Monday July 2, 2007
Chavez on the Move (Again)
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has just completed another tour of his "strategic partners," including Russia and Iran. The trip comes as Venezuelan territory is increasingly being used by Colombian drug traffickers as a safe haven and way station to move cocaine and heroin to the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and Chavez's internal financial accountability is evaporating.
While in Iran Chavez called Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad his ideological brother (again). This is his third trip to Iran in the past two years. Chavez gave other gestures of support, including the signing of numerous commercial deals that could help ease Iran's fuel crisis.
It is not an alliance based on shared religious or internal political values. It is based solely on the hatred of the United States and a willingness to do business together in a mutually beneficial way.
This, obviously, is not unique to this relationship. And if it were not for the Hezbollah link, it would not be particularly worrisome.
The Venezuelan support also includes, according to European intelligence sources, the issuing of Venezuelan passports to Hezbollah operatives active in Latin America and Africa, the two traditional _diaspora_ strongholds of Hezbollah supporters.
Of equal concern should be Chavez's meetings with Russian president Vladimir Putin, in an effort to buy up to nine submarines and other military hardware. Chavez has already spent billions of dollars on weapons in the past two years, alarming his neighbors and providing a ready arsenal for the FARC and other terrorist and criminal groups in the region.
With submarines, fighter jets, helicopters and a Kalashnikov factory, Venezuela is well positioned to wreak havoc on region that is just recuperating from the violence of the 1980s and 1990s.
In many countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala) the violence of the Cold War proxy fighting has been replaced by even worse violence from drug cartels and violent gangs that now run much of the country.
Chavez's weapons purchases and willingness to bring the world's deadliest weapon into production on the continent, thereby making the AK-47 even cheaper and more accessible, is a potentially devastating move for much of Latin America.
Chavez, as the BBC reports, has chosen his partners with great care. It seems unlikely that, given the desire of the Bush administration to remain friendly with Putin, that the Venezuelan arms sales are even on the agenda for today's meeting.
That is a shame, because the careless disregard by Russia for the use of its weapons (something in which Russia is certainly not alone), has direct security implications for the United States. It is not another business deal in which we have no stake, or in which Latin America has no stake.
While in Iran Chavez called Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad his ideological brother (again). This is his third trip to Iran in the past two years. Chavez gave other gestures of support, including the signing of numerous commercial deals that could help ease Iran's fuel crisis.
It is not an alliance based on shared religious or internal political values. It is based solely on the hatred of the United States and a willingness to do business together in a mutually beneficial way.
This, obviously, is not unique to this relationship. And if it were not for the Hezbollah link, it would not be particularly worrisome.
The Venezuelan support also includes, according to European intelligence sources, the issuing of Venezuelan passports to Hezbollah operatives active in Latin America and Africa, the two traditional _diaspora_ strongholds of Hezbollah supporters.
Of equal concern should be Chavez's meetings with Russian president Vladimir Putin, in an effort to buy up to nine submarines and other military hardware. Chavez has already spent billions of dollars on weapons in the past two years, alarming his neighbors and providing a ready arsenal for the FARC and other terrorist and criminal groups in the region.
With submarines, fighter jets, helicopters and a Kalashnikov factory, Venezuela is well positioned to wreak havoc on region that is just recuperating from the violence of the 1980s and 1990s.
In many countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala) the violence of the Cold War proxy fighting has been replaced by even worse violence from drug cartels and violent gangs that now run much of the country.
Chavez's weapons purchases and willingness to bring the world's deadliest weapon into production on the continent, thereby making the AK-47 even cheaper and more accessible, is a potentially devastating move for much of Latin America.
Chavez, as the BBC reports, has chosen his partners with great care. It seems unlikely that, given the desire of the Bush administration to remain friendly with Putin, that the Venezuelan arms sales are even on the agenda for today's meeting.
That is a shame, because the careless disregard by Russia for the use of its weapons (something in which Russia is certainly not alone), has direct security implications for the United States. It is not another business deal in which we have no stake, or in which Latin America has no stake.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday June 22, 2007
The Bush Administration's Outreach Program to the Muslim Brotherhood
The New York Sun writes that the Bush administration is quietly laying the groundwork for reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood. What it doesn't say is that the Muslim Brotherhood, through its chapter in the United States (CAIR, ISNA et al) have already launched one of the most successful outreach programs of any group in the country.
The U.S. government has formally named these groups as part of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have met recently with senior leaders of the Pentagon, DHS, DOD and have been in the White House across two administrations.
Only the Justice Department's naming of the groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case kept these same groups from being the stars at an ill-conceived "outreach" event hosted by AG Alberto Gonzalez.
So outreach to the Brotherhood, especially in this country, is not a new policy at all. Everyone from the FBI to the NSC has been bullied, pushed, cajoled and duped into meeting with them, despite their well-documented ties to terrorism, terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders.
The question to me is not whether to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, here, in Egypt or its international structure. One can have legitimate reasons for doing so. The question is the underlying premise of the conversations. If we recognize they are a political-religious movement committed to the cause of creating a unified Islamic state across the world, including the United States, and will use any means available to do so-and still think there are strategic interests the dictated discussions-then that is legitimate.
But we are being told repeatedly and erroneously that these groups are our friends and possible allies. And that is simply not true.
Why the pressure now to reach out to the group that is directly, organically tied to Hamas, runs a multi-billion dollar financial empire, and has been the spawning ground of every major _salafist_ jihadi movement and leader?
The drive to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood is being driven by Robert Leiken and other academics who have forgotten, apparently, any lessons they ever learned during the Cold War. (For a look at Leiken's shifting positions during that time, particularly his gullibility on the Sandinistas, see Patrick Poole's American Thinker piece).
I am not going to rehash the arguments raised by Leiken and those of us in response to him. I just want to point out that the entire project of legitimizing the Brotherhood is built on a deliberate misstatement of the truth.
I am rather surprised that Leiken and others with his experience in Central America (my own included), where the Sandinistas, particularly, lied, used front groups and battled to define the language that was used to grossly mislead us all. Leiken admitted to being fooled by them.
As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
The MB, on an international level (individual country chapters vary, but the international structure is running the expansion programs in Europe and the United States) is essentially a front group. It uses people adept at speaking our language, relating to issues we understand and working very hard and successfully to achieve a particular agenda. In this case it is the Islamization of the United States and Europe. They have said this publicly and repeatedly.
They cannot use violence now against the United States, as they themselves say, because they do not have the means to take over by force. Yousef al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's most influential theologian, has made clear, this clear in his writings:
"We depend on others for military power. Those against whom we want to launch our offensive jihad are the same people who make all sorts of weapons and sell them to us. But for them, we would be unarmed, defenseless and unable to do anything!
That being the case, how can we talk of launching offensives to subject the whole world to our Message, when the only weapons we can muster are those given us by them and when the only arms we can carry are those they agree to sell us."
A trenchant observation, and honest. It is, however, not a disavowal of violence, merely a recognition that tactically it is impossible for the moment.
Leiken et al of course ignore these writings and rely on the fundamental lie being perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood now: That the MB has rejected the Islamist teachings of Sayid Qutb, articulated in "Milestones," and is instead now embracing Hasan al Hudaybi's writings in "Preachers not Judges."
I and others wrote about how preposterous this thesis is, and I won't rehash it all here. But it is classic double-speak we knew so well in Marxism (_takiyya_ in the Islamist conception). They want to get rid of us. They will engage in any strategy that will advance that goal.
This is what is so disheartening about the current debate, especially when people like former senior FBI officials like Mike Rolince deliberately misstate the facts.
Let's understand who CAIR, ISNA and the International Muslim Brotherhood are. Then, when we properly define them and their agenda, rather than letting them dictate the terms of the debate, there can be honest discussion about whether outreach is in our strategic interest.
The U.S. government has formally named these groups as part of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have met recently with senior leaders of the Pentagon, DHS, DOD and have been in the White House across two administrations.
Only the Justice Department's naming of the groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case kept these same groups from being the stars at an ill-conceived "outreach" event hosted by AG Alberto Gonzalez.
So outreach to the Brotherhood, especially in this country, is not a new policy at all. Everyone from the FBI to the NSC has been bullied, pushed, cajoled and duped into meeting with them, despite their well-documented ties to terrorism, terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders.
The question to me is not whether to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, here, in Egypt or its international structure. One can have legitimate reasons for doing so. The question is the underlying premise of the conversations. If we recognize they are a political-religious movement committed to the cause of creating a unified Islamic state across the world, including the United States, and will use any means available to do so-and still think there are strategic interests the dictated discussions-then that is legitimate.
But we are being told repeatedly and erroneously that these groups are our friends and possible allies. And that is simply not true.
Why the pressure now to reach out to the group that is directly, organically tied to Hamas, runs a multi-billion dollar financial empire, and has been the spawning ground of every major _salafist_ jihadi movement and leader?
The drive to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood is being driven by Robert Leiken and other academics who have forgotten, apparently, any lessons they ever learned during the Cold War. (For a look at Leiken's shifting positions during that time, particularly his gullibility on the Sandinistas, see Patrick Poole's American Thinker piece).
I am not going to rehash the arguments raised by Leiken and those of us in response to him. I just want to point out that the entire project of legitimizing the Brotherhood is built on a deliberate misstatement of the truth.
I am rather surprised that Leiken and others with his experience in Central America (my own included), where the Sandinistas, particularly, lied, used front groups and battled to define the language that was used to grossly mislead us all. Leiken admitted to being fooled by them.
As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
The MB, on an international level (individual country chapters vary, but the international structure is running the expansion programs in Europe and the United States) is essentially a front group. It uses people adept at speaking our language, relating to issues we understand and working very hard and successfully to achieve a particular agenda. In this case it is the Islamization of the United States and Europe. They have said this publicly and repeatedly.
They cannot use violence now against the United States, as they themselves say, because they do not have the means to take over by force. Yousef al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's most influential theologian, has made clear, this clear in his writings:
"We depend on others for military power. Those against whom we want to launch our offensive jihad are the same people who make all sorts of weapons and sell them to us. But for them, we would be unarmed, defenseless and unable to do anything!
That being the case, how can we talk of launching offensives to subject the whole world to our Message, when the only weapons we can muster are those given us by them and when the only arms we can carry are those they agree to sell us."
A trenchant observation, and honest. It is, however, not a disavowal of violence, merely a recognition that tactically it is impossible for the moment.
Leiken et al of course ignore these writings and rely on the fundamental lie being perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood now: That the MB has rejected the Islamist teachings of Sayid Qutb, articulated in "Milestones," and is instead now embracing Hasan al Hudaybi's writings in "Preachers not Judges."
I and others wrote about how preposterous this thesis is, and I won't rehash it all here. But it is classic double-speak we knew so well in Marxism (_takiyya_ in the Islamist conception). They want to get rid of us. They will engage in any strategy that will advance that goal.
This is what is so disheartening about the current debate, especially when people like former senior FBI officials like Mike Rolince deliberately misstate the facts.
Let's understand who CAIR, ISNA and the International Muslim Brotherhood are. Then, when we properly define them and their agenda, rather than letting them dictate the terms of the debate, there can be honest discussion about whether outreach is in our strategic interest.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday June 20, 2007
Monzar al Kassar and the Criminal/Terrorist Nexus
The Drug Enforcement Administration's arrest last week in Spain of Monzar al Kassar, a major-league weapons trafficker, shows how closely connected the worlds of organized criminal activity and terrorism have become.
Al Kassar is a creature of the Cold War, tolerated in his multiple criminal activities because state sponsors, including the United States, needed his services. He built a fortune, lived in a mansion in Marbella in southern Spain and seemed to be set for life.
But, as with Viktor Bout and others, the end of the Cold War opened new opportunities that proved hard to resist. And al Kassar's hatred for Americans seems to have grown, although, given his long ties with organizations killing Americans, perhaps it is just now more overt.
So al Kassar has morphed from a tolerated criminal agent to one that cast a wide net with non-state actors, from Somalia to Bosnia, Yemen, Iraq and Central America. His old network, as is the case with Bout, continues to supply the necessary weapons, and the clients provided the cash.
According to the indictment in Southern District of New York, al Kassar, after a long and illustrious career of supplying criminal and terrorists around the world, had diversified to trying to supply sophisticated weapons to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
These weapons include surface-to-air missiles, expressly intended, according to the indictment, to kill America troops and contractors involved in aiding the Colombian government.
I have followed the Syrian-born al Kassar for years. He recently claimed to be retired but has been linked to supplying weapons to the Baathist insurgents in Iraq. Iraq named him as one the government's "most wanted" men.
Prior to that, he armed Farah Aideed in Somalia, the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, and was close friends with Abu Abbas, the notorious PLF terrorist. As the Observer in London noted:
"The litany of allegations against him, even aside from his links to Abu Abbas, is jaw-dropping. Government files in various countries indicate that he was jailed in the UK on hashish charges in the 1970s, although he denies it.
"The official US Iran Contra report says he sold weapons to the 'Enterprise' arming the Contras. A UN report says he violated arms embargoes to Croatia and Somalia in 1992. A Swiss court froze and later released millions related to a multi-million-pound arms sale to Croatia. Documents in US court related to a Spanish inquiry indicate he has been investigated, but not prosecuted, on allegations of providing a silenced 9mm pistol used to shoot a suspected Israeli agent in 1984.
"He may have been involved in procuring components of a Chinese anti-ship missile for Iran, according to records cited by the Washington Post. He has been investigated in Argentina on charges of passport fraud. A report in the Library of Congress relays charges that he delivered explosives to a group headed by a known terrorist in Brazil, and that he had earlier sold arms to Iranian militias in Cyprus."
Now the FARC, already closely allied with the Chavez government in neighboring Venezuela. Venezuela, law enforcement officials say, is a growing black hole for drug flights bound for Europe, the United States and even Africa. Most likely, it is FARC-controlled cocaine, as they control much of the production of the substance.
For years al Kassar has been, like the character in the Nicholas Cage movie "Lord of War," untouchable. At the end of the movie, Cage's character is arrested, and he tells the arresting agent that, in about 5 minutes, the phone would ring and he would be ordered to be released. And of course it happens.
The phone has rung for al Kassar numerous times. Perhaps this time it will not, and he will pay a small price for the havoc he has wrought.
Al Kassar is a creature of the Cold War, tolerated in his multiple criminal activities because state sponsors, including the United States, needed his services. He built a fortune, lived in a mansion in Marbella in southern Spain and seemed to be set for life.
But, as with Viktor Bout and others, the end of the Cold War opened new opportunities that proved hard to resist. And al Kassar's hatred for Americans seems to have grown, although, given his long ties with organizations killing Americans, perhaps it is just now more overt.
So al Kassar has morphed from a tolerated criminal agent to one that cast a wide net with non-state actors, from Somalia to Bosnia, Yemen, Iraq and Central America. His old network, as is the case with Bout, continues to supply the necessary weapons, and the clients provided the cash.
According to the indictment in Southern District of New York, al Kassar, after a long and illustrious career of supplying criminal and terrorists around the world, had diversified to trying to supply sophisticated weapons to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
These weapons include surface-to-air missiles, expressly intended, according to the indictment, to kill America troops and contractors involved in aiding the Colombian government.
I have followed the Syrian-born al Kassar for years. He recently claimed to be retired but has been linked to supplying weapons to the Baathist insurgents in Iraq. Iraq named him as one the government's "most wanted" men.
Prior to that, he armed Farah Aideed in Somalia, the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, and was close friends with Abu Abbas, the notorious PLF terrorist. As the Observer in London noted:
"The litany of allegations against him, even aside from his links to Abu Abbas, is jaw-dropping. Government files in various countries indicate that he was jailed in the UK on hashish charges in the 1970s, although he denies it.
"The official US Iran Contra report says he sold weapons to the 'Enterprise' arming the Contras. A UN report says he violated arms embargoes to Croatia and Somalia in 1992. A Swiss court froze and later released millions related to a multi-million-pound arms sale to Croatia. Documents in US court related to a Spanish inquiry indicate he has been investigated, but not prosecuted, on allegations of providing a silenced 9mm pistol used to shoot a suspected Israeli agent in 1984.
"He may have been involved in procuring components of a Chinese anti-ship missile for Iran, according to records cited by the Washington Post. He has been investigated in Argentina on charges of passport fraud. A report in the Library of Congress relays charges that he delivered explosives to a group headed by a known terrorist in Brazil, and that he had earlier sold arms to Iranian militias in Cyprus."
Now the FARC, already closely allied with the Chavez government in neighboring Venezuela. Venezuela, law enforcement officials say, is a growing black hole for drug flights bound for Europe, the United States and even Africa. Most likely, it is FARC-controlled cocaine, as they control much of the production of the substance.
For years al Kassar has been, like the character in the Nicholas Cage movie "Lord of War," untouchable. At the end of the movie, Cage's character is arrested, and he tells the arresting agent that, in about 5 minutes, the phone would ring and he would be ordered to be released. And of course it happens.
The phone has rung for al Kassar numerous times. Perhaps this time it will not, and he will pay a small price for the havoc he has wrought.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday June 18, 2007
The Growing Fragmentation of the Islamist Structures
One of the extremely significant and accelerating factor in the current development of Islamist groups is the rapid and visible fragmentation of the various _jihadist_ infrastructures.
It seems clear that Iran is increasingly willing to aid non-state armed group, even if they are Sunni. Such seems to be the case with Hamas in Gaza and possibly elements of the al Qaeda structure in Iraq. Of course, this is in addition to the Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, its alliance of convenience with the secular Syrian power structure, its growing influence in nationalist/leftist governments in Latin America and its alleged aid to Salafist/Sunni groups in Somalia.
Another interesting example is Hezbollah's unwillingness to join the armed confrontation with the Sunni/salafist Fatah Islam militants inside the Nahr el-Bared camp. In the past Hezbollah has had a very low tolerance for other armed groups operating in its territory. Now they seem to be not lifting a finger to expel the group or help the government expel them. Quite an interesting attitude.
What is equally clear is that the push for the armed Islamist movement starting NOW, rather than as a gradual, evolutionary process, is winning the day. The old guard of nationalist/secular groups is effectively over. Fatah is the clearest example.
But so is the waning power of corrupt and empty states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to successfully back, at this point, Islamist movements that do not rely almost entirely on violence and the core _jihadist_ tenets of recreating the caliphate and the eradication of Israel.
As I wrote earlier, this phenomenon of the rising armed _jihadist_ movement is creating a difficult situation for the Muslim Brotherhood, which, while advocating the same tenets, has successfully created a niche for itself in the West as the ones following a political program with a long-term horizon.
Funding for "defensive jihad" was easy, in faraway places. But as the number of actions has multiplied the pressure to become more directly involved in the wars (rather than maintaining the masquerade of funding charities and social networks) will likely grow, or the groups will lose relevance.
One of the most interesting parts of the Hamas military triumph was the explicit recognition of the role of international Muslim Brotherhood in the success of the recent fighting.
As quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail,Sheik Yazeeb Khader, a Hamas newspaper editor, said that Hamas had learned from the success of Lebanon's Hezbollah movement. Hezbollah used a network of tunnels to smuggle weapons into position ahead of its war last summer against Israel.
"We buy weapons from every source. Everybody wonders where Hezbollah gets its weapons; same with the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq," Mr. Khader said. "Because we are a resistance movement, we can buy weapons from the devil. We buy weapons from every source, and we buy all the weapons we can get our hands on."
Mr. Khader gave credit to the international Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot, for "never being stingy" in providing financial and other aid to the Palestinian wing.
With hot wars in the West Bank, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, Somalia and parts of Central Asia, it is increasingly hard to argue for a political plan of take over that could take decades, and this may be first public admission of serious changes underway in the Brotherhood thinking.
While policy makers here and in Israel and Europe know and understand the old guard and are used to dealing with them, they are hardly relevant any more. So new ideas on how to deal with whom (if one wants to deal with those with real power).
Understanding how the groups fragment and coalesce into new, often short-lived alliances, will be of vital importance in mapping the enemy's networks. Unfortunately, we do not have the human resources or creative thinking to really dig into this.
It seems clear that Iran is increasingly willing to aid non-state armed group, even if they are Sunni. Such seems to be the case with Hamas in Gaza and possibly elements of the al Qaeda structure in Iraq. Of course, this is in addition to the Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, its alliance of convenience with the secular Syrian power structure, its growing influence in nationalist/leftist governments in Latin America and its alleged aid to Salafist/Sunni groups in Somalia.
Another interesting example is Hezbollah's unwillingness to join the armed confrontation with the Sunni/salafist Fatah Islam militants inside the Nahr el-Bared camp. In the past Hezbollah has had a very low tolerance for other armed groups operating in its territory. Now they seem to be not lifting a finger to expel the group or help the government expel them. Quite an interesting attitude.
What is equally clear is that the push for the armed Islamist movement starting NOW, rather than as a gradual, evolutionary process, is winning the day. The old guard of nationalist/secular groups is effectively over. Fatah is the clearest example.
But so is the waning power of corrupt and empty states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to successfully back, at this point, Islamist movements that do not rely almost entirely on violence and the core _jihadist_ tenets of recreating the caliphate and the eradication of Israel.
As I wrote earlier, this phenomenon of the rising armed _jihadist_ movement is creating a difficult situation for the Muslim Brotherhood, which, while advocating the same tenets, has successfully created a niche for itself in the West as the ones following a political program with a long-term horizon.
Funding for "defensive jihad" was easy, in faraway places. But as the number of actions has multiplied the pressure to become more directly involved in the wars (rather than maintaining the masquerade of funding charities and social networks) will likely grow, or the groups will lose relevance.
One of the most interesting parts of the Hamas military triumph was the explicit recognition of the role of international Muslim Brotherhood in the success of the recent fighting.
As quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail,Sheik Yazeeb Khader, a Hamas newspaper editor, said that Hamas had learned from the success of Lebanon's Hezbollah movement. Hezbollah used a network of tunnels to smuggle weapons into position ahead of its war last summer against Israel.
"We buy weapons from every source. Everybody wonders where Hezbollah gets its weapons; same with the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq," Mr. Khader said. "Because we are a resistance movement, we can buy weapons from the devil. We buy weapons from every source, and we buy all the weapons we can get our hands on."
Mr. Khader gave credit to the international Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot, for "never being stingy" in providing financial and other aid to the Palestinian wing.
With hot wars in the West Bank, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, Somalia and parts of Central Asia, it is increasingly hard to argue for a political plan of take over that could take decades, and this may be first public admission of serious changes underway in the Brotherhood thinking.
While policy makers here and in Israel and Europe know and understand the old guard and are used to dealing with them, they are hardly relevant any more. So new ideas on how to deal with whom (if one wants to deal with those with real power).
Understanding how the groups fragment and coalesce into new, often short-lived alliances, will be of vital importance in mapping the enemy's networks. Unfortunately, we do not have the human resources or creative thinking to really dig into this.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday June 15, 2007
The Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) Now Faces Difficult Decisions
One of the most interesting things about the current Hamas move to consolidate its power in the Palestinian territories is the question of how that move will play with Salafi/wahhabist groups in their love-hate relationship with Hamas.
It is necessary to remember two things: Hamas remains directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, both organically and officially, as described in the Hamas charter. The second is that Hamas and the Salafist groups have been in a deep and bitter dispute because of Hamas' decision to participate in the elections last year. There have been other spats before, but this was a different level of denunciation and recrimination.
Ayman Zawahiri was particularly vocal in publicly denouncing Hamas at the time in the strongest possible terms. On the various jihadi and Hamas web forums that routinely cross-linked to each other the feud grew so bitter that such cross-pollination has dropped off considerably. Hamas has thrown jihadi commentators off Hamas sites, and the jihadis have reciprocated. (Evan Kohlmann is the authority on this).
So an important question, to me, is, what now? The elections are now a moot point and the unity government now a thing of the past. The Muslim Brotherhood's sole, overt armed branch has participated in and won elections, but has proved unable to co-exist in a coalition with secular partners.
Hamas has asserted itself militarily and shown a willingness to fight not only against Israel, but against other Palestinian groups that do not share its vision of the future. In the direct clash between (deeply corrupt) secularists and those driven by religious zeal who believe the existence of Israel is an affront to Allah, the secularists had almost no chance.
Some in Hamas are openly discussing making the Gaza Strip Islamic state.
I would think this would give pause to those who repeatedly say that the _Ikhwan_ could and would accept the results of elections and have and will work with non-Islamist coalition partners to advance a broad agenda.
Hamas showed that the discourse of dialogue and coalition building and the strategy participating in a process its ideologues cannot completely control, will be thrown out if the chance for armed victory emerges.
As destructive as the fighting with Fatah has been in general, it will open the door for a thawing of relations between Hamas and the Salafist groups. The future of that relationship should tell us a great deal about what the real intentions are of Hamas, and by extension, the Muslim Brotherhood.
The tension between Hamas and the al Qaeda affiliated groups has centered not on the long-term goals (the destruction of Israel, the re-establishment of the Caliphate etc.), but on the tactics to achieve those goals. It appears those tactics are more closely aligned now than before.
It is necessary to remember two things: Hamas remains directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, both organically and officially, as described in the Hamas charter. The second is that Hamas and the Salafist groups have been in a deep and bitter dispute because of Hamas' decision to participate in the elections last year. There have been other spats before, but this was a different level of denunciation and recrimination.
Ayman Zawahiri was particularly vocal in publicly denouncing Hamas at the time in the strongest possible terms. On the various jihadi and Hamas web forums that routinely cross-linked to each other the feud grew so bitter that such cross-pollination has dropped off considerably. Hamas has thrown jihadi commentators off Hamas sites, and the jihadis have reciprocated. (Evan Kohlmann is the authority on this).
So an important question, to me, is, what now? The elections are now a moot point and the unity government now a thing of the past. The Muslim Brotherhood's sole, overt armed branch has participated in and won elections, but has proved unable to co-exist in a coalition with secular partners.
Hamas has asserted itself militarily and shown a willingness to fight not only against Israel, but against other Palestinian groups that do not share its vision of the future. In the direct clash between (deeply corrupt) secularists and those driven by religious zeal who believe the existence of Israel is an affront to Allah, the secularists had almost no chance.
Some in Hamas are openly discussing making the Gaza Strip Islamic state.
I would think this would give pause to those who repeatedly say that the _Ikhwan_ could and would accept the results of elections and have and will work with non-Islamist coalition partners to advance a broad agenda.
Hamas showed that the discourse of dialogue and coalition building and the strategy participating in a process its ideologues cannot completely control, will be thrown out if the chance for armed victory emerges.
As destructive as the fighting with Fatah has been in general, it will open the door for a thawing of relations between Hamas and the Salafist groups. The future of that relationship should tell us a great deal about what the real intentions are of Hamas, and by extension, the Muslim Brotherhood.
The tension between Hamas and the al Qaeda affiliated groups has centered not on the long-term goals (the destruction of Israel, the re-establishment of the Caliphate etc.), but on the tactics to achieve those goals. It appears those tactics are more closely aligned now than before.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH