Thomas Friedman is sick and tired of the Netanyahu government. He believes that Israel should have sided with the pro-democracy protesters, and that such a stance would have created a better relationship with the Egyptian people, the leaders of what Friedman calls "the new dynamic popular trend". In hindsight, it is true that Israel sided with a dead horse (Mubarak), but it isn't at all clear that it really matters.
First of all, events are still unfolding. We have no idea what kind of regime Egypt will now have. Will it be a liberal democracy, a flawed "illiberal democracy", a theocracy or a military dictatorship? Other than the unlikely first option, the three latter options are all equally possible. The protesters have won the battle, but not yet the war. If the military retains power, the fact that Israel stuck by the regime will be a positive thing in the eyes of the new leaders.
If democracy or theocracy await Egypt, anything Israel would have done regarding Mubarak would not help the relationship with the new regime. Egyptians hate us. Despite the cold peace between the two countries, Egyptian civil society boycotts Israel. Egyptian individuals who travel to Israel get punished by their professional associations. If Israel called on Mubarak to resign, Egyptians would see it as too little too late, and might even think of it as Zionist meddling.
As Friedman said, the Egyptian revolution had nothing to do with Israel. Similarly, Egyptian hatred of Israel has little to do with Israel's policy towards Egypt. The main problem is that they still see the Jewish State as a foreign colony in the Arab Middle East, as well as their anger at the way Israel treats Palestinians.
The only way for Israel to look more favorable in the eyes of Egyptians, and Arabs in general, is to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. Even then, many would continue to hate us, but less.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
”Other than the unlikely first option, the three latter options are all equally possible.”
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me, this inability by Westerners to accept that Arabs and/or Muslims are as freedom loving as anyone else and that a thirst for democracy isn’t limited to Western nations (the citizens of which might want to read up on their own history, get acquainted with just how long it took for democracy to be achieved there and most importantly why the process was so lengthy – and still somewhat a ‘work in progress’).
”If democracy or theocracy await Egypt, anything Israel would have done regarding Mubarak would not help the relationship with the new regime.”
No but having supported Mubarak to the last minute, with contingency plans hatched a long time ago for the transition from Mubarak I to Sulayman I, further reinforces the perception that ‘the only democracy in the ME’ is happy to have its neighbours live under tyranny as long as that’s good for the Zionist Entity.
”The main problem is that they still see the Jewish State as a foreign colony in the Arab Middle East, as well as their anger at the way Israel treats Palestinians.”
Add to that what I said before: that ‘the only democracy in the ME’ is happy to have its neighbours live under tyranny as long as that’s good for the Zionist Entity.
The irony is that even if traditionally very anti-Israel countries like Syria were to have their (deserving) revolutions/reforms it would matter not one iota: its citizens (unlike the (not) sooooo freeeee Americans) are completely clued up about Israel’s very long rap sheet…
Now would be a good time for Israel to start making amends but I can’t see it happen. You mentioned on my blog that ‘Netanyahu isn’t forever’. Maybe not (but you haven’t got forever anyway) but who is waiting in the wings? Livni? Good luck with that…
I didn't say democracy is unlikely. Liberal democracy is unlikely, at least in the short term. As you mention, Western countries reached liberal democracy after a very long process, and there's no reason why Egypt would be any different. Immidiate transitions from tyrany to full democracy are rare.
ReplyDeleteYes, Israel cares more about its own security than what kind of regimes their neighbors live in. It's the ugly truth. I don't think other countries are different, though. The government of any country would put its own citizens' security first.
Are you seriously claiming Syrians are freer than Americans because they know more about Israel's rap sheet (or, rather, the versions of it provided by the Syrian regime and Arab satellite stations)?
Not sure what your point is about liberal democracy. I’m talking about parliamentary democracy, not sure whether or not that qualifies as ‘liberal’ in your book… Did you mean a democracy with ‘liberal’ tendencies?
ReplyDelete”Are you seriously claiming Syrians are freer than Americans because they know more about Israel's rap sheet (or, rather, the versions of it provided by the Syrian regime and Arab satellite stations)?”
My point is that for all its clamour about freedom of speech, in the US the flow of information with regards to many subjects is subject to serious restrictions. The Middle East conflict is an excellent case in point. While its possible to get reasonably well informed by means of social media, alternative media and general countercultural outlets, the US MSM have been remarkably ‘lazy’ in reporting about that conflict and continue to sail very close to the Zionist wind. See also e.g. the MSM’s blatant towing the party line on the war in Iraq, in the run up to it.
I don’t know the Syrian media at all but it’s reasonable to suspect a high degree of state control which obviously isn’t conducive to objectivity either. But demonstrable misdeeds by Israel will not go unnoticed by their media.
Maybe because I've studied political science I sometimes assume everybody is familiar with these terms. A liberal democracy doesn't mean that liberals are in control rather than conservatives and socialists. It means that the country's democracy is not based solely on free elections, but also on other basic rights - freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, fair trials etc.
ReplyDeleteFareed Zakaria called democratic countries that aren't liberal democracies illiberal democracies.
Ah, yes, I guess I could have answered that question myself.
ReplyDeleteWell, I predict that Egypt, with the gusto the Egyptian people have found for freedom of assembly and political expression, will become a very liberal democracy indeed. Perhaps even the ‘France of the ME’ (on account of the latter country’s people longstanding tradition to take disputes with their government to the streets). Much needs to be done and the road ahead is long and winding but get there they will and faster than we might predict…