I’ve always thought that Egypt was probably the best place in the Arab world for democracy to take root because it is the most homogenous Arab society. There isn’t a big Shi’ite minority, and there’s no major ethnic sub-group like the Kurds. Egypt has other advantages, as well. It isn’t co-ruled by a clerical establishment like Saudi Arabia, with it’s agreement between the House of Saud and the Wahhabists. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia’s dependence on tourism where non-Muslims are not even allowed in Mecca’s city limits, Egypt’s tourism industry is oriented towards attracting people from all over the world. It has a relatively strong education system with plenty of cross-pollination of ideas. It’s pro-Western orientation is another asset that sets it apart from places like Syria or Yemen. A democratic Egypt could pretty quickly straddle the East/West divide in much the same way that Turkey does, with better opportunities for attracting investment and integrating with the European economy.
It’s true that a democratic Egypt would not be as pro-Western as the Mubarak regime, but neither would they be as hostile as Iran. They would not be beset by ethnic or sectarian conflict like Lebanon and Iraq. I hope that the rights of the Coptic Christians will be respected, but I am optimistic about that. I think Egypt is in about as good a position as you could hope for to give democracy a shot. I would not anticipate that they would go to war with Israel since that would end badly and cost them dearly in their international relations with the West.
Maybe that’s why I find Daniel Gordis’s column in today’s New York Times so depressing, delusional, and misguided. Here’s the meat of his argument:
In the short run America faces an uncomfortable choice. It can support Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, who is at least marginally pro-Western and has maintained the cold peace with Israel initiated by his predecessor, Anwar el-Sadat. But Mr. Mubarak is also a ruthless despot. Alternately, Washington can support the democracy movement, but with the knowledge that democracy could bring anti-Western, anti-Israel and possibly Islamist leaders to power.
In short, none of the parties vying for control of Egypt share America’s fundamental values of genuine democracy, a free press, women’s rights and minority protections.
But the threat of chaos, and even Islamist rule, might have a silver lining. It is all the more obvious that there is only one country in the region that has the same values as America: Israel. If America reacts to recent events by increasing its support for those who share its values, it could reassure a suddenly surrounded Israel and perhaps even move the peace process with the Palestinians forward.
There are reasons to be concerned about women’s rights as well as (as I mentioned) the rights of religious minorities in a democratic Egypt. But it is grossly unfair to say that none of the groups vying for power in Egypt respect those rights. It’s hard to picture Mohamed ElBaredei as an oppressor of women and Christians, and he was chosen as a main representative of the democracy activists.
Gordis wants us to believe that Egypt will be unstable and uncommitted to democracy and human rights. That’s certainly the case right now, but that’s what people are trying to change.
It’s also tough to stomach Gordis’s assertion that Israel shares our values. Superficially, that’s true. Israel has a commitment to representative democracy, a free press, and a strong rule of law. But that’s about where the similarities end. How are those values represented in the West Bank settlements and their surroundings? What kind of democracy and equal access to the courts do the Palestinians enjoy? Maybe if you never leave Tel Aviv it is possible to think that Israel is a free society no different from Germany, Norway, or the United States. The whole international controversy over Israel is about the many ways in which they are failing to share the values espoused by free, pluralistic societies. The settlements are illegal under international law, and the occupation is illegal as well. That’s why Gordis’s conclusion is so grating.
Until now the central pillar of President Obama’s strategy for restarting peace talks has been to pressure Israel to cease building settlements. Settlements may or may not be wise, but where has the equivalent pressure on the Palestinians been?
…In that event America might, at long last, come to understand that its best hope for peace in the region is to throw its weight behind Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, even if he isn’t its Israeli politician of choice.
In doing so, Mr. Obama should make it clear to the Palestinians that what the United States respects is democracy, a free press, equal rights for women and a commitment to the free exchange of ideas. If he wishes to pressure Israel on settlements, he should publicly pressure the Palestinians on something equally politically fraught for Mr. Abbas. Washington should bring Israel in from the cold, and let Mr. Abbas know that time is not on his side.
The Palestinians long ago ended the Second Intifada. Aside from some minor pestering from rudimentary rockets, Israel is hardly in the midst of an armed struggle with the Palestinians. That is a concession that should not be discounted. It’s not clear to me why the Palestinians should be made to make any concessions to Israel in exchange for a settlement freeze. We’re supposed to be discussing the removal of settlements, not whether or not to build and expand on more of them.
In any case, this advice is delusional. While America is strongly pro-Israel, as am I, it will not react to more pressure on Israel by Egypt and the international community by becoming even more blindly enabling to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Pressure for justice for the Palestinians coming from a democratic and basically pro-Western Egypt will cause America to increase its pressure on Israel. Why? Because, if we don’t, Egyptian politicians won’t long be able to maintain their political, military, and commercial relationships with the West. And that’s too much to trade for the right to run interference for the Settlers in perpetuity.
I’m tough on Israel, but only because I can see how badly they’re miscalculating They are not going to keep the Palestinians stateless forever. But their negotiating position gets weaker with each passing day. And I’m tired of watching them hurt themselves and force our politicians to cover for their mistakes. Our national security and standing in the world is hurt every day that this goes on. So, no, the reaction to a democratic revolution in Egypt will not be, and should not be, to tell the world that we love Benjamin Netanyahu now more than ever.
“I’ve always thought that Egypt was probably the best place in the Arab world for democracy to take root because it is the most homogenous Arab society.”
is it? there’s a fairly substantial coptic community, making it not as religiously homogeneous as you suggest. there is also a racial/ethnic nubian minority, which is a small % of the total population but significant in the lower population areas of upper egypt. then again, most arab countries are a lot less homogeneous, so maybe you are right that it is the most. but that doesn’t mean it lacks potential places to fracture.
I mentioned the Coptic aspect twice in the piece. It’s important. The Coptic community is nervous and supports Mubarak. But do you really see a Nubian-breakaway party coming into existence?
when i was in aswan in 2007, there was definitely a lot of grumbling about how the egyptian government has mistreated the nubians (the biggest symbol of that was when it built the aswan dam, which flooded a bunch of nubian villages and caused the egyptian government to forceably relocate a lot of nubian villagers).
but no, i doubt there will be much threat from a nubian breakaway party, they are only 1% of the overall population. but i bet if you exclude the cairo metro area, alexandria and the nile delta region, there numbers are a lot more substantial. how much influence the nubians have in a theoretical democratic egypt will depend upon how decentralized their system is. in a national election, the nubians wouldn’t stand a chance. but if there is real democracy on a regional level, nubian parties could end up with a lot of influence in local government in upper egypt, and that could translate into seats in parliament, depending on how the voting districts are made.
I suppose Gordis merits a rebuttal if only because of the influence of the NYT platform, but really, it’s a predetermined answer (“Support/cover for the Israeli government no matter what!!”) in search of a justification. And the fact that the justifications have become so flimsy – really, because Israel “shares our values” we’re supposed to prevent Egypt from embracing our values? – tells you just how unjustifiable, and unsustainable, Israel’s behavior has become.
Of course, given that the United States also is hyper-militaristic and tends to treat brown-skinned people very badly (a million dead Iraqis, anyone?), maybe Israel does “share our values.” Just not our declared ones.
I’d be interested in knowning why you define yourself as ‘pro-Israel’. What aspect of Israel do you support?: ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (going on since the 1940s), annexation of occupied land, oppression of the stateless Palestinians, most flagrantly the people literally locked up in Gaza and on and on. What nonsense. One day recently ‘Israel’ seemed to appear as often as ‘Egypt’ on the front page of the on-line edition of the NYTimes.
I’m pro-Israel in the sense that I support the existence of the country in the pre-1967 borders, and want the inhabitants there to be accepted by the neighbors and to live in peace. I would support a strong mutual defense treaty with Israel to assure their protection against any new invasion of Arab forces (however implausible that seems now) in return for as great as possible a return to the ’67 borders and the recognition of a viable Palestinian state.
I support very little of what Israel has done since 1981. I am not pro-Israeli governments actions over the last thirty years. They have been extremely wrong-headed on a consistent and escalating basis. But I want what I think they should want for themselves.
‘But I want what I think they should want for themselves.’
In other words you want them to do want what you want. No, there is overwhelming evidence of strong, systemic opposition in Israel and in the US to a free Palestine. What is that evidence? Simple: it hasn’t happened in the past and there is no indication it will happen in the near or far future; Israel keeps facilitating and supporting the usurpation of occupied land by building and expanding colonies, going back over decades during both Labor and Likud governments; the US defends this policy while occasionally equivocating/lying in public; etc.
Israel will never support the US when push comes to shove. We can count on that. Israel can count on unwavering US support until the US runs itself into the ground.
The Left Wing of the Right Wing Line. The Left Wing of the Intelligence Community/PermaGov Line. Bet On It.
I have thoroughly given up believing anything that appears in the NY Times. Not politics, not world affairs, not book, movie, film or music reviews….not even restaurant reviews or articles on food or wine. Nothing. None of it is trustworthy; a great deal of it is simply not true (See the topics “Judy Miller” and “Jayson Blair” for all that you might need on that subject.), and most of it isn’t even very good fiction or entertainment journalism when you come right down to it. It’s all about selling. Nothing more. Selling a massively consumerist lifestyle, selling Israel, selling a president. All the same. All inextricably intertwined.
That said…a quick skim of the day’s headlines on Google News is usually enough to smell which way the PermaGov’s charnel house wind is blowing. The Times works on a vector concept. It nudges the facts this way and that so as not to be blatantly, Foxworthily propagandistic. After all…its aim is to influence the upwardly mobile, the college educated and the upper middle class. They vote, y’know. In lockstep, pretty much. And they’re a buncha smarties compared to the Fox News target. Gotta be…subtle.
Here is another Times article on “Egypt” by their resident conservative, Ross Douthat. He has apparently been tasked with selling Obama as a centrist…not a hard task, you just have to move him leftward a little bit…and below are some samples from one of his most recent pushes.
This is absolutely brilliant propaganda. Obama is more and more likely to successfully run for a second term. The PermaGov does not want to hear from the Tea Party again. Bet on that as well. Any more far right inroads in the U.S. government and the PermaGov’s “Perma” part will begin to feel the hot, sour breath of extremists creeping up behind them and ruining the taste of their martinis. The so-called left? Ain’t no extremists. Just a bunch of people who want to preserve their upcoming pension plans and keep gas prices down enough to drive their kids to soccer practice in their 3 year old SUVs. Cast Obama as a centrist and git them votes!!!
Yup.
Coupled with the article referenced in Booman’s post?
Y’don’t have to be a weatherman t’know which way the wind’s a’blowin’.
Nope.
Y’just need a brain that can breathe without an artificial, mass media-operated respirator.
Yup.
Bet on that, why don’tcha!!!
Later…
AG
BooMan, I don’t know why you say you are strongly pro-Israel. I am curious to know how you understand that, and how you reconcile that with your clear commitment to justice, peace, and compassion.
I understand Israel in two ways, to maybe contextualize your response or solicit a particular kind of response. As a) a state, acting as states will, and b) a settler colony, which really is the big determinant of its social relations. In this latter it follows a similar pattern to that of the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, South Africa.
I don’t see how one can talk about democracy (political rhetoric and the self-image of the settlers aside) unless one looks at the people who are actually on the land or coercively displaced from it. If you look only at the polity–the people who count as far as the state structure is concerned, you have representative democracy. If you look at the actual society, who is actually there, it is a very different matter.
I favor a one-state solution, to give my thoughts, for example. Give every adult of that land a vote, exiles included, and have an election. Then we can start. I honestly think it will ultimately go either their or to a bloodbath, because a two-state solution, so-called, is practically unfeasible and certainly unjust–it will not solve the basic problem presented by settlement/displacement. Until that happens, I distinguish between the people who live there and the state of Israel. The state as it exists has got to go.
I kind of see Israel in a similar light to Australia, Canada, and the United States. It’s true that European settlers displaced indigenous people with very unfortunate results. But we’re not going to undo that and it’s best not to obsess about it. All of these countries are well-established and aren’t going to be returned to the people who originally inhabited it. You know, we only settled the West sixty years before Israel was established. It’s not that different.
The particular circumstances that existed in the late 1940’s made it completely understandable that European Jews would seek a home outside of Europe where they could govern themselves and not rely on the tolerance of a civilization that had just tried to exterminate them, or, at least, done little to help them in their time of need. Jews in the West had sought to be left in peace for a millenium and it had ended in total disaster. If we could go back in time, maybe the United States could have been more generous in allowing a home to the survivors, but we can’t go back in time.
But I only support Israel as it was created. Any change in its borders needs to be approved by the international community. Israel has no right to lands that have not been allocated to them, nor do they have the right to govern people who are not legally their subjects.
So, I am strongly support the existence of Israel, even as a Jewish state if that is what they want. I support their right to live in their own borders and in peace. But I do not support what they have been doing since they signed the Camp David Accords, which I consider to be a serious error both morally and for their own security (and our security).
In the end, I believe Israel will be compelled to abandon this strategy. I just want them to get on with it.
The particular circumstances that existed in the late 1940’s made it completely understandable that European Jews would seek a home outside of Europe where they could govern themselves and not rely on the tolerance of a civilization that had just tried to exterminate them, or, at least, done little to help them in their time of need.