The Republican Sharia Law Fantasies: It’s Republican World! 2015 In Review-- Chapter Eleven

by Noah

Most Republicans I know about like to whine about Muslim Sharia Law taking over our country. In the Republican mind, it goes hand in hand with their imagined Obama-led "War On Christianity" that I posted about yesterday. The Sharia Law threat is one of their favorite and most paranoid theme songs. They’ve been singing this one (very off key) since the man they like to call Barack Hussein Obama won election and moved into the White House. They see Muslims coming to this country as some sort of conspiracy to install a theocracy. Since the majority of them think that President Obama is a Muslim, they, of course, see him as supporting this fanciful takeover.

Sharia Law is Muslim religious law. It’s prescriptions are very often harsh and medieval. The dominance of Sharia, or lack there of, varies from country to country in the Muslim world, depending on a given country’s constitution and/or legal systems.

Our system of law, outlined by The Constitution, is not in any way religious law; quite the contrary. We have the concept of separation of church and state, so, as long as we keep that concept, there will be no Sharia Law, of any kind, taking over the United States. In fact, and this would come as a shock to most republicans, there is no mention of God in The Constitution. That is by design, intelligent design as a matter of fact. Article VI of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.

“Supreme Law of the Land.” That seems pretty clear. So why do Republicans keep yapping about Sharia Law taking over America, a country whose Muslim inhabitants amount to 2% of the population, if, by the design of our founding fathers, many or whom were agnostics, it is proscribed that The Constitution is supreme? At worst, the best Sharia supporters could hope for would be that it would be used by the members of closed societies within the larger population, much like mobsters and gangs live, outside the law, by their own codes.

Compared to our system of laws, Sharia Law is literally what some would call “a higher law” or God’s law; in this case Allah’s law since the basic tenet of Sharia is that God’s law is the source of all legal rulings for all acts. Again, our Constitution is a total impediment when it comes to the establishment of Sharia Law in our country. To refresh your memory; especially any lurking republican trolls out there, here is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That works in two ways: no special support, and no belligerence. So, as long as we don’t become a theocracy, there will be no religious law or Sharia Law that will have dominance over The Constitution.

Republicans profess to be all gung ho about The Constitution. Perhaps they should actually read it, or, perhaps there is a different Constitution in Republican World. Those who put our Constitution together for us were very wary of the very idea of a theocracy running America. Many immigrants back then and right now came here to escape a theocracy. The separation of church and state, a concept that Republicans seem to have a very big problem with, protects us from the formation of a theocracy of any kind here. That includes Christianity and all other religions.

The list of those Republicans who seem like they would vastly prefer a theocracy here is perhaps best exemplified by the Rev. Mike Huckabee and Sen. “Ted” Cruz who both came to the aid of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis when she cited her religious convictions as baring her from giving same sex couples a marriage license. Huckabee is one of those who believe that we can selectively choose which laws we want to obey and that we should be allowed to do so without consequence. These people seem to be in favor of Sharia Law of the Christian kind.

Huckabee and his followers can scream "judicial tyranny" all they want. That comes under "free speech." However, he and his kind have decided they are above the laws of the land. They are not. If we don’t think a law is right in our country, we have another concept that the founding fathers gave us. It’s called Judicial Review. Under judicial review, actions by legislative bodies and executive actions can both be reviewed by the courts. The courts have the power, not Mike Huckabee and his ilk, not "Ted" Cruz, and not some FOX "News" wacko, to invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority. In this country, that higher authority is The Constitution, not a bunch of voices you hear in your head and mistake for some sort of god or oracle.

If you don’t like a law, you take it to court. You may win. You may lose, but that is how it’s supposed to work here. You don’t just get to say "that law doesn’t apply to me because of my religion." If Republicans don’t like that, perhaps they’d be happier and more comfortable in another country. Wouldn’t they love a nice, warm Muslim country? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they would all just self-deport, tomorrow!

To Davis, Huckabee, Cruz, the Davis supporters, and other like-minded Republicans (Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, for instance), there is a higher law than the laws of the United States of America. Such people believe this higher law supersedes the laws of their country, just like extreme Muslims believe similar things in their countries. In other words, people in America who believe as Davis, Huckabee, Cruz, and their like do, believe in some kind of Christian Sharia Law. There is no difference, if you believe your religious beliefs take precedence over the legal system of your country. Now, that’s what I call unconstitutional!

Imagine a world where each of us could just say, “Hey, I don’t like that law” and just did whatever we want.

Since we all have fantasies, here’s one of mine that is inspired by this subject. In my fantasy, I actually get to run for President of the United States and I actually get elected. Yeah, I know it’s quite a whopper of a fantasy. But, wait, there’s more. I’m President and I get to nominate a Supreme Court justice. So, what do I do? I scour the entire country for the brightest most accomplished lawyer in the land, someone with indisputable qualifications… who happens to be a Muslim. I would do this just to see Mike Huckabee’s head and entire body explode. I would do this to see Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, that Duck Dynasty clown, "Ted" Cruz, Trumpf, and Chris Christie (My what an explosion that would be!) all violently burst at the seams with apoplexy.

Someday, a President will nominate a brilliant Muslim to the highest court in the land but, for now, we will have to settle for baby steps. Recently, in New York City, Carolyn Walker-Diallo was sworn in as a judge for Brooklyn’s 7th Municipal District. She swore he oath with her right hand on, not the Bible, but a book that has many of the same stories and characters. It’s called The Quran. Why a Quran? Well, Carolyn Walker-Diallo is a Muslim.

As soon as she was sworn in, a sickening amount of local Republican malcontents erupted with their usual hate. Online comments included:

• "Sickening. Is this America of the Middle East."
• "Another piece of s--- Muslim trying to take over this country."
• "This is so wrong on so many levels!!!! Our leadership has gone to Hell!!!"
• "We are witnessing our nation falling to her knees."

You get the picture. The four comments I just listed above are probably the most articulate ones. Some are nothing but gibberish. It’s safe to say that Walker-Diallo can speak English and write a lot better English than many of her critics. She’s more American than her critics will ever be. There’s been a lot talk from the critics about Sharia Law taking over and a lot of that FOX "News" leadership meme. I haven’t bothered with all of the obscene ones, and, speaking of getting the picture, there have been a lot of pictures of burning Qurans and pictures of republicans apparently using pages of the Quran as toilet paper. This country clearly has a mental illness problem. At least one of its political parties does.

You have to wonder if those who live in Republican World know that we have Muslim U.S. soldiers fighting against terrorists. We have Muslim intelligence agents, too, but, a Muslim judge? Hey, that’s just wrong to these nutters. Just imagine if their favorite sports team got rid of its Muslim players. Confusion in Republican World would abound.

Judge Walker-Diallo did pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America before being sworn in but that would never satisfy the republican mob. Celebrity nutjob Republican Allen West immediately published on his website an article titled "Obama’s America: Muslim Woman Sworn In As Judge, Look At The FIRST Thing She Does!" His site even cropped the photo so none of his sensitive readers would see the Quran.

Local Republicans have since been bellowing and tearing at their hair wondering how such a thing as a Muslim judge could come to pass. Well, dummies, it’s simple, almost as simple as you. We had an election in November. The people voted for her. Majority rules. Don’t you have any faith in the American democratic process? Do you not believe in America? You are the same ridiculous fools that whined when Irish, Italian, and Jewish New Yorkers became judges or entered politics. What the Hell is wrong with you?

On Judge Walker-Diallo’s campaign website, her message reads:

"I am humbled that my community has entrusted me with the immense responsibility of ensuring that EVERYONE has notice and fair opportunity to be heard in the halls of justice."

Maybe it’s that use of the word 'everyone' that bothers Republicans. Hah! Yeah, it’s that word and that other word, 'Muslim.' Walker-Diallo isn’t even the first Muslim judge here in New York. We’ve had others. Two years ago we even got a Muslim judge on the Court of Appeals. Her name is Sheila Abdus-Salaam. She’s a woman. She’s of African heritage, and, she’s a Muslim! That’s a perfect trifecta of hate for Republicans. But, this election cycle, Republicans have revved up the bigotry engine.

Carolyn Walker-Diallo is very qualified for her new job. She received her Juris Doctor from New York Law School. She serves as First Vice-Chair of Brooklyn Community Board 5. She is the Board Chair of The George Walker Jr. Community Coalition, Inc., and she is a member of several other community organizations. In other words, Brooklyn’s 7th Municipal District has a judge that is about as familiar with the issues of her community as you can be. She is no outsider.

Judge Walker-Diallo has been a judge now for 12 days. The Brooklyn Bridge has not been turned over to a local Taliban. The Brooklyn Nets still play professional basketball, although not particularly well. You can still get some of the very best pizza in the world in Brooklyn, for now, that is.

Why The GOP's Far Right Base Loves Fringe Lunatics Like Louie Gohmert

New polling from Pew, indicates that the Republican Party-- at it's core (so values, principles, policies, agenda)-- is woefully out of step with normal American voters. We're not just talking about the sad antics of Republican psychopaths and vaudevillians like Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul and Steve Stockman; we're talking about the heart and soul of the GOP, their financial backers and the crackpot, Foxified base of the party. In short, the public disagrees with everything the Republican Party has been talking about for at least five years.

[A]s with previous conflicts over the debt ceiling and fiscal cliff, Obama holds the upper hand politically over congressional Republicans. If there is no deficit deal by March 1, 49% say congressional Republicans would be more to blame while just 31% would mostly blame President Obama.

Moreover, 76% say that the president and Congress should focus on a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the budget deficit. Just 19% agree with the current Republican position that tax increases should be off the table.

And while Obama’s 51% job approval rating is down slightly from a post-election high of 55%, it remains well above the 25% approval rating for GOP congressional leaders. The job rating for Democratic leaders is higher (37%), though more disapprove (55%) than approve of their performance.

The poll finds new evidence of the public’s concern over the federal budget deficit. Fully 70% say it is essential for the president and Congress to pass major legislation to reduce the federal budget deficit, including wide majorities across party lines. Last month, the Pew Research Center’s annual policy priorities survey found a sharp rise in the percentage rating deficit reduction as a top priority since 2009.

...By a wide margin (71% to 26%), the public favors increasing the minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 per hour to $9.00 an hour. But while large majorities of Democrats (87%) and independents (68%) favor raising the minimum wage, Republicans are evenly divided (50% favor, 47% oppose).

...Obama holds a sizable advantage over congressional Republicans on immigration. Half (50%) say that Obama has a better approach to dealing with immigration, compared with 33% who say congressional Republicans have a better approach. Obama’s job approval in handling the nation’s immigration policy, in negative territory for most of his presidency, also has improved.

As for gun control, Obama's #1 priority, universal background checks-- which is vehemently opposed by the gun manufacturers and their lobbying group the NRA as well as by the congressional lunatics they have in their pockets-- is favored by 83% of Americans and opposed by only 15%. Even most NRA members agree with the policy! 56% of Americans also favor banning assault weapons and 53% favor banning high capacity magazine clips.

Another poll, for Bloomberg, indicates that Republican Party approval numbers keep falling and are now lower than they've been any time since 2009, when Bloomberg started polling that question. Only 35% of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP. Most of them live in backward parts of the Old Confederacy.

But there is something if more toxic than the generic Republican Party-- the lunatic fringe Members of Congress who have been pulling it further and further to the right and happily tying the efficient functioning of government into knots. The crazies... no one likes them (except other crazies) and the more they're identified as Republicans, the more people get turned off to the whole party. Let's take Louie Gohmert, a clown from northeast Texas, hard up against Louisiana. Boehner and Cantor cringe when he opens his mouth in public. His perspective on everything comes straight from Hate Talk Radio. The guy doesn't have an idea in his head that doesn't come out of the mumbo-jumbo stew of a day of listening to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. He's in his own cracked up, paranoid little world. When Gohmert, and a small vocal handful of other extremists talk about gun control, they're not interested in hunting or in people being able to protect their families from criminals. Gohmert is all about black helicopters, the tyranny of the U.S. Army and jackbooted thugs in law enforcement an, of course, the threat of Sharia Law. This is why normal people no longer see the Republican Party as a viable alternative to the less than ideal Democrats.

Tea Party Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told a conservative radio show on Thursday that the GOP must oppose gun regulations to protect the country from the threat of “Sharia Law.”

Appearing on The Voice of Freedom, Gohmert said he “hoped and prayed” that Congress rejects gun safety legislation, arguing that Americans may need to use the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to avoid succumbing to Muslims:

[The Second Amendment] is for our protection and the founders’ quotes make that very very clear and including against a government that would run amuck. We’ve got some people who think Sharia Law should be the law of the land, forget the Constitution. But the guns are there… to make sure all of the rest of the Amendments are followed.

A friend of mine from Gohmert's part of Texas lives in L.A. now. He's in a band. He called the other day, confused and upset, to read me some letters from his very conservative parents, hard core Republicans from a Lufkin area trailer park. And sure enough, it was filled with a language you only hear on Hate Talk Radio about issues only consequent on Hate Talk Radio. And the danger of Sharia Law was repeated over and over. Really? This is what poor people in Lufkin, Texas choose to worry about... a takeover of Texas by Muslim extremists? Muslims are the largest non-Christian group in 20 U.S. states, including Texas (also Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota and Wyoming). Texas has 1,678 Muslims for every 100,000 people. About 2.4% of Americans are Muslims, around 6.7 million people. They're not taking over and imposing Sharia Law on anyone. Ironically, almost all of the GOP crackpots like Gohmert and Bachmann who scream the loudest about Sharia Law are advocates of very primitive, fundamentalist pseudo-Christian "law" that is the closest thing to Sharia Law anywhere in the world. Jesus, I don't want to know what these people's nightmares are like!

Bachmann Yells Fire In A Theater-- 6 Innocent Sikhs Murdered By A Right Wing Psychopath

I'm in the middle of Tom Holland's fascinating book, In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire and the few pages I read everyday are like an oasis in the middle of my schedule. And I'm learning so much about the end of antiquity. Who knew God struck down Sodom and Gomorrah because of too much public flatulence? What's funny-- not that funny-- is that while I've been reading it a handful of right-wing Republican religious bigots and Crusaders, led by publicity hound Michele Bachmann, have been off on an anti-Muslim witch hunt. And-- wouldn't you know it-- some deranged neo-Nazi very much like a street level version of Bachmann and cohorts of hers like Steve King (R-IA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Tom Rooney (R-FL), shot up a Sikh temple-- or as Mitt Romney put it, "a sheik temple," thinking he "got" half a dozen of Bachmann's "terrorists."

Of course, you can't just blame Bachmann. Another deranged right-wing publicity hound, a more desperate Joe Walsh, is also working hard to stir up hatred against Muslim-Americans.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Elk Grove Village Wednesday, Walsh warned that there is "a radical strain of Islam in this country... trying to kill Americans every week," which he called a "real threat that is much more at home now than it was after 9/11," CBS Chicago reports.

“It’s here. It’s in Elk Grove. It’s in Addison. It’s in Elgin. It’s here,” he said, according to the station.

Walsh also called for an end to political correctness among "godly" representatives willing to oppose the expansion of Islam, which he asserted "is not the peaceful, loving religion we hear about," according to Salon. That statement was reportedly met with applause.

Muslims in the communities Walsh targeted say they feel threatened by the politician's remarks, especially in light of the recent shooting in a Sikh temple in nearby Milwaukee.

"When elected officials, trusted by many, indicate that the enemy could be any Muslim living in your neighborhood, it gives rise to xenophobic vigilantism where fearful citizens target other Americans for simply looking different," Ahmed Rehab, Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Chicago, said in a statement.

So were the murders Bachmann's, Walsh's and the Republican Party's fault? Absolutely. And Muslim leaders are pointing right at Romney as a Bachmann-enabler. Alex Seitz-Wald reports that Muslim leaders are dismayed that Romney is still refusing to call her out on her bigotry and McCarthyism. The feeling in the community is that Romney's response--“I’m not going to tell other people what things to talk about. Those are not things that are part of my campaign.”-- is not exactly the kind of leadership Americans are looking for. Salam Al-Marayati, the longtime president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, told Seitz-Wald that “Romney has the responsibility to state where he stands because he cannot have it both ways. When he doesn’t comment, he is giving legitimacy to Bachmann’s point of view, and this is now going to be aligned with Romney’s point of view. Whether he personally believes it or not, this will be the perception. And perception becomes reality... Romney’s silence speaks volumes of where he stands on this issue, Running for president is not a dodgeball game.” It’s odd, Al-Marayati noted, considering that Romney was the candidate who gave Herman Cain the strongest rebuke during the GOP primary (though it was still pretty mild) for saying he wouldn’t hire Muslims to his cabinet. Al-Marayati said he “expected” that of a person “who belongs to a faith that understands religious [persecution] too well and knows the history of religious persecution in this country.”

But if Romney is too afraid of the bigots-in-the-base to speak up, there are a few Republicans speaking up against Bachmann's McCarthyism. Obviously McCain led off-- and was publicly reviled by all the crazies in the party. This week it was Chris Christie, who appointed a Muslim judge and publicly rebuked Bachmann and her cronies and called them out as bigots. After the story was reported the video was made "private," but here's another Christie video where he calls anti-Muslim bigots "ignorant."



He says he's "tired of dealing with the crazies" and laughs at the kooks who are whining about the "dangers" of Sharia Law. This certainly puts him at odds with the Republican base.

"I'll tell you that there is a gaze of intolerance that is going around our country that is disturbing to me," Christie said. "This is something that as a political leader you can think you understand as an objective observer, but you don't really understand until you become part of the story."

He said that two of his actions have "drawn the ire" of some conservatives around the country. The first was the nomination of a Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim attorney, as a superior court judge. Conservative web sites have criticized the appointment, saying Mohammed has defended terrorists and will employ shariah law. But Christie called Mohammed a friend and said that those who create hysteria about his appointment because are "bigots."

Christie went on to ask the Muslims in attendance to recommend members of their community for appointments, including judgeships. 

Christie also noted that he has been called out for his relationship with Imam Mohammad Qatanani, who is often described online as a "Hamas-linked cleric." 

"The fact of the matter is that in all my interactions over the years with the imam, he has attempted to be a force for good in his community, in our state, with law enforcement, with those of us who have gotten to know and work with us over the years," said Christie, who worked with the Muslim community as a U.S. Attorney in the aftermath of Sept. 11. "So I hope what you see is a consistent strain of conduct. I will judge people based on their relationships with me and how they conduct themselves."

Winds Of Change Blowing In Egypt-- But Not Everyone Is Thrilled With The Direction

Last week in Tahrir Square- ©2011 Reese Erlich

How long will it take for Fox News to find this article in the English-language edition of the Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al Youm and then start yowling about who lost Egypt... and it won't be McCain or Lieberman they turn their guns on.

Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Hazem Abu Ismail announced his intention to run in Egypt’s upcoming presidential elections.

He said that if elected he would implement Islamic sharia law and cancel the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

...Abu Ismail said that his platform revolves around Islam, while "Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa, and Hamdeen Sabahi, the liberal candidates, will be unable to present a clear vision” for the country.

“If I could apply sharia in Egypt, all people, including non-Muslims, would applaud me four years later,” said Abu Ismail.

The sheikh said that no current presidential candidate represents the Egyptian people.

“We seek to apply Islamic law, but those who don’t want it prefer cabarets, alcohol, dancers and prostitution, as the implementation of Islamic law will prohibit women to appear naked in movies and on beaches,” Abu Ismail added.

...Concerning the peace treaty with Israel, he said, “The Camp David peace treaty is insulting to the Egyptian people, so it must be canceled, and I will do my best to convince people to cancel it."

Our old friend Reese Erlich is in Cairo this week, on assignment for a number of public radio networks and blogging for the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. He's been writing about the struggle to determine what kind of new government Egyptians will create post-Mubarak. Last week, on his first day in Egypt he "lit out for Tahrir Square."

Tahrir has taken on mythic status in the Arab world, but it’s really just a large traffic circle surrounded by high rise buildings. At one point several million people filled the square, symbolically stopping the government, and leading to the overthrow of the autocratic regime of Hosni Mubarak.

On this day, however, only a few thousand rallied here, chanting slogans against the military government that took over from Mubarak, and demanding release of political prisoners. Dozens had been arrested on May 15 for protesting in front of the Israeli Embassy. They were tried in military, not civilian, courts. Under popular pressure, one week later, almost all the protesters were given one-year suspended sentences and released. The military also released over a hundred demonstrators from previous protests.

And that’s the contradiction facing today’s Egypt. The old dictatorship has been replaced with a military council that carries out many of the same domestic and foreign policies as Mubarak, according to the Tahrir activists. It arbitrarily arrests dissidents, and still engages in abuse and torture. Tahrir activists want the military out of power as soon as possible.

But many other Egyptians support the military as a force for stability. They see developments in Syria and Libya, where most of the military supports the old regime, and praise the Egyptian Army for forestalling a similar disaster.

“We should give the government some time,” truck driver Ahmad Fathi tells me. “We shouldn’t have sit-ins and demonstrations every day. We need time for things to get back to normal.”

Tahrir activists admit they’ve got a lot of organizing to do if they are to have a significant impact on the wider public. “We need 5 million in the streets to make change,” Tahrir Square leader Tarek Shalaby tells me.

Everyone is scrambling to prepare for parliamentary elections now scheduled for sometime in September. Presidential elections may be held two months later, although no date has been set. Tahrir Square activists are hoping to consolidate their gains by backing leftist candidates. But so far the conservative Muslim Brotherhood and elements from Mubarak’s old party, the National Democratic Party, seem better organized.

Meanwhile, workers continue wildcat strikes demanding higher wages. Violent conflicts have broken out between extremist Muslims and Coptic Christians. And activists have called for a mass mobilization against the military government to be held in Tahrir on May 27.

The revolution is far from over.

This morning Reese sent us an update from Cairo as he prepares to set out for his next stop: Gaza via the newly-opened Rafah crossing. He writes that "for many young activists Egypt’s revolution isn’t over" and describes a large Tahrir Square rally he covered-- over 100,000 people-- Friday. It had been called by many of the same people who had called the rallies and demonstrations that had toppled the Mubarak regime this past January and February.

They demanded that a civilian dominated council take over from the current all-military government. They wanted an end to military trials for civilians and stronger protection for Coptic Christians being violently attacked by Muslim extremists. They were angry that former President Hosni Mubarak and his entourage weren’t already facing trials for corruption and ordering the murder of protesters.

Student activist Shimaa Helmy told me, “This is our day of anger because we feel our revolution is being taken over by people who didn’t participate.”

But the Moslem Brotherhood, which did participate in the Tahrir Square uprising, boycotted today’s event. Officially, Brotherhood leaders were affronted because they weren’t consulted about rally plans. But many protesters believe that the Brotherhood’s senior leadership doesn’t want to offend the military.

Some Moslem Brotherhood youth defied their leaders and came anyway. The Brotherhood faces numerous internal contradictions, with two of its former leaders announcing plans to run for president. They defied Brotherhood national leadership’s decision not to run anyone for president and to run parliamentary candidates for not more than 50% of the eligible seats.

Many of the demonstrators were middle class, but workers and urban poor also attended. Activist Helmy admits, however, that the mainly secular and leftist demonstrators had their work cut out to win over ordinary Egyptians.

“Some people are starting to hate the uprising,” she told me. “The prices are getting high, and they think it’s the revolution. We’re trying to explain ‘it’s for you, not just for us.’”

Pro-military government rallies were called in other parts of Cairo and a few hundred supporters showed up.

Protesters argued that popular support for the military is declining. They saw today’s demonstration as one more battle in what promises to be a long struggle for power.

To the degree most Americans have any interest in what's going on in Egypt, it revolves around how the events there-- a country of over 80 million people with immense influence on the entire Arab world-- impacts Israel's 7 million people. But, as Robert Naiman wrote for Common Dreams yesterday, "You can't love democracy and denigrate protest, because protest is part of democracy. It's a package deal. Likewise, you can't claim solidarity with Egyptian protesters when they take down a dictator, but act horrified that the resulting government in Egypt, more accountable to Egyptian public opinion, is more engaged in supporting Palestinian rights. It's a package deal."

It was the Tahrir uprising that brought about an Egyptian government more accountable to public opinion, and it was inevitable that an Egyptian government more accountable to public opinion would open Rafah, because public opinion in Egypt bitterly opposed Egyptian participation in the blockade on Gaza.

In addition, opening Rafah was a provision of the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation accord brokered by the Egyptian government-- an achievement facilitated by the fact that the post-Tahrir Egyptian government was more flexible in the negotiations with Hamas that led to the accord.

Mubarak had a deal with the U.S. government: I obey all your commands on the Israel-Palestine issue, and in exchange, you shut your mouth about human rights and democracy. Tahrir destroyed this bargain, because it forced the U.S. to open its mouth about human rights and democracy in Egypt, regardless of Egypt's stance on Israel-Palestine. When it became clear to Egypt's rulers that subservience to the U.S. on Israel-Palestine would no longer purchase carte blanche on human rights and democracy, there was no reason to slavishly toe the U.S. line on Israel-Palestine anymore.

The Mubarak regime also had a domestic motivation for enforcing the blockade: it saw Hamas as a sister organization of Egypt's then semi-illegal opposition Muslim Brotherhood, and it saw enforcing the blockade as a means of denying Hamas "legitimacy," figuring that more "legitimacy" for Hamas would mean more "legitimacy" for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, thereby threatening Mubarak's iron grip on Egypt's politics.

But of course post-Tahrir developments in Egypt threw that calculation out the window: the post-Mubarak government in Egypt has reconciled with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a de facto partner in the present interim government, and is expected to do well in September's parliamentary elections. It would be absurd for the Egyptian government to try to isolate the Muslim Brotherhood by trying to isolate its sister Hamas, when the Muslim Brotherhood is de facto part of the Egyptian government and the role of the Brotherhood in running Egypt is likely to increase.