Sunday, February 13, 2011

Denouement in Egypt

Mubarak has gone after 30 years, replaced by a Committee of Army Officers, who promise that they will facilitate democratic elections and abide by all previous State agreements. In other words they will honor the peace treaty with Israel. This is a great relief for Israelis, as enunciated by PM Netanyahu, that the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treatry is the "cornerstone of stability in the Middle East." Meanwhile the protestors in Tahrir Square have elected a Committee to make sure that the military keep their commitment. It seems like a good outcome.

We in Israel as well as the US are caught in a fundamental dilemma. While we abhor dictators and authoritarian rule, we also fear the power of the rude mob. We are democratic, we have political parties and no one fears to express his opinions. That is why it is fatuous to suggest that Israel should fear the spread of the current uprisings in the Arab world to its internal Arab citizens, they can demonstrate any time they like (as long as they don't break the law and indulge in violence). The surge for democracy in Arab lands owes a lot to the example of Israel in their midst. Surprisingly the PA, that is supposed to be more radical than Israel's Arabs was supporting Mubarak, because they fear the power of the Muslim Brotherhood, that are allied to Hamas, their internal opposition. The Palestinians are usually wrong, they also supported Saddam Hussein!

Unlike Pres. Obama, who jumped right in and expressed support for the demonstrators in their aim to remove Mubarak immediately, and then backtracked, PM Netanyahu has been consistent in his neutrality. But, all Western leaders are faced with this dilemma. Natan Sharansky, who knows what an autocratic system means from up close, of course sympathizes with the democratic urges of the demonstrators in Tahrir Square. But, Netanyahu cannot be so bold, he must assess the possibility that the largest and most powerful component of the Egyptian opposition, the MB, could take over the relatively weak democratic forces, and that the power vacuum in Egypt could be filled by the Islamists. That would be a disaster of the greatest order for Israel and the West, on a par with the loss of Iran by Pres. Jimmy Carter, who blindly supported the Iranian protesters in 1979, without realizing what anti-democratic forces were gathering.

So while it is time for encouragement that a major demonstration has taken place in Egypt that has succeeded in removing the dictator, and Israel is hardly mentioned, nevertheless it is also time for caution. Of all possible outcomes, a gradual transition from Mubarak to a new democratic system, with multi-party elections, would be the best outcome. Note that democracies rarely choose to fight other democracies. The question is how to get to this optimal outcome without dead-ending into another and maybe worse religious autocracy. Frankly, in this process, Israel and the West have very little leverage, only the power of persuasion and the example of what democracy can bring. Meanwhile, after the Iranian regime praised the Egyptian uprising, they are now worried that their own people may follow Egypt's example. All autocratic regimes in the Arab world will now come under threat, and of course it has nothing to do with the Palestinian situation

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home