A Failure to Communicate

Why doesn't Israel understand the Arab Spring?

BY SALMAN SHAIKH | FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Such a development, in my view, must be celebrated and facilitated by Israel. I warned the Israeli audience that, if they disparage the new Arab politics, they will only undermine Israel's narrative that it is "the only democracy in the Middle East." Indeed, I went on to say, it is the responsibility of Western and Israeli policymakers to exorcise themselves of their "autocracy addiction" and instead work to build real stability in the Middle East. Israelis must embrace democratic change in the region. Anti-Israeli sentiments may become more prominent as popularly elected governments take power, but it is better to address these challenges head-on than to ignore them, I asserted.

Since the outbreak of the Arab Awakening, the prevailing impulse in Israel is to circle the wagons and turn away from the turmoil in the region. However, I argued, there is a need to look over the horizon. Rather than noting the efforts of transitioning countries to democratize or welcoming new leadership in the region, Israel, itself a democracy, is characterizing the spread of representative governance across the Middle East solely as a threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's description of the Arab Spring as an "Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli, undemocratic wave" reflects the prevailing security-first mindset.

Ultimately, no one has "lost the Arab Spring to the Islamists," I argued. The democratic opening in the region represents a chance for all to gain, and Israel too has a role to play -- by making a renewed effort to resolve the Palestinian issue. Arabs will not forget that their national narratives are intertwined with the Palestinian narrative, I explained. That is why lasting peace with them requires lasting peace with Palestinians.

The immediate reaction to my opening remarks was an attentive silence. Throughout my short trip, the overwhelming sense I received was that Israelis remain highly skeptical of changes in the region and are understandably fearful of what they will bring. This sentiment was echoed in the remarks at Herzliya by the director of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, and by Defense Secretary Ehud Barak, who spoke from the podium about turmoil in the region and the immediate threats it poses to Israel. "We are facing a Middle East which will be more hostile," Kochavi noted.

Barak struck a more hopeful note, arguing that democracy in the Arab world will be a positive development in the long run -- yet short-term fears seem to dominate the Israeli psyche. "The skies are clouding over what is known as the Arab Spring," he said.

But I also heard from Israelis who realized that Israel cannot hide from the events shaking the region. Throughout the day, Israelis approached me to commend what I had said, with one going so far as to remark: "This is what Israelis need to hear." These Israelis were, notably, the ones whose horizons went beyond the borders of Israel. They were trying to see changes in the region from the perspective of the Arab people aspiring for democracy, rather than only through the lens of Israel's security concerns.

The day after speaking at Herzliya, I traveled to Ramallah for meetings with notable Palestinian leaders. There, the overwhelming sentiment was one of hopelessness. In fact, one highly connected Palestinian said this was the most difficult period for his people since 1948. He also expressed concern that Palestine's young population -- almost half of which is under age 20 -- had not experienced the heady, nationalist struggle of Yasir Arafat or the hope of the Oslo Accords. This hopelessness, especially among the young, could lead to increased radicalization and more protests.

The entire trip was an important wake-up call. It highlighted the degree to which each side is isolated from the other. Interestingly, some Palestinians and Israelis united over their criticism of me: Palestinians and Arabs lambasted me for attending the Israeli-run conference, and many Israelis remain skeptical of my message that the events of the Arab Spring are not necessarily threatening to Israel. But the divisions between the two sides are becoming more deeply entrenched, and these barriers to engagement will make a future peace agreement more elusive. The world is changing around us, and we must too.

Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

 

Salman Shaikh is director of the Brookings Doha Center and fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He previously served as the special assistant to the U.N. special coordinator for the Middle East peace process.

HAMID KARZAN - KING OF THE JUNGLE

5:47 PM ET

February 9, 2012

Shari'a law is a sticking point

I largely agree with this assessment, but the issue of Shari'a law as the basis for these new legal systems (as is supported by the majority of Egyptian MPs) is problematic to me. While any state has the right to address its judiciary with respect to its own culture and history, the idea that a national legal system would be based largely on the Muslim religious code is anathema to the continuation of Egypt as a multicultural and multireligious society.

I would say that where conservative Westerners are right (whether they know it or not is unclear) is that the building blocks of a government should be above all else unpartisan and unpolitical. The clear primacy of Islamist parties, despite the fact that they are - as you said - completely democratic makes it unlikely that these Middle Eastern countries will be able to embrace other cultures and religions in the future.

Despite their best intentions, men create governments which reflect their view of the world. That, and not some Taliban style takeover, is what I fear in the Middle East.

 

JIVATMANX

6:44 PM ET

February 9, 2012

You do know that Rick

You do know that Rick Santorum has said that the bible should be the basis for all legislation, right?

That's what those constitutions say. And they have said ALREADY said for over four decades, even in the most secular of the former Arab dictatorships.

It's basic boilerplate for the Arab world.

 

DELTA22

2:40 AM ET

February 10, 2012

-

""We are facing a Middle East which will be more hostile."

That's exactly the wrong way of looking at things. Arabs have always been angry with Israel....autocrats like Mubarak held back the tide of popular opinion, but we all knew they couldn't have lasted forever. What Israel needs to do is make a serious effort at resolving the Palestinian conflict and ending the occupation. Otherwise it will continue to shred its moral legitimacy and continue to destabilize the region.

 

OFERDESADE

4:16 AM ET

February 10, 2012

why would islamic parties be different from jewish/catholic

in all cases, a subordination to religious doctrine undermines the social contract. in all cases, the advances in human rights and equality between religions, sexes, etc. made within non-religious contexts contradicts any religion's claim to supremacy, the claim of its clergy (predominantly male) tha women are ... other. in all cases an elected official will always be subordinated to one appointed from within that clergy to maintain its own standing (mark you, not the standing of the religion but of its clergy - witness the sexual coverup). obviously the murderous intents of the original texts in - at least - the bible and the koran have been sublimated, mostl;y to gain recognition within the status quo, but, as with jewish right-wingers and islamist extremists, we can see exactly what that is worth. just like in judaism and catholicism, islam too has its "nice" people, but when the extremists are at bey, nice people tend to quiver in hiding. that's why human history is replete with not nice things.
any attempt to hide these facts are a whitewash - at best, an ostrich-like inability to face truth - at worst.

 

LECIAT

9:00 AM ET

February 10, 2012

ask the coptics

how this islamist democracy is working out for them. of course if the migration of coptics out of egypt continues at it’s current pace, in a decade there will be no coptics left , then i guess there will be islamist democracy for all (except for women and gays of course).

 

JIVATMANX

10:42 AM ET

February 10, 2012

You mean the migration that

You mean the migration that began under Mubarak, and is continuing as the Military, with more power than ever before, is purposely allowing crime of all kinds to proliferate in order to scare people into allowing then to stay in power?

 

SPOOD

3:48 PM ET

February 10, 2012

Migration?

What some call "migration", others call fleeing sectarian persecution and fleeing for their lives.

At best you can call it ethnic cleanisng.

 

URGELT

1:57 PM ET

February 10, 2012

"If Islamists want to remain

"If Islamists want to remain in power, they will, like any other party, have to deliver on popular demands and practice inclusion, tolerance, and respect for women and minorities."

Will they?

Democracy is rule by the majority. Inclusion of minority voices, tolerance, and respect for human rights are variables in the democratic equation. Our own founders, fearing majority rule, inserted all manner of safeguards into our Constitution, then took a second look and added the Bill of Rights. They were wary of majority rule, and rightly so.

Such guardianship of civil rights is not automatic, and it's not a teaching of Islam.

Egypt's experiment with democracy is already turning towards intolerance, the most visible evidence being the prosecution of employees of NGOs for daring to promote what most of us would consider the standard safeguards of civil rights within a functioning democracy.

The fact is that you *can* have democracy without those safeguards. And if the majority is intolerant, you can have democracy with horrid abuses.

In Tunisia, the new stewards of democratic rule have decided to continue the last regime's policies of monitoring citizen use of the internet and censoring what they can see.

Democracy, by itself, is no guarantor of civil liberties. It is wise to remember that fact.

 

DILBERT

3:50 PM ET

February 10, 2012

The Arab Spring is not

about democracy. The people who finally lost their fear of repression and went out to demonstrate were simply fed up with the hopelessness of their lives, preferring to blame their lack of hope on the rampant corruption that seems to be an integral part of the Arab way of life. They weren't fighting to install western democracy - they simply wanted the "have's" to change places with the "have-not's" - as if this would solve anything.

A very keen observation on the Egyptian revolution was that the people went out into the streets because they were poor and hungry. Now, they have succeeded to get rid of the hated Mubarak and they are still poor and hungry.

Any student of history can tell you that liberal democratic thinking is not going to just "spring-up" in the Arab world. There have been many Arab revolutions in the past with violent changes of power, and none have led to anything close forming a free democratic society. Whenever "democratic" elections were held, they were always of they type "One Man, One Vote, One Time".

If these were true democracies being formed, then Israel would be the first in line to welcome these reformed societies to the civilized world. As it seems these societies are moving in just the opposite direction, Israel has very good reasons to be wary of the new virulently antisemitic adversaries taking the place of former somewhat-peaceful neighbors.

 

DILBERT

3:54 PM ET

February 10, 2012

and what does

the picture shown with this article have to do with anything??