
For decades, and despite much rhetoric to the contrary, American-led Western policy has been to prefer Arab dictatorship (authoritarianism in various forms) to Arab democracy. This preference was determined by two main assessments.
One was that corrupt and repressive Arab regimes were the best possible guarantee that oil would continue to flow at prices acceptable to the West, and, that there would be almost no limits to the amount of weapons that could be sold to the most wealthy Arab states. (The design, production, testing and selling of weapons is one of the biggest creators of jobs and wealth in America, Britain and some other Western nations. Were it not for Saudi Arabia’s purchases, Britain’s arms manufacturing industry might have gone bust by now).
The other main policy-driving assessment was that only corrupt and repressive Arab regimes could be relied upon to provide the necessary security assistance for identifying, locating, hunting down and liquidating Islamic terrorists. This consideration became the priority after 9/11.
In addition there was great comfort for Western policy makers in their knowledge that a corrupt and repressive Arab Order was not going to fight Israel to liberate Palestine. (As I have noted in previous posts and documented in detail in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, after Israel closed the Palestine file with its victory on the battlefield in 1948, the Arab regimes secretly shared the same hope as the all the major powers and Zionism – that the file would remain closed. There was not supposed to have been a re-generation of Palestinian nationalism).
There was also comfort for Western policy makers in the belief that their relationship with corrupt and repressive Arab regimes would mean that the Western powers would not be seriously challenged on their support for Israel right or wrong. Put another way, Western governments, the one in Washington D.C. especially, knew they would not be required by the Arab regimes to pay a price for doing the bidding of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media.
No wonder then that while Tunisian-inspired people power was manifesting itself in Egypt, President Obama often seemed unclear about whether he wanted Mubarak to stay or go.
With Mubarak gone – I imagine the generals finally said to him something like, “We’ve either got to shoot our people or insist that you go now” – the first question is this: Will the High Council of Egypt’s armed forces really be prepared to preside over the dismantling of a corrupt and cruel system and give democracy a green light?
The problem for some of Egypt’s top generals is not only letting go of their own grip on the levers of political power. They are also locked into the business and financial corruption Mubarak presided over. I imagine he believed that allowing them to make loads of money would guarantee they would not make trouble for him as he assisted Israel to impose its will on the Palestinians, not least by effectively cancelling the results of the Palestinian elections which gave Hamas victory in the Gaza Strip.
That said, I am inclined to the view that the High Council will honour its promise to hand over to a civilian government and that we will see something approaching real democracy in Egypt. But what then?
The High Council has said, not surprisingly, that it will respect all of Egypt’s international obligations including the 1979 peace treaty with Israel. (My own view is that this separate peace was a disaster for the whole world. Why? With Egypt out of the military equation, Israel had complete freedom to be even more aggressive in seeking to impose its will on the region, with Lebanon its prime target. At a stroke Sadat’s separate peace with Israel also destroyed the prospects for a comprehensive peace).
Key question: Would a democratically elected civilian government have to be bound by the High Council’s commitment to the peace treaty with Israel?
The answer, surely, has to be “No!” If, for example, the will of the people who elected the new government was for the peace treaty with Israel to be reviewed, the government would have to set a review process in motion.
That would create a very tricky situation for the government with Israel and the U.S. but it could be managed by the government saying that it would submit the treaty to a referendum.
If there was a referendum, much would depend on how the question was framed. If it was a simple “Yes” or “No” to Egypt remaining committed to the peace treaty with Israel, probably an easy majority of Egyptians would vote “No”. But that would not be good politics.
Best politics would be for the government of Egypt to frame the referendum question to give it the authority to say to Israel something like: “We wish to remain committed to our peace treaty with you, but we will be unable to do so without a commitment from you to end your occupation of all Arab land taken in 1967.”
Unless a majority of Israelis are beyond reason, that could be a game changer which would benefit the region and the whole world, not only the Palestinians.
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
So far, this peaceful period ISrael has been experiencing with both Egypt and Jordan has not only allowed the country not to be excessively worried about its neighbours, but also has allowed its successive governments to continue to establish new settlements on the West Bank while Jordan rulers stop looking west and Egiptian's stop looking north-east.
So, my guess: I do think democracy in Egypt will benefit the Palestinians, the region and the whole world. But let's see. It all depends on several factors, but in my opinion it's crucial that our 'free media' should from now on monitor not only all those democratic processes which are likely to come up in the region but also and especially the way how Netanyahu administration is going to tackle in this changing context the Palestinian legitimate demands.
Perhaps I give too much importance to media, which is the main subject of my personal blog (written in catalan, sorry), but I do really think that their permanent focus on this area will allow all these democratic processes to end up satisfactorily and Palestinian matter well enough at least.
The way a new democratic Egyptian government could test this premise would be to immediately end the inhuman blockade of Gaza by opening the border to all nonmilitary supplies. Perhaps the gamers who continue this strategy will realize it is a dead end. It's also possible the Israelis blatantly mistreat the Palestinians and violate peace negotiations with illegal settlements BECAUSE it antagonizes the Arabs. Continuing to deal with Israel--or ignoring its outrages--simply weakens Arab leaders in the eyes of the "Arab street". Throw in food shortages and brutality and you've got the ingredients for fragmentation.
RE: Second paragraph. Israel is also a big arms exporter - 4th in world. I bet it sells arms to rich Arab states, just like it sold arms to the Shah's Iran.
We see what the repressive regimes and their antics along with those of Israel do to oil prices!! The existence of these authoritarian governments is precisely against the political and economic interests of oil dependent western economies.
Zionism with its control of mainstream media has done much to demonise the Arabs and Muslims in particular: A classic bully tactic of Blaming the Victim.
But since the Israeli rampage in Gaza at the end of 2008-9 Gut Zionism I believe has done itself irreversible damage.
As you suggest, Alan; The Referendum on the Peace Treaty with Israel could be worded as such putting the onus on Israel to withdraw from all Arab land taken in 1967. Then the World could see Israel's leadership for what it truly is.
After 30 years of West-approved dictatorship, people should not expect change to come overnight. A lot of patience will be required, but vigilance needs to continue. The West needs to realize that it is up to Egyptians - or other Arabs - which kind of government they want. It is their lives and their decisions. The West needs to start minding it's own business and stop the hypocrisy of "wanting to help". Where was the West's help for the last 30 years? Help was given but not to the opressed masses.
First we have to see whether Egypt will become a democracy. A first in the world because in case you have not noticed it there is no democracy to be found anywhere in the world. Well the world of nations/states. Probably there exists here there a tribe a community that is a democracy, not even sure of that to be frank. Next is: if by now the Palestinians don't know that their fate is only between their own hands then they are doomed for good. Of course
the evil state of Israel the pariah state of Israel the rogue state of Israel is imploding but this is the result of the steadfastness, the resilience of the People of Palestine. This steadfastness, this resilience has pushed the rogue state of Israel to become a nazi state despised by all with a heart a conscience. My answer is no, unfortunately , no, democracy in Egypt won't benefit the Palestinians. Because there is no democracy in Egypt. There has been a revolution there but it already looks like it has been already taken away from the people. Time will tell whether the people of Egypt will tolerate it. Only this can be a game changer...
Where were you a few weeks ago?
Why now do you talk about the corrupt and repressive Arab regimes when for years all that came out of your mouth was targeting Israel?