These are exciting times indeed. The demonstration of success in Tunisia of bringing down the Ben Ali regime of 23 years has given hope and confidence to people throughout much of the region to voice their frustrations, which has so long been repressed. Indeed, Egypt appears to be the next in line to see the 30-year authoritarian rule of Hosni Mubarrak to fall.
I, like many people, am engrossed in watching these events unfold; and am giving thought to the implications of whatever changes arise. There are so many directions that I could take a blog on this subject. Nevertheless, I will start with this because the following status update by one of my 'friends' on facebook has been bugging me since I first read it. It stated,
"I am seeing some real anti-Semitic pressure groups at work in Egypt. The Communists and Muslim extremist groups are far too happy about the riots. Can't say I am happy about the status quo. I give a new Egyptian government less than a year before it's toppled by terrorists already entering the country."
A number of people commented on this post - all in agreement. One person posted an article by Pat Robertson's CBN News, profiling the Muslim Brotherhood in an utterly skewed and dishonest fashion. Another said, "Really?? They're called the Muslim Brotherhood...whatever gave you the impression they were anti-Semitic?"
Such comments are ignorant and bigoted on a number of levels. To begin, the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Israeli sentiment is both erroneous and strategic. For one, Arabs are also Semitic. Thus, the accusation of anti-Semitism is conceptually flawed. Aside from the rhetorical point, criticism of Israel is not necessarily grounded in animosity toward Jews (though surely in some cases it is). To remove the basis of Arab grievance against the taking of Palestinian land as well as the behavior of the Israeli state since its formation by attributing all opposition to anti-Semitism allows for pro-Israeli individuals to escape real discussion and introspection.
Beyond this, the assertion that all Islam-based political groups are 'terrorists' reflects a lack of knowledge of what one is talking about. Many people within the Middle East believe that society should be guided by a system that is based upon a strict and conservative reading of Islamic law. In this way, they are quite similar to Pat Robertson's own followers in the United States as well as the broader 'Christian right'. While I do not share in the worldview of Islamic fundamentalists any more than I do Christian fundamentalists, I do believe that they should both be allowed to participate in the political process. It is a fundamental basis of a free society that they should.
I watched Pat Buchanan on MSNBC last night echo the basis of this negative sentiment toward regime change, explaining that there would be a price to pay for President Obama 'losing Egypt' to such groups and allowing the majority of the populations throughout the Middle East to have democracy because they 'hate America'.
First of all, 'they' do not hate America. 'They' (at least the majority of 'them') resent American foreign policy in the region and the fact that it has suppressed self-determination for years in favor of brutally repressive regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel. While the opening of democracy might mean less favorable regimes in the short-term (a la the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections in 2006), it would mean the removal of one major grievance against the U.S. in the region. Over the longer-term, this would be a positive strategy for the United States. We simply have to have the imagination and courage to move beyond a foreign policy orientation that has become rigidly and thoughtlessly clinged to by so many.
Second, the very idea that Egypt is ours to lose is reflective of the condescending position that 'they' resent. That the United States would think that it could place a pro-Israeli pre-requisite upon Arab self-determination is utterly absurd and damaging. Not only does it fly in the face of American principles, but it also diminishes Washington's ability to bring about any sort of settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether such a settlement is possible or that the U.S. will be the central player in bring it about, I do not know. What I can say is that this attitude undermines American legitimacy as an honest broker.
Third, I would argue that much of the appeal of Islamist groups in the region is that they have provided the only venue through which anger can be expressed. Mainstream political criticism has been utterly suppressed for so long in Egypt and beyond. This has driven many into such groups as a result. Moreover, the reactive repression of Islamist groups has served to increase their legitimacy. If people were allowed to express their views freely, over time there would likely be a moderating trend over time.
President Obama is not losing Egypt. It is not his or anyone's (aside from President Mubarrak) to lose. The Egyptian people are hopefully claiming Egypt as their own at long last. We should support this, whatever party wins in the near future. If anything, the Obama administration should play a much less overt role in negotiating whatever transition comes about. The Egyptians must have ownership of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment