By Barry Rubin
HERZLIYA, Israel — He jests at scars who never felt the wound, wrote Shakespeare, and it is an appropriate sentiment to point out that while Western observers ridicule the fear of an Islamist Egypt, a lot of Arab writers are very worried. In fact, here are three articles that display such concerns.
The first is from Dr. Hasan Abu Talib, “The Muslim Brotherhood and the Revolution of the Youths” in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram, February 23. Describing his own participation in the revolution, he points out that those who organized it had nothing to do with either the Muslim Brotherhood or Muhammad ElBaradei’s National Association for Change.
But now he is having doubts as he sees the revolution being funneled by the Brotherhood in the direction that it wants and without regard to majority rule, hinting at “imposing matters by force of the fait accompli, and elimination of those who differ in opinion and inclination.”
Despite the Brotherhood’s promises—and unlike such irresponsible fools as Peter Beinart who are ready to take the Brotherhood at its (English-only, not Arabic) word, Abu Talib writes:
“These statements conflict with the established realities in the world of politics which never recognize verbal guarantees as they can never be taken to account later….The Brotherhood denials in turn raise doubts and are a source of major concern for all Egyptians. Perhaps the experience of Algeria where the [Islamic] Salvation group won in the elections at the end of 1990 and this was followed by a decade of violence, civil war and killing…is sufficient to raise worries among many Egyptians that their rising country should witness something similar. There is big fear that the coming parliamentary elections can be a prelude to a religious State, not a civil State, especially in the light of the weakness and fragility of the existing political parties. There are fears that these would be the first and last clean elections that revolutionary Egypt would witness.”
He also worries that alternative forces will not become properly organized, develop an ideology of their own, “and attract large numbers of members.” He urges them to work hard to create “a new Egypt that believes in freedom, dignity, and human rights–in a renewable democracy that is not open to retreat or to forcible disappearance.”
In Al-Hayah Online, published in London, February 20, by Dawud al-Sharayan, like Abu Talib, points out that the exclusion of Google executive and symbol of Facebook democratic youth Wa’il Ghunaym from the platform at Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s million-plus victory rally is a dangerous symbol. To my knowledge the American mass media has not even reported that this happened!
Sharayan writes:
“It seems that [the Brotherhood wants] to exclude the youths from the scene of the revolution, and to steal its decision making from them….Suspicions are aroused of the credibility of these claims [that the Brotherhood is now moderate and democratic], and of the future of this revolution. Moreover, granting Al-Qaradawi the role of absolute hero in the rostrum speech means that there are those who are trying to tamper with the…face of this revolution….
“The Islamists’ interference in directing the youths’ revolution will give rise to a power struggle….In Egypt, perhaps the people might accept a military rule if the alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood Group.”
Then there is the novelist Jamal al-Ghitani in the Egyptian newspaper al-Akhbar, February 20. He is more optimistic seeing the revolution as a mixture of patriotic and religious elements
“The revolution of youth, which has become a revolution of all Egyptians, provides a remarkable opportunity to turn Egypt into a great power like China, Malaysia or the European Union. This can only be achieved by building a full-fledged civil state in every sense of the word, where everyone has equal rights, duties, freedoms and transparency.”
But he also worries:
“It would be a risk, if some people tried to push it in a narrower and more limited path, or used distant cases as a reference for the revolution [I assume he means Iran–BR], or replaced the symbols who led it and sacrificed their lives for it with others coming from afar, regardless of who they might be.”
And what happens when it is clear that Egypt will not be the new Europe or even the new China or Malaysia? How strong will the support be for a civil and democratic state in those circumstances? Remember that the creation of a radical nationalist regime—which may include a large measure of Islamization precisely to undercut the Brotherhood’s appeal—is as dangerous to regional peace and Egyptian democracy as an Islamist regime.
For Westerners, Egypt’s revolution is a victory for democracy. We hope that it is. But what do the enemies of America and the West say? Well, let Hasan Nasrallah, Hizballah’s spiritual guide explain it:
“The anniversary of the Iranian revolution coincided with the occasion of the Egyptian people’s victory over the tyrant. And it’s out of good fortune and fate for February 11 to become the day of the fall of the two biggest and most important allies of America in the region: the Shah’s regime in Iran, and the Mubarak regime in Egypt.”
Both sides can be right. Egypt will be a democracy and won’t be an ally of America. That might mean we should be happy for the Egyptians and unhappy for U.S. interests.
Others, too, are starting to worry. Middle East Transparent has been the most important international Internet publication for Arab liberals. Now this publication, in an Arabic-language article, is really worried about events in Egypt, particularly the composition of the constitution-writing committee the military appointed.
Tariq al-Bishri is considered not only to be pro-Muslim Brotherhood but also hostile to Christians by Middle East Transparent. Another member is the openly Muslim Brotherhood Subhi Salih. The author wonders whether this indicates that the army is more Islamist-leaning than we think.
What’s being said by the most sophisticated analysts on and in Egypt behind the scenes is this: a nationalist government will be elected, will fail, and then the Brotherhood—which would have spent several years building its power and base—will make its bid for power.
The fact is that many Egyptians, precisely those most supportive of a moderate democracy, are very worried that things will go in another direction. Yet much of the Western world is still in a cheerleading stage, certain that nothing can go wrong.
**
Palestinian Authority: We Never Listen to What America Says, We Just Take the Money
Palestinian Media Watch has a round-up of anti-Obama and anti-American material from the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the wake of the U.S. veto of a one-sided anti-Israel UN resolution. The U.S. government had made clear that it would vote in favor of a resolution condemning Israel for building on existing settlements in the West Bank if it also included some language criticizing terrorism and the behavior of both sides.
Two quotes are particularly interesting. One is from Hafez Barghouti, editor of the official PA newspaper, al-Hayat al-Jadida:
“We understand very well that the protests and revolutions blazing in the Arab countries have economic and social roots, and that they are related to corruption and social injustice. However, this is a result of police states which enforced oppression, first and foremost for the sake of their ties with the Americans. Every corrupt Arab has a foreign or Israeli partner, and the most corrupt and the richest in Egypt have partners in Israel in the field of gas and the like. Therefore, the rebellion against oppression and corruption must be directed towards the godfathers of the thieves of natural resources and the oppressors of nations, not only against their agents.”
There is, of course, a bit of remarkable humor in this statement, “Every corrupt Arab has a foreign or Israeli partner.” After all, the corrupt leaders of the PA have plenty of such partners. Of course, the PA never gives thanks for the partners who have provided it with billions of dollars of aid, despite its consistent failure to live up to its commitments. The Palestinians, you see, are eternal victims and so are entitled to unlimited support. And, of course, “corrupt” PA leaders have stolen a remarkable amount of that money.
What Barghouti is saying, though, is that the main fire of the Arab upheavals should be directed against America and Israel as—in language basically borrowed from historical antisemitism—“the oppressors of nations.”
Talk about biting, munching, and even wolfing down the hand that feeds you! Of course, the joke is on the PA since the Mubarak regime—though it had its differences with the PA—was basically sympathetic to it. Now Egypt is likely to be friendlier to Hamas, even without an Islamist government in Cairo.
The most important point is, however, what PA leader Mahmoud Abbas says in the January 24 edition of the newspaper:
“The US is assisting us in the amount of $460 million annually. This does not mean that they dictate to us whatever they want, because we do what we view as beneficial to our cause. I recall that they said, ‘Don’t go to the Arab Summit in Damascus,’ but we went. They demanded that we should not sign the Egyptian reconciliation document [between Fatah and Hamas], but we…[signed] it.”
Of course, the PA has a right to act in what it perceives to be in its own interests. And of course Israel also doesn’t do whatever the United States asks it to do.
But here are the differences: First, Israel tries to accommodate the U.S. government. For example, when the United States pressed for a freeze of construction on settlements, Israel did so. When President Obama demanded there be no construction in Jerusalem, Israel complied. When the White House pushed for Israel-PA negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately and repeatedly agreed.
Second, Israel knows that if the U.S. government is dissatisfied with its policy, this will be loudly stated by the White House and State Department. In other words, there is a price to pay for disagreement. Certainly not as high a price as other countries might face—given Israel’s support in Congress and in American public opinion polls—but a real cost nonetheless.
Now, compare this with the PA. On one occasion, not sponsoring the Goldstone report, defaming Israel’s war against Hamas while almost void of any critique of the actual aggressor, in the UN, Abbas quickly reversed himself under local political pressure. On every other point for more than two years the PA has not done a single thing requested by the United States.
In addition to the two examples Abbas gave in the quote above, he has refused to negotiate seriously with Israel—or even talk at all—despite persistent U.S. efforts during the last two years. The PA has also ignored U.S. requests to reduce incitement and to do a range of other things, including hunting down and punishing the murderers of several U.S. government employees.
But to show for sure who’s boss and who is doing who a favor, 28 PA-ruled towns and villages on the West Bank have announced “a boycott of the American consulate, its diplomats, and the American institutions in Jerusalem.” This is being sponsored by Fatah, the recipient of so much U.S. aid. I wonder. Hatem Abd Al-Qader, one of Fatah’s more fiery grassroots-oriented guys, explains, that the Americans “cannot extort the Palestinian people and humiliate it with a bit of aid.”
Does this mean they’ll stop taking the money? Somehow I don’t think so. In fact, the Palestinians and many others are humiliating the United States. And the U.S. government doesn’t seem to mind at all.
Ignoring U.S. requests and even consistently and publicly attacking the United States, however, never brings any real criticism, much less material pressure, from the U.S. government. In short, not only cannot the United States “dictate to us,” as Abbas says, but it never even tries. For the PA, there is no cost whatsoever in making the president of the United States look foolish and sabotaging his policies. Even the U.S. media, with rare exceptions, doesn’t even recognize that this is happening.
No wonder, then, that the PA leadership sabotages U.S. government policies and opposes American interests. Given the circumstances, it would be foolish not to do so. Of course, to give the PA so much money and so little criticism is not a brilliant–or productive–strategy for the U.S. government either.
Now if you have any doubt that U.S. policy is still on another planet altogether and seems incapable of learning from facts, events, and experience, just read this:
After meeting with President Obama, several Jewish leaders recounted that he, “implied that Israel bears primary responsibility for advancing the peace process. They interpreted the president’s comments either as hostile, naive or unsurprising. Obama said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is eager to secure his legacy by establishing a Palestinian state and would accept a decent offer if one were on the table….`The Palestinians don’t feel confident that the Netanyahu government is serious about territorial concessions.’…”
That’s the problem in a nutshell. The Palestinian leadership never listens to what America asks while the U.S. government believes everything these leaders tell them.
*
*
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org He may be contacted at barry.rubin@sdjewishworld.com