Tahrir Square protests in Egypt
Photo: AP
Libya's Gaddafi - Obama's naive assumptions
Photo: Reuters
No change in Middle East
Op-ed: Despite Western illusions, things remain largely the same following Arab world turmoil
President Shimon Peres’
assertion that “the dramatic changes in the Arab world require us to make every effort to immediately renew peace talks” resonates throughout the peace camp, without further explanations. This is apparently the case because rational thinking would prompt the opposite conclusions.
Let’s start with Egypt. The Obama Administration supported the young people who protested at Tahrir Square in the name of freedom, progress and democracy. The grim outcome was described by the New York Times as follows:
New Mideast
Guy Bechor
Op-ed: Latest developments in Syria prove that talk of peace with Assad family was baseless
“Religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government… the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the revolution are no longer the driving political force.”
In a referendum on changes to the constitution, some 77% of Egyptians voted in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood’s position, with group leader and spokesman Issam al-Arian summing it up as follows: “The people’s desire to move towards Islam marks the rise of democratic values in Egypt.”
Arian is indeed correct. A democratic majority among Arabs prefers non-democratic Islamism over democratic liberalism, and therefore democracy is a one-time event over there: Those elected stay in power and put an end to the diplomatic process, until they are toppled in the next revolution.
The Free World, which saw its hopes dashed, did not threaten the Egyptians at the UN or resort to any of the scare tactics utilized vis-à-vis Israel. Rather, the West internalized the Mideastern fact of life whereby nothing changes even after a “liberal revolution.” Today, the West would gladly endorse a moderate and pro-Western Mubarak-style dictatorship in Egypt.
In Bahrain, the US preached to the Saudi and Bahraini kings to comply with the Shiite majority’s demands in the name of democracy. However, the kings, who view a Shiite victory as an existential threat, ignored America. The Saudi army was invited into Bahrain and the uprising was violently repressed. The West, which was forced to reconcile itself to the vigorous response of the two kingdoms, realized that Jefferson won’t be reaching the Persian Gulf so soon.
The Libyan debacle
In Libya, Western military intervention was premised on the naïve, artificial assumption that tyrant Gaddafi was facing democratic, liberal forces. Yet as it turned out, Tehran and al-Qaeda support the rebellion, while the rebels’ commander fought the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with many others who returned to Libya.
Obama almost found himself handing out weapons to Bin Laden’s men. Fortunately for him, he ended the military offensive at the last moment, while the European offensive also lost its momentum. The toppling of Gaddafi, which was initially presented as the war’s objective, is off the agenda, and his regime is apparently the default option now.
In Syria, Assad massacres his citizens in broad daylight, yet the West makes do with weak condemnations, perhaps because it discovered that any alternative would be even worse.
And so, what started with a bang, as the Arab Spring of Nations, ended with a whimper.
And here? Around here, the “popular will” of the Palestinians – both in Ramallah and in Gaza – is to exterminate the Jewish state. Yet while America and Europe will survive even if the Muslim Brotherhood rules Egypt, Israeli coexistence with a sovereign Palestine will not last longer than Juliano Mer’s life in Jenin.
Even if we were all like Juliano, and even if Hamas and Islamic Jihad signed on to “true peace,” someone will always find a new, exciting name, murder this impossible peace with automatic gunfire, and spark an all-out war. Here too, the Western solution is not realistic, and the choice we have is either the current situation – autonomy under Israeli auspices - or chaos and a takeover by forces that threaten the Free World.
So why does Ms. Merkel able to accept the imperfect realities throughout the Middle East, yet only in one corner of the region, where the game involves the lives of another six million Jews, she insists on going all the way? This is the question Netanyahu should have asked the German chancellor.
And now that the latest mass demonstration at Tahrir Square was disperse by Egyptian army fire, only one question remains: Where did the peace camp see “dramatic changes?” In Cairo? Manama? Tripoli? Damascus?
- Follow Ynetnews on Facebook
