Author Archives: Rabbi

     The turmoil in the Muslim world is both shocking and familiar. It is shocking because dictatorships usually engender stability – even if the stability is coerced – and because the media drumbeats always portray the fearless leader as a national symbol of glory and strength, beloved by the masses. Tunisia and Egypt – now with changes of government, albeit uncertain ones – have already succumbed to mass protests. Now, discontent is boiling over in Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, Iran and elsewhere. And these scenes are familiar because they are depicted as following a narrative – even a template – that Americans recognize: the yearnings for freedom and liberty that animated the American Revolution 235 years ago and the anti-Communist rebellion in Eastern Europe just two decades ago. That the narrative is familiar does not make it accurate, and thus the need for caution and guarded pessimism.

     We are not dealing here with Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison has yet to be resurrected. There is not the slightest indication that true democracy is a desideratum of the protesters, who are faceless and without an obvious cause or banner. That the military rulers, for example, have maintained that the Egyptian-Israel peace treaty will be honored, was to be expected. What was concealed, though, was the antipathy to the treaty by others who are being touted as presidential material – one, the Western hero Ayman Nour, who was imprisoned by Mubarak for running against him in the last “election,” has already announced both his candidacy and the “irrelevance” of the treaty, which, to his mind, needs to be re-negotiated. Others range from lukewarm to hostile, and the Muslim Brotherhood is obviously antagonistic, having assassinated Anwar Sadat almost 30 years ago for, among other sins, his treaty with Israel.

     Winston Churchill said it best: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” The cuteness of the remark obscures the insight. The strength of democracy is that it allows a majority of people to chart their own destiny, and allows the governed to regularly give their consent to those who govern. The underlying assumption of democracy (as we know it) is that people can be trusted to make cogent, intelligent, rational and sophisticated decisions about the type of society, laws, and rulers they want. Unfortunately, that assumption reflects the great flaw of democracy: sometimes the people don’t know – or care – what they’re doing; sometimes the people will sacrifice stability, common sense and long-term goals for the appeal of oleaginous demagogues, insincere promises, and short-term lucre. In an American context – in the world’s greatest democracy – we are not unfamiliar with mobs voting for poor choices – crooks, thieves, knaves and thugs who make outlandish promises they have no intention of fulfilling. What can we then say about the rest of the world ?

    It needs to be remembered that Adolf Hitler ran in democratic elections, and although his party never won a majority of the votes, he did eventually win a plurality that led to his appointment as Chancellor. However we look at it, with all possible caveats, democratic elections brought a Hitler to power. We would like to think that a Stalin, a Mao, a Tito, et al would not have been elected by free people; don’t be too sure. Stalin and Mao, murderers of more than 100,000,000 of their own countrymen, are still enormously popular in their countries. (Mao’s portrait “graces” every Chinese bill in circulation.) What has become a modern-day mantra – the fear of “one man, one vote, one time” – is not far from reality. There are many people who will vote to be enslaved, as long as it is not presented as enslavement. For that reason, Aristotle deprecated democracy as “mob rule.”

    In that sense, the Muslim Middle East represents a particular muddle. Americans and Westerners may fantasize that Egyptians, Tunisians – and perhaps Bahrainis, Yemenis, Syrians, etc. – will overthrow their autocrats and implement parliamentary or republican democracies, in which authorized representatives accountable to the people enact laws, minority rights are protected, basic civil rights are preserved, liberty and free enterprise are guaranteed, and power changes hands through orderly elections whose outcomes are heeded. But that is a pipedream, as likely as a candidate in any of those elections running on a pro-Zionist platform.

          It is almost impossible to conjure a scenario in which a democracy will be established and sustained in any of those countries. Three possibilities are much more likely, each fraught with potential danger. In Egypt, for example, the army has seized power, after orchestrating an overthrow of Mubarak, and military control of government is a common phenomenon. Mubarak, Sadat and Nasser all had military backgrounds that assisted them in their drive for power. The army might also appoint a strong-man, essentially a replacement for the previous autocrat, but perhaps someone with a kinder face and more pleasing disposition. That strong-man might be from the military, or even a civilian who rules but owes his power to the military. Both those possibilities are washes, in which nothing really changes on the ground, but with two consequences. Stability is restored, but the seeds are planted for future discontent, and statecraft is again the domain of one person instead of a government. So, for example, Egypt-Israel relations could deteriorate further if the strong-man is so inclined, or revert to the coldness of the Mubarak era. All follows the whim of the ruler.

     Both those possibilities – in Egypt and elsewhere – are preferable to the third possibility: the encroachment by radical Islam on the organs of government and their eventual takeover. Unfortunately, the history of the Muslim world points to this as the most likely outcome except in those states in which there is a powerful, explicit and countervailing military presence. In Islam, power often flows to the lowest common denominator – to the most radical elements that are less hesitant about using force to sustain their power. (Khomeini’s secret police rivaled the Shah’s in their brutality.)And the lure of Islam as a simplistic answer to every problem that afflicts Muslim society is compelling enough to carry elections – along with the promise of paradise for voters and purgatory for opponents. They could easily win – just look at the electoral success of Hezbollah in Lebanon, now the controlling force in that country.

    The sands are shifting in the Middle East, and the unease in Israel is warranted. To date, the statements emanating from the Arab world are predictable. That two Iranian warships are sailing through the Suez Canal in the next few days en route to Syria – a clear provocation to Israel – is worrisome, and the sort of endeavor that Mubarak – an adversary of Iran – would not have permitted. Israel’s best hope for the short term rests in Arab strong men holding power, ameliorating the people’s economic woes, and ensuring stability and the maintenance of ties and interests. It also has to re-calibrate its diplomacy and realize the futility of exchanging real assets for the personal commitments of tenuous dictators.

    Indeed, its best strategy is one that was articulated years ago by Natan Sharansky (who greatly influenced President Bush): insist on real democratization in the Arab world as a pre-condition to diplomatic progress. That should guarantee a long and endless process that allows Israel sufficient time and opportunity to put facts on the ground that make Jewish settlement in Israel permanent and attractive and Arab residence temporary and unappealing.     

     What it should not do is look to the superficial aspects of democracy – an election – as a sign of a greater transformation. Often, when “the people have spoken,” they have either made no sense, or have acted contrary to their real interests and wellbeing. That is democracy’s internal – and eternal – weakness.

      A dictator never sleeps easily, but the longevity of any particular despot seems to depend on the depth of his wickedness. Bad dictators do not endure as long as do absolutely evil dictators. That is to say, the worse the person, the more depraved and murderous the dictator, the more likely it is that he will remain in power and the less likely it is than he will be overthrown by a popular revolution.

     The reason is clear: dictators whose brutality knows no limits will wantonly murder civilians who challenge their rule. Hitler and Stalin, of course, stand out in this genre as they murdered civilians by the millions (and Stalin almost all his own citizens), as does Assad of Syria, who liquidated an entire city – Hama – with its population of 20,000 when they threatened his regime in 1982. Mao Zedong likely murdered more civilians than Stalin and Hitler combined, and died a peaceful death. Pol Pot, who executed approximately two million fellow Cambodians, is another who escaped justice. The crueler they are, the less they are encumbered by any sense of restraint or proportion.

   Dictators who are bad, rather than atrocious, are more susceptible to popular uprising, and Mubarak falls into that category. These are second-tier tyrants, who usually imprison or murder political opponents but are not wanton executioners, and thus fall prey to popular revolt. Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, even the parade of Latin American tin pot dictators like Somoza, Pinochet, Peron, Noriega (he was overthrown by the United States) and others were driven from power by popular rebellions, often aided by the military.

    Indeed, the only way the completely evil dictators are ever deposed is through a military rebellion, as it is the military that enables them to maintain their grip on power and can readily detach that grip as well. Thus, Idi Amin was exiled by his army, and Hitler himself almost killed in July 1944 by a military conspiracy. Stalin, aware of this dynamic, executed almost his entire officer corps in the 1930s to prevent any semblance of opposition from arising against him. Mussolini was deposed and arrested by members of his own government.

      The Communist regimes in Eastern Europe were toppled in the late 1980s and early 1990s because their autocrats, although repressive, never engaged in mass slaughter of civilians. Much the same could be said of the collapse of the Soviet Union, whose rulers allowed it to come apart. In fact, the classification of despots reflects this division. The merely “bad” dictators are often referred to as “authoritarians” or “totalitarians,” whereas the heinous, depraved rulers are termed “dictators.” The major difference between the Eastern European era of repression on 1968 and the era of freedom in 1989 and thereafter was that, unlike Brezhnev, Gorbachev did not send in the tanks to bolster the old Communist regimes.

     They are all despicable, to be sure, but it is ironic that the more fiendish the dictator, the more he is likely to survive, and it is the relative moderation of the others that facilitates popular uprisings. As in Mubarak’s case – and in the rest of the Arab world – the street does not matter as much as the support of the military. But, oddly, a Mubarak can be driven from power not because he was brutal or repressive but because he was not brutal or repressive enough.

     Here’s another irony that is now old news. The Arab “Wikileaks” scandal (the release by Al-Jazeera of PA diplomatic correspondence) sent Abbas and company into a frenzy when it was allegedly revealed that they had entertained making certain concessions to Israel – acceptance of most settlements, a limitation on the re-flooding of Israel with “refugees” (known as the “Right” of Return), deep security cooperation, and other tantalizing notions. In truth, it is still unknown whether these were PA positions or simply their record of Israeli concessions. But rather than bask in their unexpected “moderation,” the PA was quick to castigate Al-Jazeera and deny making any concessions at all. Most diplomats concerned with public relations would have been quick to embrace their efforts at “peace-making” as good news, a sign of progress and maturity. Instead the PA perceived this as an attempt to overthrow their government and besmirch them in the eyes of their public.

    This strange reaction presents only two possibilities: that the PA negotiators are insincere, and are only trying to induce more and more Israeli concessions in exchange for nothing (a winning tactic for twenty years); or that the PA negotiators are sincere, but they recognize that their public will never consider  or accept a permanent peace with Israel. Rather than prepare the average Palestinians for the give-and-take of negotiations in which not every demand will be satisfied, the leadership is completely incapable of transforming Palestinian society from being enthusiastic purveyors of terror into being proponents of c o-existence.

   Either way, it reflects the sheer insanity of a continued “peace process,” notwithstanding Tom Friedman’s tedious advice (that he has been proffering for…30 years) that now is the last and best opportunity for Israel to make peace. His theory – that Mubarak’s downfall will usher in a wave of radical Islamic governments across the region, and therefore peace must come now, immediately and without delay, with Israel making all the concessions necessary – is as foolish and irrational as most of his advice has always been (so, nominate him for another Pulitzer). Making “peace” (meaning, signing agreements and having ceremonies) with people who cannot enforce it, and are unelected rulers soon to be deposed, makes as much sense as embarking on a cross-country trip now in an old jalopy, because the car is dying and may not be available in a week. Well, yes, but the same car will break down on the journey – like the Oslo train stalled because of terror, rockets, Hamas, and a violation of all agreements to date.

    So why would he think that this new agreement, just another agreement, would not meet the same fate and dissolve into more terror and more vulnerability for Israel? Well, maybe that is not such a concern for him, all his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. More to the point, when will people stop taking seriously the policy recommendations of a person who has been consistently wrong for decades ?

     And from irony to farce:  The “peaceful” revolution is Egypt, in which the police and military have been lauded for their “restraint,” has to date claimed over 300 lives. That is, 300 Egyptians have been killed in the rioting in a little over a week. And yet, strangely enough, there has been no reference to use of “excessive force,” no laments over the killing of unarmed, innocent civilians, and no calls for UN Security Council condemnations, all standard operating procedure when Israel kills Arab terrorists.

     Could it be… hypocrisy ? Might it be a … double standard ? Or perhaps just vicious, anti-Israel propaganda, all to remind us that next time those accusations are lodged against Israel – and there will be a next time – ignore them.

   So a secular, Western-leaning Middle Eastern country with an authoritarian ruler and openly linked to Israel is beset by mobs of its own citizens calling for the overthrow of their own dictatorship. Where have we seen this story before ? Iran, circa 1979. There is an uncanny resemblance between that Iran and today’s Egypt, even in the “blessings” bestowed on each by American leaders (Jimmy Carter praised Iran as an “island of stability” just a month before demonstrations erupted, and Hillary Clinton declared the Mubarak government “stable,” just one week before he announced he will not seek re-election.) More importantly, Egypt’s fate is likely to be remarkably similar to that of Iran.

   The riots in Egypt are not rooted in a coherent and uniform message. The protests originated, typically for the region, over an increase in the price of bread, an economic catastrophe in a poor kleptocracy in which more than half the population lives in poverty and subsists on less that $2 per day, and the ruling elite enrich themselves at the public’s expense. But the peasants were joined by opponents of the brutality of the Egyptian regime and its secret police, most ominously by the radical Muslim Brotherhood (the terrorist group that has spawned Hamas and Hezbollah and has roots in Al Qaeda), and fatuously by individuals calling for “democracy” and “freedom” – those mostly Western journalists and the handful of Egyptian elitists who feed them information that they naively swallow and disseminate. Suffice it to say, democracy – not at all indigenous to the Middle East and completely unknown in that region outside of Israel – is the least likely outcome of the turmoil in Egypt. A true democracy in Egypt is as likely as Hosni Mubarak succeeding Shimon Peres as president of Israel.

    Recent history in the region demonstrates that, given the choice, Arabs will vote for an even more repressive dictatorship than the one they rejected in the streets. “Democracy” is limited to voting, but has not been extended to such basic concepts as individual liberties, protection of minority rights, and an independent judiciary. That has been the reality in Gaza and Lebanon, and elsewhere. Even where they overthrew their jailers, they immediately voted for a new jailer, as much as testimony to the incongruity of freedom in that part of the world as it is to the inchoate human desire for stability, security, and, yes, bread.

     In Iran, for all the talk of democracy and opposition to the Shah’s oppression, it took only a few months for the “people” to vote for an Islamic theocracy. Note that, as is likely in Egypt, the Islamic rulers did not assume power immediately. There was an intervening “secular” leader – the pro-democracy Mehdi Bazargan – who stepped down when the US Embassy in Teheran was sacked in November 1979. Change the name and place to Mohammed El-Baradei in today’s Egypt, and a similar scenario unfolds – a figurehead who holds power and lulls the world to sleep while the radical Muslims plot their ascension.

    This el-Baradei is a character in his own right, Noble Peace Prize winner (but, then again, so was Yasser Arafat) for his “work” in not discovering the Iranian nuclear program. He thus has solid Western credentials (awards and acclaim with no accomplishments). And even though he has not lived in Egypt for decades, and has no base of support, he will be a useful foil for radical forces as they gradually seize control of Egypt.

    There are ironies in this affair, as well as a lesson that must be learned and implemented. Despite the rhetoric about the police/military not firing on protesters, well over 100 Egyptians have already been killed since the beginning of the revolution. I recall very well the oleaginous, contemptuous words that Mubarak spat at Israel when Israel was attempting to suppress the Arab civil war in Israel – how violence was disgraceful, how Israel must stop using lethal force against unarmed demonstrators, about human rights, the children, the innocent, the occupation, etc. That the shoe is now on his face – and he responds with typical brutality (granted, it could have been worse) – only points out the utter hypocrisy of his earlier complaints.

    Additionally, reports of the looting of the Egypt National Museum and the theft of antiquities by some of the demonstrators (obviously, the cultured ones) recall the sneering criticism lobbed at President Bush, who apparently should have prevented Iraqis from stealing the valuables from Baghdad’s museums. Clearly, though, one cannot have greater respect for a nation’s cultural past – than citizens of that nation. And, it is astonishing how quickly events turn, and nations are transformed. Just six months before the Shah fled, the CIA reported that Iran was not “in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation.” The Soviet Union seemingly collapsed suddenly. Who would have thought – even two weeks ago – that Egyptian-Americans in Astoria, Queens would be marching in the streets and chanting for Mubarak’s overthrow ? Who even knew there were Egyptian-Americans – and Mubarak enemies – in Astoria, Queens ? There is a spontaneity,  a suddenness to the downfall, a snowball effect in street revolutions – and, I can’t help thinking, the hidden hand of Iran, Egypt’s main rival for supremacy in the Muslim world – an Iran, no doubt alarmed by the Wikileaks disclosures that Mubarak was actively campaigning for America or Israel to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

    All of which points to the inherent instability of the dictatorship, which always resembles an earthquake before the ground is sundered: a veneer of stability that conceals extreme turbulence underneath the surface. That is why negotiations with dictatorships are usually futile and self-destructive. Israel is living – as always – through very anxious moments, as the fate of its treaty with Egypt hangs in the balance. There is always an asymmetry in negotiations between democracies and dictatorships. A democracy can never repudiate a treaty signed by a predecessor government, because it is the government that is the symbol of continuity and not any particular person. Thus, Yitzchak Shamir voted against the Israel-Egypt treaty as a member of Knesset, but honored it as prime minister, as did President Reagan and the Panama Canal Treaty. But a treaty with a dictator is a treaty with one person, and whether that treaty survives that person is always a gamble. Mubarak honored Sadat’s treaty, even though he ushered in the coldest peace imaginable and never even visited Israel in his 30 years in power (except briefly for the Rabin funeral). Will Mubarak’s successor honor the treaty ? In the short term, undoubtedly, but in the longer term – even one or two years from now ? Don’t bet on it, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood seizes control of the government officially or unofficially. If so, count on the discovery of a list of Israeli “breaches” of the agreement that enable the Egyptians to renounce it.

     Two democracies will always honor treaties with each other. The actions of a dictatorship are always speculative, based on the whims of one man. The bigger danger that emerges from such asymmetrical negotiations is that the democracy – i.e., Israel – always winds up trading away tangible assets in exchange for words and promises. Israel relinquished to Egypt substantial territory – the Sinai Peninsula and  its strategic depth, and vital material assets – the Abu Rodeis oil fields, all in exchange for intangible verbiage on a piece of paper. Will Egypt post-Mubarak continue to sell oil and natural gas to Israel, as per the terms of the treaty ? Will Egypt maintain its demilitarization of Sinai ? Will it move its forces into Sinai to test Israel and its patience ? Who knows ?

    What a democracy gives up in such negotiations is very hard to retrieve, and what it gains is very easily lost. Yet, Israel finds itself in the same position regarding the never-ending “peace” process with the Palestinians, with the advantage that Israel already knows that its interlocutor does not fulfill its commitments under the various treaties signed – and yet it still hungers for more agreements. The instability of the Egyptian dictatorship demonstrates the futility and menace of continued negotiations with the Palestinian dictatorship. But is there a way to express this in diplomatese that makes it obvious to the neutral third-party (if there are any such left) or to the Israeli public ?

       It is also ironic that because of the treaty with Israel, Mubarak was deprived of the staple of his fellow Arab dictators – distracting the masses from their miserable lives by inciting them against Israel and blaming Israel for all Arab woes. The Arab potentate – think Assad, father and son, for example – is skilled at fomenting hatred towards Israel as a release valve for pent-up frustration. The treaty deprived Mubarak of that option.

      Some might argue that the Israel-Egypt peace treaty was still worthwhile, because it bought 30 years of non-aggression, and there is a compelling logic to that argument. Most Israelis have grown up with a “peaceful” Egypt. But, even aside from the basic principle that no country should ever return to an aggressor territory that it won in a defensive war against that aggressor, it is clear that such treaties will not endure. Ultimately, though, the price is paid, and when it is paid, it is especially deadly and disheartening. It is true that one can only make peace with enemies, and one can’t choose one’s enemies – but it is also true that one can’t always enter into a true peace with an enemy, especially an enemy that does not identify with cherished values such as freedom, liberty and individual rights.

    That will be the true measure of the Arab world, but that day is far off, notwithstanding the sincere but misguided efforts in this direction of President Bush. So Israel is in for some difficult days – but it will manage well if it learns from this debacle the perils of asymmetrical negotiations. It will manage even better if it remains true to our heritage and worthy of Divine Providence, in these most interesting times.