Neocons' Jihad against Liberal Parties in Egypt

The Ultimate Divide II

Two weeks
ago, I received the strangest call I could imagine. It was from a colleague
from a liberal party from Sweden. He asked me what I thought of the Democratic
Front Party of Egypt! At first, I did not understand the question. Why would
someone from Sweden ask me, a member of another Egyptian liberal party, El
Ghad; such a question?  In explanation,
he sent me a copy of an article which was published in a Swedish Newspaper, in
Swedish; together with an English translation. The article accused the
Democratic Front Party (DFP) of being anti-Semitic and urged Swedish liberals
not to participate in Liberal International’s Conference in Cairo hosted by DFP
at the end of October. I was then made aware of an email campaign where
messages with similar content were dispatched to members of Liberal
International (LI) and the International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY).
On the first day of Liberal International’s conference in Cairo, a piece was
published in Wall Street Journal with the title: “Why are Egypt’s ‘Liberals’
Anti-Semitic?”. In addition to throwing the racist accusation on DFP, this
article now claimed that ALL Liberal Parties in Egypt, El Wafd, El Ghad and DFP
are anti-Semitic!

Why would someone,
or some institution or a group, exert so much effort in sending emails to
members of Liberal International, members of IFLRY, publishing articles in
newspapers in Swedish, English and possibly other languages, to throw such
accusations on assumingly fellow liberals? But are they fellow liberals? The
accusers, you would assume are liberals who are trying to safeguard liberal
values. But no. The accusers, as it turns out, are self-professed Neocons. So,
why would they take such an interest in trying to mend the liberal stream?

If it was
just an article, then those could merely be opinions, published in response to allegedly
racist comments. But when emails sent to members of Liberal International
urging them not participate in LI’s conference in Egypt, are followed by an
article in Sweden then another in Wall Street Journal which was published at
the same time as the conference, we must observe a concerted organizational
effort and a Neocon campaign, indeed a crusade, a sort of Jihad against some
invented infidels.  A political campaign
designed to discredit and weaken Egyptian Liberal Parties. Now, who would benefit
from such a thing? Who would launch such a campaign and what would be the aim
of such an effort? The writers are self-professed Egyptian Neocons, but what
does that mean? What does it mean to be an Egyptian Neo-conservative? In their words, it
means that they believe that the USA, as a superpower, has the right and the
obligation to spread “democracy” and “capitalism”, by force if necessary, to
other countries all over the world, starting with Muslim-majority countries. However,
here comes the puzzling piece. Whether their strategy was right or wrong, surely
thriving Liberal Parties in Egypt, being one of these target countries, must
help in achieving their aim, of spreading democracy and freedom in the world.
Why then would Neocons exert so much effort in discrediting or weakening these
parties? In their unholy Jihad against Egyptian Liberals, assumingly in
coordination with some Neocon High Commander in some American institute, enterprise
or think tank, Egyptian Neocons have attempted to harm the very cause they
claim to promote. Liberal International Conference was held in Cairo as
scheduled since none of the member parties took those claims seriously. But the
instance showed the divide, between those who believe in peace and dialogue on
one hand and those who push for confrontation and prophesize for an Armageddon on anther.

Many Neocons
believe that the confrontation is inevitable. That liberal parties in places
like Egypt only delay such a confrontation, dilute the urgency of the
situation and sedate the public opinion. They prefer to see a clear and present danger of Islamist extremists
as to justify immediate armed intervention. In a way, extremists on both sides
have a common interim goal. They both desire to escalate things so that
Armageddon draws near. How did this bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy of an
Armageddon infiltrate the minds even of those who are not necessarily religious?
Or is there some other hidden motive? Neocons secretly and publicly cheer for
terrorist attacks. They may be saddened by the loss of human life of course,
but they see in these terrorist attacks a tool to gather public support for
their confrontational agenda. Neocons booed when President Obama visited Cairo
last June attempting to build bridges of friendship and reconciliation with
Muslims around the world. Neocons rejected the visit because they prefer escalation and conflict. They believe
that efforts of peace and reconciliation will eventually fail and the sooner the
US realizes that and gets into military action the better.

Neocons and
extremists on both sides have become more obsessed with the strategy (of violent
confrontation) that they have ‘forgotten’ the original aim of spreading their ideology.
In fact, in their Jihad against liberals and liberal parties, Neocons have
proved that their idea of liberalism is in fact some form of a fascist 1984-style
ideology, where a single view of righteousness is imposed upon the whole world
by force and military power. “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists” kind
of thinking. Neocons have not learned anything from the failures in Vietnam,
from the Soviet failures in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, from US failure in
Iraq; where imposing a regime on a nation proved unsustainable.  Because for a stable balance to occur, a system
of government must come as the product of cultural, social and political
interactions of each society. We can help democracy in a certain country to
prosper, but no one can impose change by force on the way people think or live.
Use of force to impose ideas or lifestyles has only proved counterproductive.

These same
Neocons who label Egyptian Liberals as anti-Semitic, label Obama as a communist
and a Muslim-appeaser. They have labels for everyone and they use rumors, doubts
and fear, but for what aim? If the real aim of the accusers was to mend the liberal practices in Egypt, you would think they would exert some effort in
communicating with their peers in their locales. But their aim appears
different. Their aim is to prevent people, specially liberals, from coming together as shown in their effort to sabotage Liberal International's Conference in Cairo. Their aim is to
sabotage dialog and understanding so that the same failed old policies of confrontation
and invasion can be promoted as the only option left.

It is ironic
that the day has come when Neocons wear the crosses of liberalism and cry on
the altar of anti-racism ! The day has come for Neocons to cry liberalism. It
would have been laughable if the aims were not so dangerous. It is not just hypocritical
or showy. It is way more organizationally sinister. It is another facet of the
Ultimate Divide.

The Writer is
a co-founder of El Ghad Liberal Party of Egypt