We wouldn’t be the first to say it, but there’s a domino effect taking place across the Middle East. What started in Tunisia has spread, to Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, even Syria. It’s an amazing thing to witness popular unrest, when people finally come out onto the streets in droves, citizen who have felt oppressed or unrepresented.
It’s positively heady. Knowing there’s that kind of energy out there, that people do possess the desire and will to change their reality and to speak out against entrenched power. It brings to mind the late months of 1989, when one by one the former communist satellite states in Eastern Europe fell.
Unfortunately, however, as numerous commentators have pointed out, change is not always a good thing. For example, who will fill the power vacuum? And, in the case of Egypt, how will regime change impact Israel, which has benefitted from a good – and most importantly, stable – relationship with Mubarak?
Regime change is taking place, but of what kind? One of this week’s IJN editorials, “Egypt: elections, democracy not the same” reminds us that holding elections and democracy are not necessarily equivalent. After all, Hitler was elected democratically, as was Hamas in Gaza. The process to get into power may have been democratic, but what about what followed? The Hamas example could very well be replicated by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
The IJN’s Tehilla Goldberg expresses similar concerns in her View from Central Park column. There’s a real conflict between supporting popular uprising and concern for the aftereffects. As Prof. Shaul Gabby recalls in his conversation with the IJN’s Andrea Jacobs, “‘Remember the 1979 revolution in Iran?'”, the original idea behind ousting the Shah was to institute democracy. But, Gabbay continues, “It’s fallacious to assume that democratically elected leaders in the Mideast equate with actual democracy.”
So Mubarak looks set to go, with his successor unclear; in Lebanon Hezbollah’s taken hold; and in Jordan, the other of Israel’s two Middle Eastern allies, the moderate monarchy is also under threat from extremism. It doesn’t look very good for Israel, does it? But there’s always a silver lining, and in this case, two.
First, despite many of the internal political problems Israel has experienced during the last year, it’s become crystal clear that Israel really is the only functioning democracy in the region. We’ve noticed in more than one news report that correspondents have fled Cairo to Israel for safety.
And second, as this week’s IJN editorial points out – and which the New York Times’ Roger Cohen echoed – the myth of the Israel-Palestine conflict being the core problem in the Middle East has been exposed. No longer can the dictators (or world’s longest serving presidents if you want to be politically correct) usurp and manipulate this conflict to avoid serving the needs of their own populace. Perhaps the constant scapegoating of Israel might abate? (Or is that just too naive?)
We’ll leave you with a last question, which so far we haven’t seen addressed. Where are the women? In all of the television and news coverage of these varied events, we’ve hardly seen one woman participating in the protests. What does that say about democracy in the region?
What’s your opinion? Is change in the Middle East a good thing? Are you concerned about growing instability in the region? Or, ultimately, does concern for Israel trump whatever sympathy you may have for the protesters?
Post a comment and let us know what you think.
