I've heard it said here and there that Israel may be "worried" about the wind of democracy blowing through the Arab world.
I understand this apprehension.
I know how, in at least two cases, that of Algeria in 1991 and then Gaza in 2006, free elections have produced the worst result.
And I am all too conscious of the fact that, in this regard, Israel is not entitled to the least error in taking lightly the risk of seeing these Egyptian, Libyan, or, tomorrow, Syrian revolutions engender a world of increasing danger.
Yet, being worried is one thing -- one that demands lucidity, skepticism when it comes to lyrical illusions, and vigilance.
But exaggerated caution, withdrawal, silent disapproval would be quite another -- which would place the heirs of the great Zionist dream in an untenable position, one that would be unworthy of their history.
I am hard put to see how a country can be be proud -- rightly so and for such a long time -- of being the sole democracy in the Middle East and yet hesitate to welcome its neighbors when they attempt to join it, embracing, at the cost of heroic combat, the values it has exemplified.
I cannot imagine an Israel that, alone among the great democracies, would retreat into I don't know what reserve, nurturing the suspicion (and, God knows, rumors and conspiracy theories, thus suspicion, run rampant in this part of the world!) that, through fear of an uncertain future, they have bet on the wrong horse and -- unpardonable mistake in the merciless realm of realpolitik -- sided with the losers.
And what impression of itself would a people give who, rightly and incessantly, repeat, "We don't have a problem with the Arab people (with whom we are ready to live on good terms and in peace should they wish to as well), but with the hardliners (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.)" and yet, when the youth rise up, immature no doubt but seeking freedom from all dictatorship (including that of the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihad-inspired groups), hesitate to extend a hand and grant them at least a chance?
But there is more than that.
Whatever the merit of a Mubarak who was able to maintain the peace treaty signed by his predecessor Sadat, there exists a simple but constant law: fragile is the contract that depends solely upon the will of one man, moreover a dictator, who is not only mortal but, as we now know, vulnerable. The same contract would be solid if, as seems to be the case in Cairo, it were validated, confirmed, re-legitimized by the élite, the army and, perhaps tomorrow, a middle class to whom it would no longer be presented as an obligation, a bitter pill, a punishment.
In Libya, whatever the order that will replace the disorder and the arbitrary currently in force, whatever the measure of residual antisemitism left by a regime that hammered the population with its slogans and disseminated its literature (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, bestseller in all the bookstores) for long and heavy years, I find that one has a strangely short memory. For ultimately, can there be a worse solution for Israel than a Gaddafi who has bankrolled terrorism, blown up synagogues, given asylum or honors to the vilest of negationists and who, only recently, when he was supposed to have calmed down, multiplied his threats and provocations? (Just two among many were the episode of the new ship bound for Gaza, sent on July 10th to "avenge" the Turkish "humanitarian flotilla" and, the following month, the Guide's address at the opening of the African Union summit in Tripoli, where he bellowed that the Israelis were "a gang," that they were "behind all of Africa's conflicts," and that "their embassies" should be immediately and forcibly closed.)
This is all the more so because these Arab revolutions have already produced still another effect -- at least as important, ultimately, as the eventual hijacking of the movement by an Iran which, one might remark in passing, all being fair in love and geopolitical war, nothing prevents from countering the machinations without delay. Here is a people crushed under the boot and subject, for 42 years, to the deadly disinformation that has been pounded into them. Here is a people who have been convinced, then, that all the world's misfortunes come from a methodically demonized Israel. And here they are, this people, who discover they have had another, even more dreadful adversary, one that wears the face of their own state and its mercenary brutality.
Suddenly, that changes everything.
This re-entry into the real world, where it is an Arab leader who promises his "brothers" he will drown them in "rivers of blood," is a tragic but significant event.
And without judging what the future may bring, without excluding the possibility that new demagogues may one day return to raise the bogeyman, I am inclined to believe that a threshold has been crossed and that it will be a little more difficult, on this point and others as well, to fool a people who, in combat, are learning the truth.
It is first of all for love of what is right and hatred of tyranny that I have taken sides with free Libya.
But it is also because, as I said even in Benghazi, before gatherings of people from whom I never hid my belonging to one of the world's most ancient tribes, I believe this revolution serves the cause of peace.
Without the intervention, there would be no uprising still alive; no rebels to speak of; and nothing but rubble from Ajdabia to the Egyptian borders. If you saw the miles upon miles of tanks and APCs destroyed at the doors of Benghazi by French fighter jets hours before their assault on that free city, you would be grateful for the intervention just like all of us who root for a free Libya are. That's of course if you are rooting for that outcome.
There is more evidence in which uprisings were ignored rather than which weren't that tells the whole tale of why this is a strategic intervention rather than a humanitarian one.
Besides if that were really the case, the West would have intervened when P@|3stinians got their lot at the hands |$rae|
What happened in Egypt is far from Libya or Yemen or Syria. They are unique to their geopolitical situations. Iran may have influential power in Syria and Bahrain, but not so much in Eygpt. Mr. Levy, like other pro-Israeli politicians, is giving too much power to Iran. On the other hand, these countries are regional and close to each other geographically, culturally, and religiously. So is no surprise if they influence one another. That's given.
Yes for sure, but they are also all related. Often the initial spark is as a result of a rebellion that preceded them.
Would the Egyptian revolution have occurred if the Tunisian one hadn't first succeeded ?
"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement hammered an historic reconciliation deal with the rival Hamas group on Wednesday, agreeing to form an interim government and fix a date for general election within the year."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/fatah-and-hamas-agree-to-historic-palestinian-reconciliation-deal-1.358445
Of all the parties mentioned - there's only one that continue to champion ONLY war.
Your assertion is just plain ... dopey
Let's face it . . . in some people's eyes, Israel can do nothing right. That will never change as long as people continue to hate and fear the Jewish people.
False. Mubarak put in place emergency laws from the day he took power.
First, they’ve always rejected any attempt to point out the abysmal lack of freedom in the Arab world, by claiming it’s nothing but “deflection”.
But then, they vociferously applauded Mubarak’s ousting in Egypt – only because they hoped a new regime will more actively oppose Israel.
On the other hand, they object to ousting Gadhafi of Libya; obviously, they do not expect someone more anti-Israel than Gadhafi.
They also either ignore Assad’s massacres of Syrian protesters, or blame them on some sort of US/Western/Israeli “conspiracy”.
Next, they take every opportunity to express their fervent hope that regime changes in the Arab world would be bad for Israel (or even, as a poster below put it, result in its “elimination”). On the other hand, they badmouth Israel for being “worried” about those same changes.
Democracy is the LAST thing on these people’s minds. What do they care about the 360 million Arabs oppressed by obscurantist regimes, deliberately kept in ignorance and primitivism, deprived of every basic political, civil and human right? These "militants" militate for just one thing: depriving the Jews of their right to self-determination in even a part of their ancestral homeland. THAT is all they ever cared about.
The only thing the instability in the Arab mid east will do regarding Israel, is put Israel's defenses on high alert.
In reality, however, what happens in the Arab world has little to do with Israel. It is a separate problem – one much, much bigger than the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Consider this:
- Even if we believe all the hate propaganda-generated stories of “Palestinian oppression” at the hands of Israelis, they affect some 2% of the Arab population. 98% of Arabs are oppressed… by Arabs. Of course, haters (who hate the West just as they hate Israel) love to point out that some Arab dictators are “supported by US/West”. Of course, it's neither the US nor the West that installed/kept these people in power. And there are also many no less hateful dictators (see Gadhafi, Assad, etc.) who are bitter enemies of the West.
- In the past 65 years, unrelated inter-Arab conflicts/conflicts involving Arabs & countries other than Israel claimed many, many more victims than the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, including wars, raids, “intifadeh”, “occupation”, Palestinian terrorism, Cast Lead, etc. etc. put together.
- The Arab population is very young & growing fast. Already, young people unemployment is a huge problem throughout the Arab world. If this situation continues, there will be hundreds of millions of hungry, angry, impoverished people with no marketable skills & no hope for a normal life. This is an explosive situation – the single biggest threat to world peace.
""The status quo between Palestinians and Israelis is no more sustainable than the political systems that have crumbled in recent months," said Hillary Clinton. "Neither Israel’s future as a Jewish democratic state, nor the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians can be secured without a negotiated two-state solution."
Former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski says it is time for the Obama administration to take a decisive role in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace.
"The mood in the region is changing," said Zbigniew Brzezinski. "The prospects of Israel becoming an accepted part of the Middle East are waning and I think it behooves the U.S. to step forward with a generalized framework of what the peace has to be."
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Arab-Uprisings-Could-Affect-US-Strategy-Toward-Mideast-Talks-120134094.html
Currently, Israel is the only truly stable country in the mid east, despite the issues with the Palestinians. I wouldn't worry about Israel becoming an accepted part of the mid east. Right now the proof is in the pudding. Israel is standing tall and strong, while the Arab countries all around her implode.
Allow democracy to flourish, albeit a local flavor of democracy, then we can sit down and talk about who has a better system of government.
There is unfortunately no guarantee that just revolutions caused by social and political iniquities result in a transition to democracy. The French Revolution brought the Reign of Terror and eventually Napoleon's imperialistic Empire; the "soviet" revolution ended up in one of the bloodiest, most hateful and harmful dictatorial regimes.
Democracy? Israel would absolutely LOVE to see democracy blooming in the Arab world. Democracies do not make war on each other -- they resolve their occasional conflicts peacefully. In a democracy, people can't be brainwashed -- hate propaganda is easily dispersed by transparency, free speech and public debate.
Genuine democracy in the Arab world is PRECISELY the ingredient needed to make final peace in the Middle East possible -- not just between Israel and the Arabs, but also among the Arabs themselves.
That never concerbed the West, after all, who for decades, have been quite happy to support such "Islamic" dictatorships.
>> Democracy? Israel would absolutely LOVE to see democracy blooming in the Arab world.
On the contrary, when Mubarak was falling, Bibbi was the only leaders standing with Abdullah, condeming the US for not propping up Mubarak. Netenyahu even stated that democracy in teh regin posed a threat to Israel's security.
State Department spokesman, PJ Crowley agreed.
Syria scares me the most, as Assad slaughters his fellow citizens with abandon. How can someone trained as a healer behave in such a manner?
Why hasn't the world reacted to the barbarism taking place in Syria as it did for Libya?
The youth in all these countries who are seeking "freedom from dictatorship" will likely become the next generation of dictators.
It is told that that the Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years after the Exodus from Egypt becasue a new generation needed to mature in to adulthood living as a free people. Slaves would not have known how to govern themselves, likewise with the Arab Spring.
Israel is surrounded by enemies and these enemies are dangerously unstable. Israel should be apprehensive, very, very apprehensive.
Similarly, the 2008 Israeli elections also produced the worst result.
>> Why hasn't the world reacted to the barbarism taking place in Syria as it did for Libya?
Probably because the US is sponsoring the uprising, and that the uprising is not a popular one.
>> Israel is surrounded by enemies and these enemies are dangerously unstable
Israel is surrounded by enemies because that is the way Israel has wanted it to remain. 22 pof them offered to make peace with ISrael, but Israel rejected the offer.
The criticism of the realpolitik that tarnishes our values is more than justified, it's too mild.
Financially and politically propping up brutal dictators and monarchs is a stain on our names.
Why do the Saudis get a pass by the way?