(March 9, 2011)
By Barry Rubin
HERZLIYA, Israel — Not everyone in the opposition movements in Arab countries are Islamists, of course, but at least outside of Tunisia, where they are also present, they are the most powerful organized force. Here’s an excerpt from the Friday, March 4 sermon of Sheik Isa Qassim, considered the top opposition cleric in Bahrain.
To his credit, he strongly rejects Sunni-Shia conflict. If the government reflected the population, the Shia would rule not the Sunni, which is the case at present. Of course, one should note that in Iraq this precise situation has produced bloody strife. In Iran, a Shia Islamist state, there has been widespread discrimination against the Sunni minority.
Sectarian strife is a natural, perhaps unavoidable component of this conflict no matter how much people like Isa make the usual claim that it is only being stirred up by the revolution’s enemies in order to discredit change.
Isa says:
“The criteria that govern our movement are the principles of Sharia [Islamic law]: justice, the national interest, national unity and non-sectarianism. We denounce all sectarian incitement, whether it comes from Shiites or Sunnis….Those who will indulge in hatred because of sectarianism are committing crimes against future generations and against our nation, both at present and in the future.”
Of course, a Sharia regime in Bahrain would have a particular view of what constituted justice. And a Shia-led Sharia regime would also have a specific view of the “national interest” that would presumably include close alignment with Iran.
But can’t you have a moderate state under Sharia law? Washington policymakers can construct such a state in their own minds, and it would be interesting to discuss Saudi Arabia in those terms (extremist in domestic governance, relatively moderate in foreign policy). In many ways, Egypt and Jordan have lived partly under Sharia law.
In reality, though, the Islamists judge these societies to be insufficient. We are dealing with an actually existing radical movement that wants to conquer the whole Middle East, drive out the West, destroy Israel, and in some cases align with Iran. This is not a theoretical exercise about what “might be” under an ideal “moderate Islamist” movement.
There’s another interesting point hidden in Qassim’s talk:
“As for those who call for democracy worldwide, we understand that many countries now demand democracy….However we see some of these countries only offer verbal support when it comes to countries with friendly governments. In fact, we see some attempts to pressure the opposition to accept partial solutions, but these partial solutions will only bring back what we used to have, which was an absolute dictatorship. We suspect some of these calls have been driven by the interests of those countries.”
First, he rejects compromise–the “partial solutions” that many are trying to arrange as a compromise–as an “absolute dictatorship: and thus seems to accept only a Shia-led (they are the majority) Islamist state.
Second, note that he is condemning the United States as not really wanting democracy in “countries with friendly governments.” This is only a couple of weeks after the Obama Administration played a central role in throwing out the Egyptian government. In other words, the United States will get no credit for promoting democracy and even helping anti-American forces into power to “prove” what a nice country it is.
Judging from the nuances of U.S. policy, however, the Obama Administration does seem to be supporting a compromise in Bahrain, conscious that a more radical regime could throw out the Fifth Fleet base there. But that’s the point: the Islamists will not be assuaged. Anything short of supporting their unbridled rule will be viewed by them as total enmity. And if they get into power they will still view the United States with total enmity.
***
Egypt and the Middle East: Romanticism Meets Reality
The projected million-women march turned out just 400 and they were harassed and in some cases attacked. Meanwhile, thousands of Muslims and Christians demonstrated and clashed in part due to the burning of a Christian church by Muslims. The new governmental team has been outspokenly anti-Israel–and that doesn’t mean criticism but real hostility.
Crime has reportedly zoomed upward. including armed robberies, arson and street battles between rival criminal gangs over territory. One innovation has been for gangs to stop cars, partly by throwing eggs on the windshield so the driver can’t see, then demand that the driver sign a bill of sale to them for the automobile and hand it over, or else.
All revolutions produce some anarchy. But the divisions between Christians and Muslims, (massive numbers of) Islamists and (tiny numbers of) secularist, treatment of women, and other issues have a structural component that just isn’t going to go away easily. The same applies to the underlying hostility toward Israel, the United States, and the West in general.
Meanwhile, the military junta gave a warm welcome to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has been credibly accused of mass murder. In Tunisia, protest demonstrations have been broken up by the military government there. Muammar al-Qadhafi may well fall in Libya but he’s still holding out. In Pakistan, the government’s only Christian cabinet minister was assassinated rather obviously because of his religion and none of his colleagues would dare defend him publicly.
The idea that everything has changed in the Middle East from the winter of dictatorship and extremism into a springtime for democracy is–unfortunately–likely to turn out to be wrong.
Some of those many people with a limited sense of history has compared the events i n the Middle East to 1848 in Europe. Basically, all of the revolutions of that year failed. In France, where the uprising succeeded, within three years Napoleon III had become dictator, ruled the country for 23 years, and led it into a disastrous military defeat.
The journalistic romanticizers of the Arab transformation–ignoring that meanwhile Lebanon was being transformed inthe exact opposite direction–will no doubt soon be scratching their heads wondering how things that seemed so terrific (to their superficial view) quickly turned tragic.
*
Egypt-Israel Relations: How Could Politics Ever Be a Problem? (Satire)
Israel will be more secure if Arab countries have revolutions that produce democratic regimes. “In the short-term, they are obviously less secure because of the unpredictability….But in the long-run, I think they are confident they can do business better with democracies than they can with dictatorships.” Senator John McCain
“On Sunday, a Qassam rocket fired by Gaza militants exploded in the western Negev…[Another] rocket fired on Wednesday from Gaza…struck the deepest in Israel since a Gaza war of two years ago, damaging a home in the city of Be’er Sheva. –Haaretz
Warning: The following is satire, not an actual historical document written in 2012!
Extract from the Parliamentary Proceedings of the Egyptian House of Representatives, January 28, 2012:
The Prime Minister: “…And that’s why we have not only maintained peace with Israel but expanded trade and cooperated in fighting terrorism. We have worked hard to keep terrorists from crossing our border into Israel and to prevent the smuggling of missiles into the Gaza Strip. It is in our interests to engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with neighbors for the good of all in the region.”
Representative from Freedom and Justice Party [Muslim Brotherhood]: May I have the floor?
Speaker: The gentleman has the floor.
Representative from Freedom and Justice Party [Muslim Brotherhood]: Mr. Prime Minister, isn’t it true that the Zionist entity occupies land that belongs to the Muslim umma and is backed by the imperialistic United States? We have seen that negotiations don’t work due to the intransigence of the murderous Zionists who slay women and children, poison wells, and export sexually stimulating chewing gum! Certainly only armed resistance and Sharia law can destroy the Zionist enemy!
Representative from National Association for Change [liberal reformist, aligned with Muslim Brotherhood]: The previous dictatorial regime was overthrown in large part because of its treacherous dealings with enemies of Egypt. I can only ask how much in bribes the prime minister has collected from Zionist agents! Certainly only the exercise of democracy can destroy the Zionist enemy!
Representative from Tagammu [neo-Communist]: The enemies of the working class worked with imperialism to impose an unjust so-called “peace” treaty on the toiling masses. We can expect nothing else from the comprador bourgeoisie! Certainly only the struggle of the international proletariat can destroy the Zionist enemy!
Representative from the National Party (nationalist, anti-Islamist): As the proud leader of the Arab world, Egypt cannot betray its Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese brothers! Certainly only the solidarity of the Arab nation can destroy the Zionist enemy!
Representative from Freedom and Justice Party: I move a resolution of no confidence against the prime minister!
Speaker: Everyone for the resolution raise your hand [counts]. Anyone against the resolution raise your hand [no need to count]. The vote is unanimous against the prime minister who will now resign from office and flee for his life.
*
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