For more stability in Egypt and Security for Israel
On the eve of Jan 25 2011, Hillary Clinton former US secretary of state announced that the US believes in the stability of Mubarak’s
regime, renewing their faith in the strength of Egypt ’s
old dictator. Three days later Cairo was on fire and the Egyptian army was
taking out to the streets. 17 days later Mubarak was no longer in power.
The US considered
this as an “unfortunate not-so-lucky miscalculation.” But
was it really? Personally I think it was not. This miscalculation has to do
with the American concept of “stability in the Middle
East" itself.
Americans view stability as necessary for their so many interests in the region
and for the security of the state of Israel .
The Israelis seemingly adopt the same views. But what does stability for the
Americans means?
In the 1950s and 60s Egypt was under the rule of the mighty
demagogue Nasserite militant regime. The masses
supported Nasser in
every step and foolishness driving the country into the disastrous defeat of
the 1967 six days war. Even after that, the masses still supported Nasser . Seeing this dominant influence of the
Egyptian government over the people, the US had a complete trust and faith in the
Egyptian regime. Later on in the 70s when Sadat’s Egypt was to leave the Soviet
pact and join the American one, the US was to view Egypt as a “stable” country;
a country that its government is in complete control over its people. And there
is nothing good for Israel as stable Arab neighbor country, or so
it seemed.
Almost 40 years later, the country is in turmoil; a fanatic
Islamic group is in power, the economy is catastrophic, Antisemitism and anti-western
sentiments are breaking records, non-Muslim minorities are escaping the country
and the future is inconceivable. Maybe after all, the so called “stability” did
not work out very well.
Stability in the Middle East for
the Americans and the Israelis is to support whoever able to remain in power,
whether it was Mubarak, the military or the Muslim Brotherhood with no
consideration to the actual living conditions in the country. This disastrous
concept is driving the region into a fearful uncertain future and has already
made many places in the region to be almost uninhabitable. This “stability” did
not lead to economical development, nor did it lead to a breakthrough in the
conditions of human rights and it certainly did not make the Egyptian
population of almost 90 million people to hold any more tolerant views of the
US or Israel, on the contrary they saw that Egyptians dictatorships, the US and
Israel as the enemy who is sabotaging their lives, the deterioration of economy
and human rights were not seen as necessities for “stability” but rather as an
ultimate failure.
While in Egypt ,
I have witnessed the masses propaganda against three consecutive
enemy-of-the-people rulers; Mubarak, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces and
the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the mutual factors of those opposition
propagandas was to describe all of them as “Zionist pigs” associating them all
with Israel ,
which is a Clear indication to how Egyptian masses view the world. In September 2011,
masses in Cairo invaded the Israeli embassy
in a dramatic scene which reminded us of the similar events took place in the US embassy in Tehran 30 years ago.
The event almost ended in tragedy when 6 Israeli diplomatic employees were
besieged in a room only to be rescued later by Egyptian commandos preventing a
bloody international crisis. 365 days later right on the other bank of the
Nile, the same tragedy almost took place at the US embassy
building.
Three anti-regime propaganda posters; (from left to right) the first one depict Muabark as a Jew, the second suggests that SCAF loyalty is to Israel, the last one mocks the Muslim Brotherhood official symbol adding the star of David to it.
It is true that Antisemitism and
anti-western feelings are pretty much about the norm in Egypt, however I know
for sure that the motive for both events was mainly something else;
frustration. The frustration of a “stable peaceful transition” phase lead by a
bloody military council, and then frustration of the disappointing result of a
“stable” democratic elections process. Apparently the more “stable” the country
becomes; the more angry the masses grow. I was in Cairo Sep 2011 when
the violence at the Israeli embassy broke out, if you assumed that only fanatic
Islamic groups and demagogue mobs were responsible for this then I’m afraid to
tell you that you are very wrong. Many of the people who were involved in the
incident were of organized revolutionary secular liberal and socialist
movements. Those anti-Semitic anti western people are the same people who are protesting
for more democracy, freedom of speech, civil rights, women rights, freedom of
religion and a more secular state. So how can all of this add up? How can one
be such a Nazi similar anti-semite and be a committed to such great western
values in the same time? I’m not going to propose a direct answer to this
question.
The attack on the embassy
was not a direct attack on Israel ;
it was merely an attack on the Egyptian government defiance of Egyptian masses.
Yet my words should not indicate in anyway that Egypt is an
Antisemitism free country, actually I think that Egyptians are the most
anti-Semitic people in the whole region.
I came from the young generation of Egypt ,
a generation that is diverse in interests and in ideologies yet I can describe its
main theme as desperate, angry, semi-educated, and furiously
anti-Semitic. This generation is tired and sick of stability; they desire a
freer chaotic political scene. The support of the US and Israel to certain political
entities for stability will lead to nothing but more hatred and political
unrest. Maybe the Middle East does not need
stability no more, maybe it needs just the opposite of it. Stability in the Middle East for years did not
make but a time bomb that has been exploding for nearly two years. The lack of
freedom of speech made the Arabs enter a deep identity crisis not able to find
their way between fundamentalism and modernity. The suppression of ideologies
leads to nothing but unresolved issues about freedom, civil rights, freedom of
speech, terrorism, role of religion, women rights etc. The absence of any
internal social dialogue regarding to these issues in the Middle East was indeed to create
one of the most “stable” regions in the world. And for the sake of my own
mental welfare, I don’t want to think that the US actually assumed that
rulers like Mubarak would actually push for such a social dialogue.
Are they
going to change their “stability” support policy anytime soon? Frankly I don’t
think so, governments usually don’t deal with people, they feel more
comfortable dealing with other “stable” governments, and thus I don’t think
that we will see any change soon to what is going on the Middle East. The ones
I feel sorry for are the Israelis, left to a growing hostile environment. Israel is facing a sad
disappointing reality, 30 years of peace with Egypt did not put them in a
better situation than the one they were 40 years ago.
Comments
Post a Comment