Copts, Muslims, and Democracy: America Needs to Start Making the Right Choices

I recently had the privilege of meeting an Egyptian doctor in a Starbucks in the city. He had overheard my conversation with a Muslim friend, and decided to join. Amongst the interesting perspectives he offered on Egypt and the region was the issue of Mubarak as a dictator vs. Mubarak as a pacifier. He argued that one of the reasons why Egypt is as stable as it has been since the Camp David accords was due to the secular stability that Mubarak implemented. What I found to be most interesting was that this doctor was a Christian-Copt.

For those that don’t know, the Copts are an ancient Christian denomination; the largest minority in Egypt; and a group that has experienced terrible discrimination at the hands of the Arab-Muslim majority. Yet despite the oppression of the Copts, this highly educated individual was supporting Mubarak. Why? Because, Mubarak has kept Islamist extremism in check, maintained Egypt’s leadership position in the region, and has offered a relative degree of economic well being –primarily through American funded subsidies- to its citizens. The alternative, he argued, was an Islamist government closer to Saudi Arabia in nature i.e. few churches, no political rights, and little freedom

My new friend's perspective raises a larger and relevant question:

Should we in America advocate for Democracy even in cases where that freedom will be hijacked by Islamic-extremist or other anti-Democratic elements? Should we support dictators in Tunisia, and Yemen, so long as they suppress terrorist entities from using their territory as training camps for attacks on the West?

America has always been involved in the spread of Democracy, but we have also, mostly, tempered our Democratic expansion with an unapologetic realism (this realism is what explains why we didn’t try “Iraq” before hand and why we are not going to try it again). Yet the populations in question –in this case the Arab street- are not blind to the obvious contradiction. On one hand we in America portray ourselves as the leader of the free world; with the other hand we pass millions of dollars to autocratic and oppressive governments who support our interests. Yes we may call that political realism, but in the Arab-world our opponents label it hypocrisy.

My Egyptian friend felt that a sudden Democracy movement in Egypt that overthrew Mubarak would be appropriated by non-Democratic elements -as it was in Iran, Gaza, and now Lebanon- who would then use it to keep themselves in indefinite power. But many participants and observers disagree; they see no ideological component to the Tunisian protests only a citizen population that is fed up with the economic ineptitude of their autocratic government.

Indeed there is no one formula: In some cases, like Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza etc. we see Islamic-extremists capitalizing on general dissatisfaction. However, that does not mean that every Muslim and Arab nation that goes through a popular upheaval will invariably end up like Iran or Gaza.

The problem for us in America is we don’t understand the Muslim world enough to know when to stand behind a dictator and when to stand behind Democratic movements. Why did Obama ignore the Green revolution in Iran? Why did we think we could make Iraq a functioning Democracy? Why did we remove our support from Musharraf in Pakistan? Why did we support elections in Gaza? Why did we look the other way when Hezbollah joined the Lebanese political process?

Some of you reading this may respond: “That’s the point, America should mind its own business”. I disagree; the world needs America, which means we should start making the right choices.

Lieberman, for G-ds sake don’t be such a Putz!

Don’t jump to any conclusions, hear me out.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman's rhetoric arouses conflicting emotions. My instinctive response to his abusive rhetoric and behavior, such as his tacit support for the insult towards Turkey’s ambassador to Israel, was YES! FINALLY! AN ISRAELI POLITICIAN WHO SAYS IT LIKE IT IS!

Then I remember how I felt when Turkey's PM Erdogan,stated that no genocide happened in Darfur,Sudan "because Muslims can't commit genocide"! Or when Ahmadinejad of Iran stood in front of the world and denied the Holocaust, while calling for one! Or when Egypt’s tourist minister stated that he could not rule out that the shark attacks on tourists in his country were a Mossad operation! Or when Saudi Arabia incarcerated a Zionist-vulture-spy (yes a bird) because it was caught with a GPS tag on which it was written Tel Aviv University!

Or...

Yes Lieberman's rhetoric is nothing like the above –his statements are usually grounded in the truth and are responsive. But I consider Israel’s track record of saying little and doing a lot as a source of pride. Why should the great nation of Israel succumb to the hate filled and purposeless rhetoric of its neighbors?

Lieberman, be strong, stand for what is right, but for G-ds sake don’t be such a putz!

The Arabization of Israeli Politics?

Whatever happened to Vice President Joe Biden’s memorable streak of "loud" comments? For example Biden declared that a "withering" Russia will bend to the West and America (WSJ, 7/25/09) and that Israel was entitled to attack Iran (ABC, 7/05/09).

We haven't heard any controversial declarations from Joe in some time probably after Rahm Emmanuel or some other pit-bull from the Obama administration reminded Biden that his foreign relations credentials were only required to bolster Obama's election campaign.

Juxtapose that with an un-muzzled Avigdor Lieberman-the outspoken leader of the Yisrael Beitenu (Israel is our Home) party, and current foreign minister of Israel. This is unusual because like America, Israel's bite is usually bigger than its bark.

Bush’s "War on Terrorism" is a perfect example, of a monumental understatement, Bush should have called it the "50 years war on global terror". A similar example followed Israel’s warning to Hamas in Gaza to halt two years of rocket fire. When Hamas continued its spiteful ways Israel followed up with a devastating campaign, a continued blockade, and the promise to be just as "disproportional” in the future if Hamas terror continued.

If Israel’s bite is bigger than its bark then the Arab world’s bark is historically bigger than its bite. Indeed if the Arab states and Iran share anything in common it is their propensity to make broad, bold, and often outrageous remarks. Take for example Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recent declarations that the West can expect a punch in the face on the anniversary of the Iranian "Islamic Revolution" (Washington Times 02/09/10). Syrian dictator, Bashar al-assad, announced that an Israeli attack on Lebanon, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran would result in Syrian attacks “inside your cities”-read Israel’s citizens ( JPOST 03/02/10).Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan ,has only recently put a lid on a string outrageous statements following the Davos fiasco. Erdogan is on record asserting that Sudan’s president Omar al-bashir is innocent of the charge of "crimes against humanity" in Darfur because "it is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide" (GurdianUk 11/10/09).

Some anthropologists, like Raphael Patai author of "The Arab Mind", see this is a cultural/societal trait of Arab overstatement (though that doesn’t account for Turkey and Iran both of which are not ethnically Arab). Others seasoned political analysts see this type of outspoken rhetoric as a crude but effective method, habitually used by Middle-Eastern autocrats to deflect criticism from their own failed leadership.

Either way this type of bluster is EXPECTED from the Arab Middle-East. So when Avigdor Lieberman started responding bluntly to commonplace genocidal threats emanating from Israel’s unhappy neighbors it came as a surprise. Indeed, Israel’s response to Turkish provocations, led to highly unnecessary diplomatic gaff of overtly criticizing the Turkish ambassador to Israel, and placing him in a visibly lower seat -which achieved what? We can assume that these actions were taken at the behest of the Israel’s Foreign minister Lieberman.

It also requires a closer look.

One possible explanation is that Lieberman’s vocalizations of his beliefs are expected by his political base, primarily Eastern-European immigrants who are used to that type of Putin bluntness. Thus it does not reflect a permanent shift in Israeli politics, but rather it is an ephemeral development, that is a necessary bi-product of a Netanyahu coalition that relies heavily on Lieberman’s political base.

This may also explain why Netanyahu has not really challenged Lieberman's remarks; on the contrary he probably took them into account in his final decision to include Liebermanls party in his center-right coalition.

Alternatively, Lieberman as the foreign minister is responding to remarks whose source has not been paralleled since the Yom-Kippur war (1973). In other words, from 1973 until Ahmadinejad’s rise to power in 2005, no local power has been so open and outspoken about their desire to destroy Israel. Thus Lieberman feels that this situation is an exception that requires an exceptional Israeli response.

Another potential explanation, could point to a permanent shift in Israeli diplomacy. This could be the result of Israel feeling abandoned by the International community or Israel finally starting to assert itself.As such, like China, Brazil, or India, Israel is a burgeoning power, whose technological genius, and socio-political makeup (Israel is the most diverse country in the Middle-East) -despite its resource-thin geography and constant attacks from its neighbors- has made for a nation which is on the brink of joining the exclusive developed country club(Bloomberg 6/16/2009). Lieberman’s statements may just reflect a country sick and tired of being verbally bullied, especially when Israel is the biggest kid on the block.

Finally, this may be a political manifestation of Israel absorbing the culture that they have become submerged in. Perhaps it is a side-effect of Israel’s growing strategic-ties with the Western leaning Arab-block, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. It is possible that like the ancient kingdoms of Israel, modern Israel is displaying on its proverbial borders the first signs of cultural influence in the form of political arabzation.