what extent those threats influenced the committee, I don’t know.
It took them a week to announce the results. Do you think the Supreme Armed Council was negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood and said, “You win, but with limited powers”? No, they would not accept limited powers.
The Brotherhood will struggle now to get back all the powers. But I wonder how one party can declare, “If this committee rejects our candidate, we are going to kill them.”