« Arab League | Main | Wire Thread »
Um...
I'm not -- I'm really not -- one of those given to claiming that the entire neoconservative approach to Middle East policy is driven by Israeli security concerns. Nevertheless, it's hard to know what other conclusion to draw from this Weekly Standard article which spends 12 of its 13 paragraphs discussing recent improvements in Israel's geopolitical situation and then concludes: "America's influence, and elections like the one coming up in Iraq, may prove beneficially contagious in the Middle East--notwithstanding the contempt for the idea of encouraging the spread of democracy expressed by the chattering classes in the West." The article is quite literally unrelated to spreading democracy unless you operate on the assumption that "spreading democracy" and "encouraging authoritarian Arab regimes to be less hostile to Israel" denote identical concepts. As far as I can tell, these aren't even related concepts.
The penultimate graph even goes so far as to say "finally, Egyptian relations with Israel have warmed to the point where Israeli foreign ministry director general Ron Prosor said, on December 5, that Cairo will also reestablish its embassy-level relations with the Jewish state after the Palestinian elections. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak may visit Ariel Sharon in Israel." This is an interesting and noteworthy development, as are several of the other things flagged in the piece. But, obviously, Egypt's dictator deciding to hold a meeting with Ariel Sharon is not at all the same thing as Egypt's dictator deciding to bring democracy to Egypt. Indeed, one might be inclined to suspect that in the wake of "the first demonstration ever to take place against Mubarak’s rule," the Egyptian government is looking for quick and easy ways to get the Bush administration -- and the American right more broadly -- to support them, and that being nicer to Israel is one way to accomplish that.
December 13, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83437528553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Um...:
Comments
'The article is quite literally unrelated to spreading democracy unless you operate on the assumption that "spreading democracy" and "encouraging authoritarian Arab regimes to be less hostile to Israel" denote identical concepts. As far as I can tell, these aren't even related concepts.'
They are related in as much as many Arab countries have used Israel as a diversion away from their treatment of their own people.
Posted by: Ral | Dec 13, 2004 10:59:31 AM
It seems to me that Matthew is mistaking purpose for effect. While less hostility to Israel may be an effect of democracy promotion in the Middle East, that says nothing as to the purpose of democracy promotion.
Posted by: Al | Dec 13, 2004 11:11:32 AM
You have a guy that hangs out here named "modern crusader" and it suprises you?
Ever read Hal Lindsey? He is probably the father of apocolyptic zionism. He writes books on the end of the world every five years or so when his timeline doesn't work out and puts it out another five. His fans are the people steering this government and they want the world to be the two exceptional God Blessed Holy States vs. the satanic hordes. They are implementing God's will through public policy, setting the stage for Jesus to come back.
Posted by: absynthe | Dec 13, 2004 11:13:40 AM
While less hostility to Israel may be an effect of democracy promotion in the Middle East
You shouldn't smoke crack this early in the morning.
Posted by: absynthe | Dec 13, 2004 11:15:06 AM
I keep reading references to the return of Jesus, or the time when the "saved" will shed their clothes and fly to Heaven. And, when I do, I always wonder, why people assume that that event hasn't happened already. What if it happened in 450AD for example? How would we know? Surely, once that great event occurs those who are born a hundred years later will be unaware of it having already happening, and will themselves be waiting for the great day to arrive. (Just an idle thought on a foggy morning)
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Dec 13, 2004 11:24:04 AM
"... Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak may visit Ariel Sharon in Israel."
He had a visit scheduled that was cancelled when the IDF blew away those 3 Egyptian policemen on the Gaza border the other day. They thought they were open-season Palestinians, but it turned out they were a protected species.
Posted by: tex | Dec 13, 2004 11:30:12 AM
the IDF blew away those 3 Egyptian policemen
Wow, adding injury to insult. After that nice Mr. Mubarak ordered his security forces to block humanitarian aid to Rafah the other day!
Posted by: absynthe | Dec 13, 2004 11:32:50 AM
He had a visit scheduled that was cancelled when the IDF blew away those 3 Egyptian policemen on the Gaza border the other day.
I don't think it was Mubarak who had a visit scheduled. Maybe it was the Egyptian foreign minister.
Posted by: Haggai | Dec 13, 2004 11:36:19 AM
Yes, yes...I'm sure this is all very important. But where's the Wire thread? Do you really have nothing to say about Stringer Bell?
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Dec 13, 2004 11:50:38 AM
Bill Moyers had something to say the othre day on the Apocalypnik-Likudnik alliance.
A more democratic Middle East will probably be more hostile to Israel, rather than less, unless by "democracy" one refers to a bastardized version of polyarchy (as used by political scientist William Robinson).
Posted by: Dave M | Dec 13, 2004 11:57:54 AM
Just once, i'd like to see some names named when various members of the "chattering classes" are accused of "contempt" for the "idea of encouraging the spread of democracy." I see people express contempt for the way in which the backbone administration is going about this (or isn't going about this), and i see lots of people pointing out that democracy doesn't just come into existence because you throw out a dictator and hold an election, but contempt for the idea? who are these people?
PS. Haggai, did you see Arsenal-Chelsea?
Posted by: howard | Dec 13, 2004 12:32:27 PM
Didn't see it, howard. Looks like it was a pretty exciting game.
Posted by: Haggai | Dec 13, 2004 12:38:09 PM
"contempt for democracy" my ass.
These are the same people who applauded "New Europe" for bending over and sending a handful of troops when support for doing so ranged from 4% in Macedonia to the stellar 11% in Romania. I don't "democracy" means the same thing to them as it does to normal people. Obviously in their version peoples opinions don't have anything to do with it.
Posted by: absynthe | Dec 13, 2004 12:40:51 PM
You shouldn't smoke crack this early in the morning.
Lol, but I'm sure you know that in these folks' lingo the word 'democracy' means 'pro-American' and nothing else. It's just another newspeak word (like 'liberation') that now means the opposite of what it used to be. So, it's not so much about him smoking crack (although it's certainly a possibility), but rather him consuming US mass-media.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 13, 2004 2:04:52 PM
I agree that the article's author (Stephen Schwartz--who, if I'm not mistaken, is a Muslim) seems to conflate Arab democratization and Arab Israel-friendliness. But one writer's confusion is hardly proof positive of some kind of sinister international influence.
A more telling indication of which way the power flows between Washington and Jerusalem these days is the state of Israeli-Syrian relations. Facing withering pressure from the US over Iraq, and combined American-European pressure to withdraw from Lebanon, Syria has tried to extricate itself by making passionate overtures towards Israel, hinting that it would be willing to negotiate a peace deal on relatively favorable terms. Israel would probably like to explore (at least) the possibilities, but to do so would obviously undermine the US position, so Israel is sitting tight and rebuffing Syria's advances. That's how things really work in the Middle East--Israel trims its sails to suit the US much, much more than the reverse happens.
Posted by: Dan Simon | Dec 13, 2004 2:40:33 PM
Just once, i'd like to see some names named when various members of the "chattering classes" are accused of "contempt" for the "idea of encouraging the spread of democracy."
Charles Pierce took Hitchens to task on that after he'd claimed prominent people on the left were privately hoping for more body bags prior to the election. Hitchens, of course, declined to provide any names. As a British citizen, perhaps he thought the better of such a move since he could be sued at home for liable.
Posted by: Jeff I | Dec 13, 2004 2:53:51 PM
But anyone who claims that neocons have dual loyalties must be rabid anti-semites.
Posted by: Pat Buchanan | Dec 13, 2004 3:01:19 PM
I think the bottom line is that for these people "democracy" means "pro-US interests, pro-Israeli," but it's worse for being not cynical; they actually believe that they go hand-in-hand. They're crazy/stupid.
Posted by: Toadmonster | Dec 13, 2004 3:05:46 PM
The neocons are like the far left, in so far as they only really like democracy when it produces their favored outcome. Note Charles Krauthammer's "democratic realism," and its not-so-subtle insinuation that America should support Arab democracy as long as the governments elected are US client states and shills for Israel.
Posted by: Robert | Dec 13, 2004 3:09:11 PM
As opposed to, say, John Kerry's preference for "stability" in lieu of democracy. Let's face it, even if neocons are not 100% consistent in favor of democracy, they are 100% bett than the leftists, who prefer dictators to democrats every day of the week.
Posted by: Al | Dec 13, 2004 3:50:15 PM
Let's face it, even if neocons are not 100% consistent in favor of democracy, they are 100% bett than the leftists, who prefer dictators to democrats every day of the week.
Al, once again: if by 'democracy' you mean a pro-American strongman - and that's exactly what you mean - then how's John Kerry 100% worse? No, he's 100% exactly the same with 100% less bullshit.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 13, 2004 5:11:33 PM
Al LOVES Shia Theocracies.
Posted by: Harold Babar | Dec 13, 2004 5:15:15 PM
"Let's face it, even if neocons are not 100% consistent in favor of democracy, they are 100% bett than the leftists, who prefer dictators to democrats every day of the week."
Because the left adored Pinochet over the democratically elected Allende!
Posted by: Snarkasaurus Rex | Dec 13, 2004 6:06:38 PM
if by 'democracy' you mean a pro-American strongman - and that's exactly what you mean
No, I mean a freely and fairly elected pro-American leader. Absent that, I'll take a freely and fairly elected anti-American leader (you know, I even prefer Chirac over King Fahd, if you can believe it!). Absent that, I'll take a pro-American strongman.
That just about covers my preferences. Now, of course, this does not include at all the left's fave: the unelected anti-American strongman... you know, the Castro's, Mugabe's, Chavez's, Saddam's, and Kim's that head up the favorites of the leftists like International Answer and Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Al | Dec 13, 2004 6:28:46 PM
I'm not -- I'm really not -- one of those given to claiming that the entire neoconservative approach to Middle East policy is driven by Israeli security concerns.
No, but blurring the distinction between "that which benefits Israel" and "unrelated thing that is agreed to be good" (e.g., democracy promotion, that which benefits the US) seems to be standard operating procedure, doesn't it?
Posted by: some guy | Dec 13, 2004 8:14:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
