Egyptian Liberal Authors: It Is Up to the Arabs to Bring Peace to the Middle East

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD180708

In recent articles in the Arab print and electronic press, Egyptian liberal authors wrote that it is up to the Arabs to take steps to advance peace with Israel. On January 7, 2008 in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, prominent Egyptian intellectual Dr. Mamoun Fandy proposed that the Arabs use President Bush's visit to the Middle East to demonstrate that they are serious about resolving the conflict. On December 5, 2007 in the liberal Arab e-journal Elaph, Egyptian author and researcher Kamal Gabriel wrote that the promise of normalization is the only card the Arabs have left to play at the negotiationing table, but that until they take steps to replace a culture of hatred with a culture of peace, this promise will not be taken seriously.

Following are excerpts from the two articles: <snip>

***************************************

I realize that posting this will be a grave affront to those whose analytical judgment can be reduced to reading the word that follows the www in the URL from whence any opinion originates. But, for those able to actually think for themselves instead of reacting to such ideas by jerking their knees - there are some pretty interesting ideas in here. I provide the MEMRI link because it summarizes the statements of several Arab moderates whose ideas would require a lot of reading otherwise. However, the links to the individual articles are provided for those wishing to delve deeper.

I think it's beneficial at times to realize that all Arabs don't hate Jews and that there could be a growing group of Arab moderates out there who actually might be able to bring the region closer to peace if they were better supported by the west - an idea that the dreaded Dan Pipes seems to promote.

Flame away.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But peace with Israel might mean open borders with Israel. Open borders with democracy. Open borders with women's rights.

Why would an Arab government want anything that dangerous?

While reading it the thought occurred to me that if Dan Pipes had uttered these words he would immediately be subject to loud accusations of bigotry against Arab culture and sensitivities. It would be the proof that those trying to shut down discussion of Pipe's ideas regarding Islamism and Arab moderates would use to win that argument.

He would not have used the more ornate Arab phrasing but imagine if I had posted an article by Pipes where he characterized the obstacles to ME peace as lying in Arab views toward Israel like this . .



. . and I expressed my agreement. Imagine the howls from the usual suspects. :silly:

Long live the Arab moderates. Peace for Israel and the ME may come in our lifetimes.

that these Arab writers are supporting political change within their own countries, which is rather different from supporting war against them or because of them (I realize Pipes doesn't advocate war on Egypt; but he does support the war in Iraq as somehow justified by the totally unrelated Al Quaeda attacking America).

Pipes has not advocated war on any Arab states as far as I know. (He might have some agreement with most Dem candidates that we need to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power - and would not eliminate any options do achieve that.) I don't know because I haven't read about his Iran views.

But, he mostly advocates that we should support moderate Arabs and Muslims - like these writers.

And I get it from Pipes' own site. I admit that there are contradictions and ambivalences and that especially in his more recent articles he does concede that overthrowing Saddam may have currently intensified the role of Islamism; on the other hand, he still seems to think that the war was on balance a good thing and even a success.

Here are articles at different times:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/439

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1055

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2923

I realize that he has never advocated war on Egypt; and would not have brought up the issue in this context, except that it IS relevant IMO to the difference between reformists proposing changes in their own culture or political system, or that of a close ally, and such changes being proposed by someone who is not only an outsider, but a very hawkish outsider. Of course, anyone has the right to propose changes - I certainly would like to see changes in lots of governments! - but realistically, some sources of criticism are likely to be more effective than others.

But apart from that, I think he'd be more convincing in supporting liberalization abroad if he did not appear increasingly to oppose it at home:

When I went back to the site to check whether I'd misquoted something, I found his latest article:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5355

If this represents his attitude to liberalism at home, then he is hardly going to effectively promote liberalism abroad!

But surely in any case we can read and support pro-peace articles by Egyptian writers, without somehow seeing this as a justification for Pipes' views - just as we can oppose the Iraq war without seeing this as a justification for Pat Buchanan's views (or those of Ahmadejinad!)

And Pipes dropped several more notches in my estimation. Not that there were not some decent point to be made. But, then he wrecked the whole thing, as well as my already declining opinion of him with his concluding thought . .



. . where he praises the ideas in the book for their ability to vanquish liberals in the "culture wars".

I never paid him much attention until I ran across an article a few weeks ago that seemed pretty sensible at the time. (If he had said anything like that it would not have seemed sensible to me at all.) I have read several of his articles since then where he lost some more of his luster. I was still open, but, I have some stubborn traits. I almost never take anyone's word on judging others having been led astray too often in the past. I insist on forming my own opinion, especially when people attack me for not agreeing with them on those things. I also try not to come to conclusions on people's character too quickly. With me it takes a while for my observations to find a balance in the whole picture.

But with that article, I think I've seen enough to say that his views on anything should be highly suspect. I would not now give much consideration to his views on the ME without suspecting that they also were driven by some thrill at humiliating his liberal enemies - which include me.

Even so, I would not automatically say any particular view he holds is wrong just because we are enemies. My insistence at quoting him here occasionally was because the things he said that I quoted did make sense to me. One reason the ME conflict is so interesting is the knack that Israel's enemies there have, to so consistently make the RW in Israel, the US and England appear to be pretty smart on that topic. And here's a tough one for you. Is the disdain for us liberals that Pipes' expresses at the end of that review totally unjustified?

Right now, George Bush is not looking quite as dumb as he did last year. Israel and the Palestinians are at least talking. If any progress at all is made toward peace as the result of Annapolis - Bush, and his stance which is seen as robust diplomacy tied to military might with a short fuse, will reap big rewards. This will greatly energize McCain's campaign and could well turn next November from a rout into a horse race. If Iraq further stabilizes (US and Iraqi deaths are way down) the chances for another Republican administration could be at least decent come fall.

How could that be possible? If any of that happens the fault will lie with the far left for demonizing and fighting Bush every inch of the way and insisting that our Dem leadership do the same. We had the chance to insist that our leaders bring forth ideas that would allow us to protect American interests and values less violently and more intelligently - read better than Bush. Instead, the far left whined that our interests and values were corrupt and not worth fighting for. And they viciously demeaned the Americans and any Dem politicians who thought they were. Maybe Pipes has some justification to want to stick it to us.

The really ironic thing about all this is that here we are, the party of peace and human rights. And I doubt our leaders are too concerned right now that the ME peace process might fall apart or that Iraq might become a little more chaotic - at least for a while.

I cannot really answer them fully as I am not American. However, I definitely do not agree that the main failing of the left has been 'demonizing and fighting Bush every inch of the way'. I think that almost all Bush's actions ARE evil and deserve to be demonized and fought every inch of the way! Whether it is a *wise electoral strategy* to do so, is another matter; and not one on which I can readily comment with regard to another country. But it's my impression that the main failing of the left in America, as in many places, is factionalism: spending too much time fighting one another, and too little time uniting against the real right wing.

I don't think that Pipes has any justification in 'wanting to stick it to us'; no. I think we represent something far better than Bush or Cheney or the right-wing in general ever could. Just as the liberal Arabs represent something far better than the RW fundies! And the left and the centre and even the moderate Conservatives in Britain and Europe represent something far better than the far-right! Whether the tactics of the left and liberals (I get the impression that there are VERY few people in mainstream American politics who are truly left-wing) are *maximally effective* in fighting Bush and his promoters - that could be another matter.

I doubt that Bush will make any breakthroughs in the Middle East peace process. Miracles can happen. Sometimes right-wingers act out of character; and when they do, they can sometimes push things through that would sadly not be accepted from a left-winger. "Only Nixon could go to China"; and perhaps only Begin and Sadat, both right-wing hawks, could go to Camp David. However, Bush is not only right-wing; he is stupid with it. And Abbas and Olmert are in very weak positions. But one can always hope for a miracle, as I said.

. . moving his legacy forward and making a McCain presidency not as much of a long shot as many if us had thought.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080110/bush-mideast/

Bush Offers Peacemaking Checklist

TERENCE HUNT | January 10, 2008 09:16 PM EST | AP

JERUSALEM — President Bush called for a halt to Israel's military occupation of land the Palestinians claim for a state and an end to the terrorist threat over the Jewish homeland, spelling out the U.S. bottom line Thursday for ending the long and bloody Mideast conflict.

"Now is the time to make difficult choices," Bush said. An agreement will require "painful concessions" by both sides, Bush said, but he predicted one could be reached within a year, putting himself more firmly on the line than ever for an achievement considered unlikely by many experts. <snip>

*********************************************

This is starting to feel like those horse race movies where the long shot, big odds, loser starts to make his move as they round the clubhouse turn. You know how that movie ends. I really hope this one is different.

I hadn't heard of either writer before; and an attempt to go to Elaph for further information was blocked by my lack of Arabic!

There are quite a lot of liberal Arab and Muslim resources and sites on the web (I fully realize, especially as a citizen of a country where most Muslims are not of Arab origin, that 'Arab' and 'Muslim' are not the same thing; but some of the websites include both.)

See e.g.:

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/LiberalIslamLinks.htm

http://www.islamlib.com/en/


I like the following site, composed of some ordinary Israelis and Arabs interested in mutual dialogue and reaching out for peace. Some of them have their own very interesting blogs:

http://www.gnblog.com


As regards Dan Pipes: it would be interesting to see what people like Kamal Gabriel thought of him - I suspect not very much, though I may be wrong! Certainly, some of the policies that he supports, such as the Iraq war and the so-called 'war on terror' have IMO had the very reverse of the effect that he claims to want: i.e. they have actually increased the role and power of fundies and extremists, notably in Iraq, but also elsewhere.

. . more popular, at least for a while and as long as they don't appear too impotent in the conflict. It's a common psychological social identity response when a society is under attack from external enemies. The internal enemies tend to forget their differences for a while and come together against the common foe.

I think the Iraq war was a great blunder. Although I don't regret deposing vicious autocratic dictators like Saddam Hussein. We should have done it intelligently rather than with "Shock and Awe". We should have enlisted the Iraqi Army as our allies and helped Iraq as non-violently as possible. We should have tried very energetic diplomacy at first and escalated from there with only the minimal force necessary.

It's not that regime change in Iraq was a bad idea. We had more then enough justification for that IMO. Pulling it off intelligently and less violently would have made us many friends in the ME and would have weakened Iran's RW too. Instead now we are seen as arrogant cowboys who don't give a shit about Muslim lives.

That's a result of us rallying around our leader when we were attacked. And that's what happens when people vote for someone they'd
like to have a beer with rather than someone who could lead us through complex and dangerous waters when the inevitable shit hits the fan.