More on Egypt
Shaul Magid has a piece over at Religion Dispatches. The bottom line is this:
Part of the belief in democracy is that it is by nature a moderating force (one can even see this with Hezbollah in Lebanon). We cannot support democratic change contingent on what democracy will bring; even if it may not serve our interests in the short run, it’s still the best alternative human beings have come up with. In this case, one can certainly understand Netanyahu’s concern; Mubarak is “the devil he knows.” But it’s often the case that autocratic rulers are easier to deal with since they typically answer to no one. Yet, while they appear more stable in the short run, more dictatorships have been overthrown by democratic movements than the other way around. And when that uprising comes, supporting a dictator against the populace is not the best role for an elected leader.
Jerusalem’s problem is also Jerusalem’s opportunity. It can have a role to play in this transition that may impact what most hope will be a democratic Egypt, and the Arab street is watching closely. Israel’s problem, even according to some of its supporters, is that it has never had a long-term plan in regard to the Palestinians, leading to actions that are largely reactive and myopic. Perhaps these events can convince Israel that it has to act and not simply react, for it will soon no longer be the “the only democracy in the Middle East.”
The full piece is here.
It is nice to tell yourself that the Israeli political and economic class has never had a long-term plan with regard to the Palestinians. The documentary record is there for all to see–those that want to see, that is.
And wouldn’t it be nice if the Palestinians were included in any discussions about their collective fate.
The colonialist mindset is a pattern of thinking that is difficult to break from, but it must be broken, nonetheless.
Pay attention to the patterns, and question the paid intellectuals that set the parameters of the possible. Someone always pays them, so follow the money.
Those who argue that Dayadic Peace isn’t possible in the Middle-East are either racist or clairvoyant.
It is unlikely that a society rebuilding itself and focusing its energy on democratization and strengthening its economy would look to go to war. With anyone.
Furthermore it is the Egyptian Armed Forces, not the Muslim Brotherhood, who hold true power in the nation. They have vested economic interests in maintaining peace. Their industrial holdings would suffer either through attrition or outright destruction in war with Israel. Their primary source of funds, $1.3 Billion in US aid, would dry up. Their extant inventory of armor and warplanes would be diminished or eliminated without means of replenishment.
Resentment over a national defeat (which is likely given the history) among the draftee corps and the ‘street’ would give rise to a demand for another strongman, putting the military’s political power base even more at risk. It would also leave a vaccum in the region for another power to dominate, namely Iran.
The Muslim Brotherhood is akin to our Tea Party. Extremely conservative with a scent of dangerous rhetoric, a minority with a following that lacks the power to govern outright. They’re not in a position to dictate national policy. The Young Egyptians who took to the streets and are allover the social media want jobs, not war.
The Egyptian people have been down the road of blaming the Zionists before, and it essentially got them where they were until a few days ago. Its unlikely that they too would sacrifice their future again for a cause not in their interest.
Going to war with Israel is not in the Egyptian military’s interest, and so it will not happen.
I’m sold, Adam. Now go convince the Egyptians 😉