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.
