A lot of people share Ari Shavit’s worldview, and there is much in what he says to consider. But I believe that he’s ultimately wrong.

His column appears in the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Yet, he refers to the “Arab liberation revolution” we are witnessing as an “intifada of freedom.” I don’t need to tell you how an Israeli hears the word “intifada.” My sources tell me that the word “intifada” means “shaking off,” although it is usually translated as “an uprising.” In the context of what we’ve seen in Tunisia and Egypt, and to a lesser extent in Yemen and Jordan, it is a perfectly apt descriptor. But there is no doubt that “intifada” is a scary, dirty word to your average Israeli. It is not a value-neutral term, but a term used here to instill fear and aversion.

It’s hard to get your head around the opening to Shavit’s column, because he clearly does not welcome this “intifada of freedom,” despite openly recognizing that it is about tyrants losing control, masses demanding justice, and elites refusing to be quiet in the face of injustice.

We don’t have to remain long in doubt about the source of Shavit’s ambivalence. He sees the fall of tyrants as an unwelcome decline in the power of the West, by which he means primarily the United States of America. When we were strong, our tyrants could not be challenged, and this provided much-wanted stability and security for Israel. Now that we are weakened, our tyrants are being toppled, with uncertain consequences and increased insecurity for Israel.

From a strictly parochial point of view, I can understand Shavit’s concern, but I don’t necessarily agree with his causal logic, nor can I share his misplaced vitriol and idiosyncratic view of history.

How can it be that Bush’s America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world, but Obama’s America ignored it until last week? How can it be that in May 2009, Hosni Mubarak was an esteemed president whom Barack Obama respected, and in January 2011, Mubarak is a dictator whom even Obama is casting aside? How can it be that in June 2009, Obama didn’t support the masses who came out against the zealot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while now he stands by the masses who are coming out against the moderate Mubarak?

There is one answer: The West’s position is not a moral one that reflects a real commitment to human rights. The West’s position reflects the adoption of Jimmy Carter’s worldview: kowtowing to benighted, strong tyrants while abandoning moderate, weak ones.

Carter’s betrayal of the Shah brought us the ayatollahs, and will soon bring us ayatollahs with nuclear arms. The consequences of the West’s betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It’s not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It’s a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West’s word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.

I take issue with almost all of that assessment. For starters, no fair reading of Obama’s Cairo speech would conclude that he didn’t understand the problem of repression in the Arab World. I am forced here to quote Obama at length to drive home the point. He went to Cairo as the guest of Hosni Mubarak, who had been “reelected” (in a complete sham election) in 2005 to another six-year term as president. And he said this:

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

You could hardly make a better indictment of Mubarak’s government than in detailing how badly it comes up short in the following:

…the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.

Obama actually invited this revolution in Egypt by making this indictment and then pledging that these values “are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” So, the allegation that Obama did not recognize the problem of repression in Egypt could not be more false.

Shavit also levels an unfair comparison when he wonders why Obama did not support the Iranian freedom fighters while he did support the Egyptians. We have a lot of leverage over Egypt, but we have negative leverage over Iran. Any overt effort to support the Iranian democrats would have weakened them. This should be obvious, but it evidently is not obvious to someone like Shavit who accuses Jimmy Carter of betraying the Shah. Carter didn’t make the decision to put the Shah on the throne of Iran in 1953, but he did decide to allow the Shah to receive treatment for his cancer in the United States. That decision led directly to the Iranian hostage crisis. Most fair-minded historians are more inclined to blame Carter for sticking too long with the Shah, even as his government resorted to the appalling murder of its peacefully-protesting citizens.

The one area where I kind of agree with Shavit is in his assertion that our abandonment of Mubarak sends a message to other autocratic allies that we are not reliable partners. That’s a problem. But I don’t think our willingness to abandon them is a sign of new-found weakness, but new-found strength. Maybe we are finally courageous enough to stick up for our convictions? Maybe we are strong enough to risk some temporary disadvantage in the interest of living up to the meaning of our creed?

I just don’t think our policy of buying stability from dictators was ever a sign of strength. Maybe the fact that would could actually pull it off meant that we were strong, but it didn’t mean we were confident. It didn’t mean that we were secure.

We can be better. Maybe we will be better. From now on.