The Ultimate Divide II
Two weeksago, I received the strangest call I could imagine. It was from a colleaguefrom a liberal party from Sweden. He asked me what I thought of the DemocraticFront Party of Egypt! At first, I did not understand the question. Why wouldsomeone from Sweden ask me, a member of another Egyptian liberal party, ElGhad; such a question? In explanation,he sent me a copy of an article which was published in a Swedish Newspaper, inSwedish; together with an English translation. The article accused theDemocratic Front Party (DFP) of being anti-Semitic and urged Swedish liberalsnot to participate in Liberal International’s Conference in Cairo hosted by DFPat the end of October. I was then made aware of an email campaign wheremessages with similar content were dispatched to members of LiberalInternational (LI) and the International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY).On the first day of Liberal International’s conference in Cairo, a piece waspublished in Wall Street Journal with the title: “Why are Egypt’s ‘Liberals’Anti-Semitic?”. In addition to throwing the racist accusation on DFP, thisarticle now claimed that ALL Liberal Parties in Egypt, El Wafd, El Ghad and DFPare anti-Semitic!
Why would someone,or some institution or a group, exert so much effort in sending emails tomembers of Liberal International, members of IFLRY, publishing articles innewspapers in Swedish, English and possibly other languages, to throw suchaccusations on assumingly fellow liberals? But are they fellow liberals? Theaccusers, you would assume are liberals who are trying to safeguard liberalvalues. 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 wasjust an article, then those could merely be opinions, published in response to allegedlyracist comments. But when emails sent to members of Liberal Internationalurging them not participate in LI’s conference in Egypt, are followed by anarticle in Sweden then another in Wall Street Journal which was published atthe same time as the conference, we must observe a concerted organizationaleffort and a Neocon campaign, indeed a crusade, a sort of Jihad against someinvented infidels. A political campaigndesigned to discredit and weaken Egyptian Liberal Parties. Now, who would benefitfrom such a thing? Who would launch such a campaign and what would be the aimof such an effort? The writers are self-professed Egyptian Neocons, but whatdoes that mean? What does it mean to be an Egyptian Neo-conservative? In their words, itmeans that they believe that the USA, as a superpower, has the right and theobligation to spread “democracy” and “capitalism”, by force if necessary, toother countries all over the world, starting with Muslim-majority countries. However,here comes the puzzling piece. Whether their strategy was right or wrong, surelythriving Liberal Parties in Egypt, being one of these target countries, musthelp in achieving their aim, of spreading democracy and freedom in the world.Why then would Neocons exert so much effort in discrediting or weakening theseparties? In their unholy Jihad against Egyptian Liberals, assumingly incoordination with some Neocon High Commander in some American institute, enterpriseor think tank, Egyptian Neocons have attempted to harm the very cause theyclaim to promote. Liberal International Conference was held in Cairo asscheduled since none of the member parties took those claims seriously. But theinstance showed the divide, between those who believe in peace and dialogue onone hand and those who push for confrontation and prophesize for an Armageddon on anther.
Many Neoconsbelieve that the confrontation is inevitable. That liberal parties in placeslike Egypt only delay such a confrontation, dilute the urgency of thesituation and sedate the public opinion. They prefer to see a clear and present danger of Islamist extremistsas to justify immediate armed intervention. In a way, extremists on both sideshave a common interim goal. They both desire to escalate things so thatArmageddon draws near. How did this bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy of anArmageddon infiltrate the minds even of those who are not necessarily religious?Or is there some other hidden motive? Neocons secretly and publicly cheer forterrorist 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 fortheir confrontational agenda. Neocons booed when President Obama visited Cairolast June attempting to build bridges of friendship and reconciliation withMuslims around the world. Neocons rejected the visit because they prefer escalation and conflict. They believethat efforts of peace and reconciliation will eventually fail and the sooner theUS realizes that and gets into military action the better.
Neocons andextremists on both sides have become more obsessed with the strategy (of violentconfrontation) that they have ‘forgotten’ the original aim of spreading their ideology.In fact, in their Jihad against liberals and liberal parties, Neocons haveproved that their idea of liberalism is in fact some form of a fascist 1984-styleideology, where a single view of righteousness is imposed upon the whole worldby force and military power. “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists” kindof thinking. Neocons have not learned anything from the failures in Vietnam,from the Soviet failures in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, from US failure inIraq; where imposing a regime on a nation proved unsustainable. Because for a stable balance to occur, a systemof government must come as the product of cultural, social and politicalinteractions of each society. We can help democracy in a certain country toprosper, 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 sameNeocons who label Egyptian Liberals as anti-Semitic, label Obama as a communistand a Muslim-appeaser. They have labels for everyone and they use rumors, doubtsand 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 incommunicating with their peers in their locales. But their aim appearsdifferent. 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 tosabotage dialog and understanding so that the same failed old policies of confrontationand invasion can be promoted as the only option left.
It is ironicthat the day has come when Neocons wear the crosses of liberalism and cry onthe altar of anti-racism ! The day has come for Neocons to cry liberalism. Itwould have been laughable if the aims were not so dangerous. It is not just hypocriticalor showy. It is way more organizationally sinister. It is another facet of theUltimate Divide.
The Writer isa co-founder of El Ghad Liberal Party of Egypt