Earlier this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel warned a group of European diplomats of the result of ‘the riots’ in Egypt and the possibility that the government could fall in the hands of radical Islamists. Amidst concern for what is happening across its southern border, Israel struggles with a haunting fear that the ‘democratic Jewish state’ may end up with an extremist neighbor. Personally, I found Netanyahu’s remarks repulsive for two reasons.
Firstly, it is quite puzzling to me why Jewish extremism is less threatening than Muslim radicalism. Recently, we have witnessed a shift in Israel’s form of government from a somewhat democratic type to a religious extremist one. In numerous occasions Netanyahu himself has celebrated and encouraged religious extremism in his country with his support of Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and his defense of the occupation of ‘Jewish land’ in the West Bank and Gaza. Also, as was reviewed in DC, he has refused to take any action against religious officials after they incited hatred against Arab minorities.
Secondly, the Prime Minister insists on the existence of an ‘Islamic threat’ despite numerous testimonies and evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood represents only a segment of the Egyptian people. Of course, Netanyahu knows full well that playing the ‘Muslim extremism card’ is politically powerful in a world that has turned Islamophobic. To give just one recent example, the former US Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mary-Beth Long, has voiced concern over the ‘democratic moves’ in the Arab world. She cautioned that the consequences of overthrowing old regimes might be both a threat to American interests in the region as well as Israel’s security.
This is a paternalist approach that has been used by previous colonialist powers. The idea is that Arabs are not ready for democracy and possibly do not deserve it yet, especially when it might create unwanted results for the Western democratic world and for Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu considers Israel the only stable country in the rocky region. In fact, time and again, the Israeli government uses the instability of the region as an excuse to turn away from seeking a serious solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Based on the revelations in the WikiLeaks, Netanyahu has stressed that Arab governments do not see Israel as a major threat to the region. But he failed to add that these governments are oppressive regimes that are kept in power with the support of their Western democratic allies.
We are witnessing the spread of unrest in many Arab countries. After Tunisia and Egypt, people in Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, and Bahrain are taking to the streets because they too are fed up with their governments who are far from democratic and do not respect their citizens. But remember that a number of those rulers are supported by the United States, who claim to be advocates of democracy. And the citizens of the Arab world are sick and tired of American hypocrisy that condones their oppression for the sake of preserving American and Israeli interest.
Not convinced? Take a look at a sign that was held up during a protest in Lebanon: Former president Mubarak’s head is adorned with a Jewish star and an American flag. Consider also the banner that could be seen above the heads of Egyptian protesters: “talk to Mubarak in Hebrew, he might understand.” The Arab streets are enraged. Particularly with the US because it does not practice what it preaches. It preaches democratic rights and freedoms, but does not condemn oppressive rulers in the Arab world. It constantly sides with Israel even when Israel abuses the rights of its minorities. The US acts as a democracy but will turn a blind eye to the democratic rights of others whenever its strategic and regional interests are at stake.
Thus when Netanyahu talks about fear of an extremist neighbor and says that his own country is stable, he is utterly mistaken. The stability of Israel is conditional upon and interrelated with the region’s oppression. And it is Israel’s own oppressive and arrogant behavior, NOT its Jewish character, which causes the resentment of the Arab world..
ليت كلماتك تسمع من به صمم
A good contribution and analysis,however I feel something is missing. Where are we from the trinity mentioned ” America,Israel&Egypt?” Aren’t we at the heart of this whole issue? What about our regime and People?
I am glad you appreciate the post, but wonder who the “we” is in your comment.
Thank you for your post.
I appreciate your attempts to challenge the assumption that Islamic rule is a dangerous threat. Moreover, you do draw attention to the colonial paternalism that still plagues the relationship between the so-called West and the “rest.”
However, I believe that your allusion to the fact that “the Muslim Brotherhood represents only a segment of Egyptian society” plays right into the argument that you are writing against. Simply by making this claim and pointing to testimonies of it, you are suggesting that Islamic fanaticism would be a “threat” if more Egyptians were part of the Brotherhood.
In addition, I always find it very problematic to refer to the “Arab street,” and, in your case, the “Arab streets.” This characterization generalizes and homogenizes the diversity and complexities of Arabs and Muslims across the globe. Moreover, it ignores those who identify themselves as Kurds, Berber, Druze, Persian-speaking, etc. How often have you heard “the American street” or the “French street”?
Most significantly, in my opinion, your article (as well as the “Arab street”) ignores the Shi’a minorities and majorities in the Arab world, including Egypt. The coverage of Egypt has focused mainly on sectarian relations between Sunni Muslims and Copts; however, this, once again, ignores the minority Shi’a population that has been systematically oppressed. Most do not know that Shi’a are often NOT allowed to build mosques.
Whereas Mubarak has been removed, I think that the Shi’a will face greater opposition, less international recognition and support, and will be treated with complete indifference. The case of Bahrain presents a strong support to my argument. Any discussion of Bahrain brings in the threat it poses to American interests, esp. military, and the fear that Bahrain will become an Iranian ally. A Shi’a success in Bahrain also presents a dilemma to other tyrants in the Persian Gulf–give the Shi’a more rights, stop the systematic discrimination of them, or else…
I will also note that the recent massacre carried out by the Bahraini regime will only continue to fuel the resistance. Any further atrocities will likewise only strengthen the movement. After all, Shi’ism is a religion that recognizes, commemorates, and unites around its martyrs.
Lastly, I think that you should recognize that anti-Semitism DOES EXIST–even in the Arab world. Just as you claim there exists a repulsive and dangerous Islamophobia, anti-Semitism is equally as repulsive and dangerous. Though there are different formulations and manifestations of each, there are also many similarities. Like those who claim that anti-Semitism has been eradicated in the United States, you are also neglecting the obvious appearances of such religiously and ethnically inscribed forms of discrimination and hatred.
Apparently Egyptians, Tunisians, and perhaps even Libyans have moved forward from trying to blame their problems on foreigners to replacing their repressive and corrupt governments. This post goes back to a former time when Arab dictators got their way by blaming the misery they caused on Israel.
Actually, many of those repressive and corrupt governments were and are are supported by “foreigners.” Take the example of Bahrain and the United States’ unwavering support for the regime.