January 31, 2011, - 1:15 pm

On Egypt, Etc.: Welcome to Muslim Democracy – Where is King Hussein (& the Shah) When You Need Him?

By Debbie Schlussel

I forgot to write about an important 30th anniversary I had on my calendar a couple of weeks ago.  On January 20, 1981, American hostages were released from Iran after 444 days in captivity during Iran’s “democratic revolution.”   America, under Jimmy Carter, helped usher the pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-Western Shah out in favor of Ayatollah Khomeini and his fundamentalist savages.  It’s hard to believe that, after 30 years, America has learned nothing about the over-rated “reforms” and “democratic elections” we’ve pushed on the Greater Barbaria that is the Islamic world.  And, now, we are seeing the results with the Muslim Brotherhood about to take over Egypt, with Hezbollah having captured  Lebanon, and with HAMASastan before that.

Islamic World Needs More King Husseins (left) & Black Septembers, Less Hosni Mubaraks (Right) Unwilling to Use Sufficient Force

I warned about this throughout the Bush Administration (and posted a list of many Mid-East and Islamic world countries and the disastrous predictions of what would happen when “democrats” take over in “free elections”–I’ve been proven right on quite a few).  While Bush walked around with Natan Sharansky’s now-remaindered book about free elections, he pushed Sharansky’s empty theories–which do not apply to barbarians and savages who belong to a worldwide cult–as his excuse for “liberating” Iraq and allowing American boys to die in the name of Iraqi Shi’ite Muslims ushering in an Iranian-backed theocratic government via “free elections.”  What we see on the streets of Egypt is what we’d see–as I’ve repeatedly warned over the years–if Egypt had free elections.  These Muslim Brotherhood mobs would rule.  Just as Bin Ladenites would rule a free and democratically elected government of Saudi Arabia.  Just as Muslims’ CINO (Christian In Name Only) puppets rule Dearbornistan, Michigan on their behalf.  If there were free elections in Jordan today, HAMAS or Fatah would win, and King Abdulllah would be out.

And, despite all of my warnings and the warnings of others–that this is the Mid-East, not the Mid-West, and they are only controlled through authoritarian dictators–Bush and Condi Clueless pushed free elections in Gaza, after they succeeded in getting Ariel Sharon to usher out all civilized people (Jews) from the area.  Then, they were shocked–shocked!–when barbarians elected barbarians.  Do you really need to be Einstein to figure out that this is what happens when you give these animals the right to vote?  They bomb churches, they burn down synagogues, and lynch Jews and Christians in the name of allah.  They even do it to each other and blow up rival mosques.  Do you really want any of ‘em running a government?  Only if you’re a moron . . . and  you ultimately want to kill off all of your allies and commit suicide.

I’ve said it over and over.  Democracy is not for Muslims.  It is only for civilized people and nations.  Of all people, the only person who seemed to get this aside from me was the execrable Jew-hater and Nazi apologist, Pat Buchanan.  He gave it to Natan Sharansky in a “Meet the Press” debate.  He pointed out the same things I had pointed out on this site:  that in every single Muslim nation where there would be free elections, terrorist groups and their supporters would suddenly become elected, legitimate governments.  That’s happened in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, and it’s about to become fact in Tunisia, Egypt, and perhaps Algeria, Yemen, and Jordan.  Muslim democracy isn’t good for the West.  It’s only good for the defeat of the West.  And don’t kid yourself–like ignoramus fantasists Scamela Geller and Caroline Glick–that the Iranian protesters who wanted “democracy” were any different than the extremist on the streets of Egypt and Tunisia (where they gladly hosted Arafat and the P.L.O. headquarters for years).  They were not.  They were just as radical, not unique in any way.

Whether or not there is a complete Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt or a coalition government with the sleazy, lying Mohammed El-Baradei, one of the most inept, most Islamo-co-opted U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors ever, makes no difference.  Egypt is basically lost.  If the Muslim Brotherhood–which brought us Arafat, HAMAS, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and Al-Qaeda–doesn’t take over today, it will ultimately take over.

If we had not pushed democracy in places like Iraq and Lebanon and Gaza, perhaps we wouldn’t have the uprising in Egypt and elsewhere today.  I predicted, years ago on this site, that this would be a disaster.  And, per usual, I am the Cassandra who warns, isn’t heeded, but is right, right, right.

We need more men like Iran’s Shah and King Hussein of Jordan–men of a more stable Mid-East’s yesteryear–running Islamic nations. They were pro-American, pro-Western, and knew how to end rebellion by radicals.

In 1970, when Palestinian Muslims–who are the majority in Jordan–were led by Yasser Arafat to hold an uprising in that country, the late King Hussein knew exactly how to deal with them.  He slaughtered 10,000 of them–10,000 Palestinian Muslims who worshipped Arafat.  It’s called, “Black September.”  He got away with it because Muslims can get away with butchering each other to hold power the way Jews never can in the name of security and self-preservation.  But back in September 1970, King Hussein knew how to deal with his national livestock populus.  Had he not done this,  the P.L.O. would have run Jordan, and it would have been King Yasser using the place as a base of war against Israel.  And the world barely said a word.  Today, I wonder what the world would say if King Hussein were running things in Egypt that way.  If it were up to me, we’d say to Mubarak, “do what you gotta do,” and look the other way.  But, hey, “smarter” people are in charge . . . like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are botching this beyond the botchable.

Where is King Hussein when you need him?  Sadly, six feet under.  Like Hussein, Hosni Mubarak should have bombed the heck out of the rioters on the streets.  Heck, they (the “democracy” rioters) burned down enough buildings, themselves–and that’s not to mention their looting.  But, sadly, in our “humane,” “reform-minded,” “democracy-pimping” ways, we in the West would never tolerate the kind of response that is needed–the only kind of response that the Muslims in the Mid-East understand:  bombs, killings, and annihilation.  This is a war.  And it’s not a war between Mubarak and his people.  It’s a war between tolerable, authoritarian semi-pro-Western Muslim leaders and the extremist Muslims who dominate the Islamic world and people today.  It was always clear to anyone who knows anything about the Middle East (and far fewer truly know about the Middle East than profess to) that, once you push for free elections in these places, you give a legal platform for terrorists to take over the entire region via free elections.

President Bush always told us that with his free elections in Iraq, the rest of the Middle Eastern people would see this and push for democratic elections.

How sad that he didn’t see that this is exactly the problem.

***

As for the tentative, artificial “peace” and associated peace treaty, Egypt has with Israel, you can say good-bye to that.  Even Mubarak openly said he wasn’t bound by it and could violate it whenever he wanted, as when Israel wasn’t allowed into the International Book Fair in Cairo.  But, now, or in a decade or two–whenever the Brotherhood completely reigns–it’s over.

Doesn’t bother me, as many fewer were killed when Israel had de facto “peace” while “at war” with Egypt.  And the country basically gave up the Sinai and its oil to Egypt–and ultimately to the Brotherhood–for nothing.

If ever there was evidence that peace treaties are worth less than the paper they are written on, the current goings-on in Egypt are it.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

48 Responses

The cultural habits necessary to sustain democracy – are missing in the Middle East. In much of it, there isn’t even a sense of belonging to a nation. There are tribal loyalties and while Islam has given Arabs and Iranians a sense of supra-national identification, its only superficial. At the end of day, the tribal loyalties rule and the only way a center can hold is through force. The Middle East is not Europe and is not America. Give them democracy and the extremists will take over – as they have in Iran, they almost did in Algeria when it held free elections, as they have in Lebanon and as they surely will in Tunisia and Egypt. We would would all love Muslim countries to become stable, peaceful and functioning democracies. Dream on – its not going to happen in this century.

NormanF on January 31, 2011 at 1:26 pm

yikes. That was a bucket of cold water. Maybe I’m naive, but when in doubt, I favor democracy. But then again…. I fear you are correct.

KayserSozay on January 31, 2011 at 1:40 pm

Debbie, a correction if you don’t mind – the hostages were released in 1981 – not in 1980. You’re spot-on in the rest of your analysis, though. We should have given Mubarak carte blanche to dispose of the extremist MB mobs the Arab way and just averted our eyes from the whole things. By insisting he show restraint and compromise with opponents, we’re going to get an even more anti-American and anti-Israel regime in Egypt. Mubarak was no friend of Israel and no lover of America but he was quite moderate by what goes on over there. When he is gone, we’ll see the real face of Egypt. And its coming our way, if not tomorrow, then certainly in a year or whatever in this decade.

And whatever that regime will be, its not going to be a democracy but a bunch of jihad-loving radicals siding with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and what have you. And there will be wars in the future. And for that we have the Jimmy Carter of our era to thank for it, Barack Hussein Obama.

NF: Oops, a typo. Thanks. I meant 1981–thus the 30th anniv. Thanks. DS

NormanF on January 31, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Unfortunately I agree with Debbie here. These republics will tend toward islamic fundamentalism over time because there is no separation of church and state. Eventually enough people vote for the islamization of the government to subjugate the minority. Besides separation of church and state, there is no constitutional protection of minority rights. So the majority takes away the rights of the minority sects and the state is openly biased to them. But in that part of the world, only the strong survive and there is a tradition of the majority repressing the minority and imposing the majority will. No matter how this democratic republic starts out, it will turn into an islamic republic in a few years.

fred on January 31, 2011 at 1:51 pm

KS, for there to be a democracy, you have to have reason, the rule of law, respect for property and minority rights and mutual tolerance. That doesn’t exist in Iran and in the Arab World. Fanaticism, lawlessness, class envy, a resentment of minorities and raw intolerance reign there. Those are not exactly the building blocks of a democratic regime. The few democrats there are laughably weak to the point of marginal insignificance. We have a choice between dictators who can keep a semblance of order on the seething cauldron that is the Middle East or we can have terrorist regimes there bent on spreading jihad to the West. That’s the way it is. There is no third option and any one who believes one exists is naive and a fool or a useful pawn of the extremists there.

That’s the bottom line.

NormanF on January 31, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Yup. Happens every time. “We, in this newly formed free democracy, vote to go back to living under a totalitarian theocracy.” Or to put it more succinctly, “We vote to no longer have the right to vote.”

I knew we were in trouble the moment Bush gave his speech about how “Freedom is universal. Everyone world-wide wants freedom,” or something to that effect. What a load. Muslims clearly DO NOT want freedom, a fact that in itself wouldn’t bother me except for the fact that they obviously do not want anyone else to have it either.

Irving on January 31, 2011 at 2:05 pm

Another name for “Democracy” is ‘Mob Rule’ as democracy can be portrayed as three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
I want to barf when I hear people refer to the Unites States as a “Democracy”….we are NOT.
We are supposed to be a Constitutionally limited Republic and I hope we return to that before it’s too late.

Shootist on January 31, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Actually, we have too much democracy in America. Shocking? Let me explain.

Up until 1917, most states did not have direct elections for U.S. Senators. No, the senators were voted on in the various state houses across the country. We also had an absolute filibuster, where one senator could stop an entire bill. Later it was 66 senators, and now it is down to 60.

We also had poll taxes and literacy tests.

What purpose did this all serve? The purpose of the Senate, and envisioned by the founding fathers, was, in part, to slow down legislation, to let reason rule over emotion. By separating the Senate from the people, the states actually had a better representative, because a U.S. Senator would have to be sensitive to the impact of legislation on the economic health of the states. Mob rule thus did not push legislation through the Senate, as frequently happens now.

We also had poll taxes and literacy tests. This prevented the illiterate poor from being manipulated into voting for “populist” candidates who promised to redistribute the wealth. Was it abused? To a degree, but not to the degree as taught in our left wing school system. Now, we have people voting in over 100 languages, with many of them on welfare, having no understanding, or even caring about, the long term interests of the country.

Jonathan Grant on January 31, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    JG: Really? I was taught that poll taxes and literacy tests were used to prevent African-Americans from voting.
    Which one of us is deceived by historical revisionism – you or me?

    Mike on January 31, 2011 at 7:43 pm

What a cunt you are. Bomb the protesters? It’s not even an Islamist protest, mostly secular. How can you have so much hate for a people?

Mike on January 31, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Oh dear… what a mouth. Actually bombing the protesters is pretty mild. Personally if in charge, I would absolutely order the annihilation of the entire region, excluding Israel.. Then I would have a beer. That’s just me though.

    sharon on January 31, 2011 at 4:09 pm

      sharon – You’d have a beer? I’d join you, and offer to buy the first round!

      CornCoLeo on January 31, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    When you use words like that no one takes you seriously. If you have a critique to make, make it. Acting like someone who never got out of middle school does not cut it.

    Worry01 on January 31, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Mike, I mean Mohammed, why do you use a non-Muslim name?

    Personally, I hate Muslims because they identify themselves with a vicious, inhuman, creature, Mo. They think Mo is the ideal man. I think we need more open hatred of Muslims. Ultimately, though, we need to end Islam itself, in part by using violence against the violent.

    skzion on January 31, 2011 at 6:50 pm

      skzion…Right on. I’d go one step further. Islam is a parasitic, demonic cult. Everywhere it exists it does so as a malignancy feeding off its host society. When the human body is afflicted with a malignancy, long term survival requires that the malignancy be REMOVED. For the health and well being of Western Civilization, all traces of islam must be removed…everything…mosques, imams, practitioners…back to their “old” country. The west must wake up to the fact it has been a dumping ground for islamic “pond scum”and must “roll up the red carpet” and cease providing a “safe house” for every psychopath that wants to come here.

      joesixpack31 on February 1, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Mike, I mean Mohammed, why do you use a non-Muslim name?

    Personally, I hate Muslims because they identify themselves with a vicious, inhuman, creature, Mo. They think Mo is the ideal man. I think we need more open hatred of Muslims. Ultimately, though, we need to end Islam itself, in part by using violence against the the inherently violent.

    skzion on January 31, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    I agree with the comment from KayserSozay(“bucket of cold water…”) I fear that Debbie’s analysis is correct. My ideals are running into reality. Whether I agree with Debbie or not, I am always thinking for a long time after reading one of her posts.
    I have a piece of advice for “Mike”. No one is going to listen to anything you have to say when you use that word. Go wash your mouth out with soap & water.

    Pam Siegel Zarte on February 1, 2011 at 3:44 pm

Debbie, I agree with you. Remember the Muslim Brotherhood’s history? They were allies of the NAZI’s. Does the world want a repeat of the atrocities, terror and genocidal war? The sooner the MB is wiped out the better.

Doc Holiday on January 31, 2011 at 2:52 pm

I believe that the situation in Egypt was an inevitability. Mubarak is 82 and is reported to be dying of cancer. He had promised 74 year old Suleyman, Security chief, a vice presidency years ago but reneged. He has now appointed him. That might have eased transition, but Mubarak evidently feared creating a rival for his son, Gamal. Mubarak stayed in the game too long.

And as for Debbie’s recommendation that all the protesters should have been killed at the outset, I cannot agree that is morally defensible under any moral coda.

Nomadic100 on January 31, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Nomadic, you sound like some of our recent trolls who are now nowhere to be seen.

    “And as for Debbie’s recommendation that all the protesters should have been killed at the outset, I cannot agree that is morally defensible under any moral coda.”

    How silly. Leaving aside the obvious (that we can create a moral system in which anything is defensible), non-Muslims have a stake in rolling back Islam. Allowing the Brotherhood to control Egypt is inconsistent with this goal. Muslim life is no more valuable now than German life was in Nazi Germany, or Japanese life in Tojo Japan. Sometimes it takes work to dehumanize the enemy; not in this case.

    skzion on January 31, 2011 at 7:06 pm

Dear Mike: the original revolutionary governemnt in Russia was fairly moderate. They lost to the Bolsheviks. I don’t see moderate forces winning in Egypt. One day, we will realize who our friends and enemies are.

Occam's Tool on January 31, 2011 at 2:53 pm

I met some of the Egyptian democracy activists when we protested together in front of the Egyptian embassy a few years back. link. The Muslim Brotherhood was a distant thing to them. Mubarak ruthlessly jailed and expelled centrist democrats, then proclaimed to the Bush Administration, “It’s either the Muslim Brotherhood or I!” The Bush Administration caved. While Mubarak’s anti-democratic actions leave the Brotherhood as the best-organized opposition group, I think the democrats may now organize rapidly. The union of the Army and demonstrators to defend the Egyptian Museum from extremists who sought to loot and deface the exhibits is a good sign of this – and a good sign that Sharansky wasn’t wholly wrong. (So what if his publisher printed too many books?)

“Democracy is not for Muslims. It is only for civilized people and nations.”

People caught between cruel theocrats and fascists autocrats, how are they supposed to escape? In my opinion, this generation of Egyptians deserves the chance to prove they can be civilized.

Solomon2 on January 31, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    “I met some of the Egyptian democracy activists when we protested together in front of the Egyptian embassy a few years back. link. The Muslim Brotherhood was a distant thing to them.”

    This is utterly irrelevant, S2. Even if true, it does not follow that, at the end of the day, the Muslim Brotherhood will not be in the driver’s seat. It is common to use “useful idiots” to be the front line for propaganda purposes.

    skzion on January 31, 2011 at 6:46 pm

      Not “utterly” irrelevant, but IF the Islamists do win out, it ultimately may be. Right now I want to emphasize that Mubarak has been suppressing Egypt’s real democracy movement for at least five years but now it is breaking its chains. What happens next I’m not sure, but I don’t think it is preordained that the Islamists will win.

      Solomon2 on February 1, 2011 at 10:03 am

      Nice call. Here it is, several months later, and the MB is all but assured to win in Egypt. Scum those people are. Child raping, child beheading, scum.

      Occam's Tool on April 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm

We all know if King Hussein where around today in 2010-2011, he more likely wouldn’t want the Muslim Brotherhood take over the Egyptian government. Mr. Mubarak last what I heard about him is no friend of the radical islamist, ie, Al-Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, Taliban, etc., the demonstrators in Egypt clearly want to overthrow their current government and want the Muslim Brotherhood (who clearly are NOT friends of the US & Israel) to take over their government, and we all know that the left wing media are in favor of the protestors in Cairo, Egypt, because the american leftist media are nothing but fellow-travellors. And they also claim that if Mubarak is out of power in Egypt, it’ll be democracy for the people in Egypt! Are the fools in the left wing media kidding me or just pulling our legs? But then again, the left wing & radical islam have a marriage with eachother, and this has been going on for years and decades.

“A nation is identified by it’s borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm

Another unfortunate legacy of the Vietnam War. Before that, the U.S. was selective about where it pushed democracy throughout the world. Iran was one of the unfortunate legacies of the post-Vietnam emphasis on democracy, as was Hamas, and now Egypt.

And as JG pointed out, a PC expansion of “democratic rights” raises serious questions about what the results of ‘democracy’ will be in the United States, although here ‘democracy’ is very selective, since the courts routinely overturn the will of the people whenever it reflects anything in our best traditions. The expanding definitions of democracy in the US are another unfortunate legacy of the 30s and 60s, along with the extension of these concepts in the post-Vietnam era to most of the rest of the world (although apparently not China).

19th Century thinkers like de Touqueville warned about the excesses and risks of democracy in the US, and now we are reaping the harvest of these excesses both here and in the Middle East.

Little Al on January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm

I believe democracy might be possible. We just need to do what we did during World War 2. Keep bombing them back to the stone age (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagaski, etc.) until they either get it or become extinct.

I_AM_ME on January 31, 2011 at 4:12 pm

[snip] – I’ve said it over and over. Democracy is not for Muslims. It is only for civilized people and nations. [snip]

100% correct as always, Miss Debbie.

quoting from a friend’s email to me …

“What is happening in Egypt is not going to be good for us, nor Israel, nor even, when everything is played out, all that good for the Egytpian people themselves.

5,000+ years of history and they have been unable to manage a single free day.

3,000+ years of unbroken contact with countries and empires east and north of them, with all that the Mediterranean Sea brings, and all they have produced is a country with a bloated and hungry population that does not manufacture or produce a single product that the rest of the world wants and needs. Not a single product on the shelves of Safeway, Walmart, Sears, and Nordstrom, that says “Made in Egypt”. They can’t even manufacture other peoples’ creations a la China. Despite what is occurring in the streets now, they remain supine, superstitious, retrogressive, xenophobic, ignorant, and uneducated. Unable to take responsibility for themselves, they always blame others – now it’s Mubarak, America and Israel.

Their greatest hero is Gamal Abdel Nasser. A man who led them through three catastrophic wars, leaving tens of thousands of dead soldiers scattered across Sinai, a man who brought the USSR into the country as a “friend”.

I should also add – friendly, hospitable and generous? Yes. Just don’t wear your American flag pin or your Star of David.”

end quote

Jack on January 31, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Jon is right… when you have pure democracy, its really the rule of the mob. If we’re going to advocate it in Egypt, it should be on the basis I outlined. But if we’re just going to give people who know nothing about how democracy works, the right to vote, the extremists will end up in power. Democracy is more than just about a process of selecting rulers, its about ensuring the majority can’t trample on the rights of the minority and every one is protected from arbitrary rule. That won’t happen in Egypt and if its introduced there, it would be one man, one vote, one time. The inevitable result is an Islamic dictatorship.

NormanF on January 31, 2011 at 4:31 pm

It is insane on its face to expect societies that are tribal and sectarian beneath a very thin veneer of modernity to become civil societies with democratic institutions. The architecture(literacy, non-military secular institutions, etc.)for the most part are weak to non-existent. It took the West centuries, with frequent regressions, to achieve entrenched and effective republican governance. What you are seeing in Egypt is a transition from a relatively friendly authoritarian regime to a militantly anti-Western dictatorship.

Worry01 on January 31, 2011 at 5:19 pm

Go on DS!

Nicely and unapologetically said.

You’re thrice the man most political wonks ever wish to be (and more woman than they’ll ever get!) because you are UNAFRAID to state the terrible truth. I am getting SICKENED by the namby-pamby SO-CALLED Conservatives who are equivocating due to PCness even THEY didn’t know they were infected by.

You said it plain and strong. I agree. 9/11 is a loooooong retrospective that has proven you are correct. 10 years after, even if you’re Conservative and haven’t learned yet YOU. DON’T. WANT. TO. LEARN. The truth is for grown-ups and sadly, this whole thing is a hellish equation where grown-ups MUST choose the lesser of two evils.

It’s funny to hear all these so-called wizards-of-smart saying it is difficult. Your take proves the concept is very clear, with the execution of choice being difficult because many will be unfairly hurt.

Thanks for calling out Hillary Clinton too. I wanna barf when I hear peeps praising that demented moron.

Meanwhile Fraud News is depicting this as a possible Western-style democracy revolution. It is nausia-inducing!

Russian Revolution=Stalin
French Revolution=Napoleon

Yet, you see International Answer protesting HERE in favour of the Egyptian riots. The Left NEVER says they are sorry once the CrAzIeS take over (like the Khumer Rouge in Cambodia and the Ayatollahs in Iran). Tragic.

Skunky on January 31, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Democracy is a dirty word…being “one of the worst forms of government invented by man”…yes, it is mob rule, “rule by the plebiscite”, NOT rule of law.

If one listens to the BBC on NPR, you will hear them spew their pap about Democracy multiple times an hour. It is a favorite, mindless term that Sean Hannity uses constantly on his radio show. On NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show”, it is a constant from the host & her guests. The current & ex Presidents of the USA speak the “D” work, as if our Constitutional Republic (rule of law) is a Democracy.

Are they ignorant? Are they intentionally deceiving? Even the self-described genius Michael Savage calls our country a Democracy. He should know better. They ALL should know better. The only radio host that appears to shun the “D” word is Glenn Beck. At least HE understands.

Democracy is a temporary form of government. The powers that be are trying to change us into one, in order to take control.

Dr Dale on January 31, 2011 at 6:50 pm

Of course democracy is not for Muslims–it’s not for anyone. We in the U.S. don’t live in a democracy, though there are democratic features to our electoral process. We live in a representative, constitutional republic that enshrines individual rights. If we could ensure that a government in the Middle East were run according to such a system–an enormous challenge–then such a government would be able handle Muslim crimes and outrages and rebellion among the citizenry. So the impulse of any of the original, pro-liberty Egyptian protestors (assuming there were any)–not the riffraff who just want to get out of jail and loot, not the Muslim Brotherhood who want to glom onto a larger movement they can hide behind and use to take over the government by stealth–is not the problem. The problem is instating a secular, pro-American, pro-Israeli government with a constitution that protects individual rights, even if everyday Egyptians have no idea how to go about doing that. Democracy in general is mob rule–with Western nations, it can lead to ugly outcomes, but in third-world hellholes like most of the Middle East, it literally leads to mobs ruling.

Scott Spiegel on January 31, 2011 at 9:27 pm

Caroline Glick has had a change of views: in her latest article, she much confirms what Debbie’s said for years: the Bush doctrine is wrong in that Western democratic ideals are not in the hearts of all people. Do the protesters in Egypt sound like they want Western democracy or merely a change of the guy at the top of the regime? But she’s also spot on in noting the Obama anti-colonialist doctrine, that the West is at fault and non-Western demands are always legitimate, is equally wrong as well. The naive application of both doctrines will lead to disaster: an Egypt that will be hostile to the West and Israel for a generation. This is what American elites fail to grasp about the events in Egypt and shoving Mubarak out the door will send a clear message to pro-American Arab rulers: American guarantees are worthless and its time to ally yourself with the strongest horse in the Middle East: Iran. For Israel, the lesson is further territorial concessions, most notably a Palestinian state, is a downright suicidal proposition. In other words, Israel’s survival cannot depend on the good grace of an Arab regime that can literally disappear overnight. The fate of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty is dependent entirely on the goodwill of the current Egyptian regime that has a vested interest in it. That might not be the case under a successor regime. Israel needs to be prepared for the worst.

NormanF on February 1, 2011 at 1:44 am

Debbie

I too believe that Sharansky’s formulas were good in his native Russia as well as Eastern Europe, but never in dar ul Islam, which unfortunately he, and even Netanyahu believes. But I also believe that there is a silver lining to the events in Egypt.

Which is that the Muslim Brotherhood perceives Egypt – fed w/ American weaponry the last 30 years – to be a military match for Israel, which would mean that they can’t resist starting a war. And once they do, like in all past wars except 1973, they’ll drag Syria, Lebanon & Hamas w/ them as well. This would give Israel the opportunity to re-conquer Sinai, West Bank, Gaza and this time hopefully, expel all Muslims to either Egypt or Syria, as well as topple Hizbullah in Lebanon. Unlike you, I don’t see how Mubarak is better, given that what Ikhwan says openly, Mubarak does secretly – allows Hamas to get supplied via Gaza & the sea. W/o Egyptian complicity, for instance, Hamas could never have gotten the boat loaded w/ guns that the Israelis intercepted.

You are also right on Iran – I don’t know where people get the idea that the Iranians are ready to abandon Islam. In the 14th century, when they were run by the non Muslim Mongol Ilkhanate, they didn’t abandon Islam for Zoroastrianism, and instead, it was the Ilkhanate that after several generations became Islamic and stopped being the Ilkhanate. Muslims are not going to stop being Muslims and return to their period of Jahaliya, even if their dictators are ones like the rulers of Iran or Sudan – where thankfully, the South has voted to secede. Hope for their sake that they expel all Muslims and jump-start their economy w/ their oil supply, staying out of OPEC.

Infidel Pride on February 1, 2011 at 2:16 am

The reason democracy as we know it in the West will never exist in Egypt is simple: to achieve it, Egypt would have to create wealth at a greater rate than it creates new Egyptians, which it never will. So the sad automatic natural remedy for boundless breeding cuts in: unrest, turmoil, war, i.e. large-scale downward correction of numbers by violent death. Same goes for Afghastlystan, Jordan, Pakistan, Iran and every other Mussulmanic hole where women are kept in sacks to breed beards. And now the process is underway, what European leader will have the guts to forcibly turn back the tidal wave of refugees?

Preposteroso on February 1, 2011 at 4:26 am

Debbie some things that really irritate me:
The Muslim Brotherhood was created by Hitler and they were his allies. After WWII we hunted German NAZIs and prosecuted them or killed them yet for some reason we left the Islamic NAZIs go and they were left to fester and carry on Hitler’s philosophies and dreams. It pisses me off beyond belief that we are dealing with WWII leftovers. We’re fighting the same enemy as WWII with the only difference being they don’t care if they die (the German’s at least started to want to live more than die). Why can’t people understand that Jihad translated to english is “My Struggle” which when translated to German is “Mein Kampf”. Not very many people realize how heavily linked they are and Mein Kampf flies off the shelf in muslim countries. Anybody think that the title in these countries is “Jihad” and they just happen to read it and find the same views on Jews and Christians they like to hear. I wish Mossad and US SpecOps would hunt these Islamic NAZIs down.
I was annoyed as well that trying to post the MB’s origin on a Haeretz website was deleted. We need to face it the Brotherhood is Hitler’s bastard legacy creation and it must be destroyed.

Mark on February 1, 2011 at 6:30 am

Debbie,

Nedless to say that you are a very intelligent woman. Actually you are one of three women that I admire; Caroline Glick, Michelle Malkin and yourself.

The problem with the Egyptian Crisis is not free election. That is a grave wrong. Algerians discovered that before and as you said, Tinisians and Gazans and Iraq. Now they want to repeat the mistake in Egypt. What do I call that? Consistency.

The solution is to put Egypt under UN supervision. A well thought constitution based on secularism not Islamism should be formulated after every interest group expresses himself and International protection should be guaranteed for ancient culture. The international community should have its word in all these developments. I agree totally with you that our government have a very shallow understanding of the Islamic world thinking and conniving. Remember; the three Ts of Islam are; treachery, Treason and terrorism.

G. R. SCHAROUBIM on February 1, 2011 at 10:30 am

Where is the analysis from KT Couric? Your analysis is far better than CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN combined. How do they stay in business? Is OPEC paying them off?

The Enemy is TV News on February 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    If the Shah(or king of kings as I believe its translated) was so bad and nasty why didnt he simply have the Iman killed in Paris??? SAVOK was quite capable to do so and should have. It would have resulted in a peaceful state of Iran that would have given the whole region peace and stability in time. Instead because of an Idiot in the White House (as we have now) we missed an oportunity to do the right thing as it looks like we are going to do again.

    Jonathan Gartner on February 1, 2011 at 3:27 pm

B”H

Debbie, you were absolutely right!

I am here in Israel, watching all of the turmoil going on around us, and I still have no clue who will be the first, second, third, etc., new Islamic republic.

I think it is a shame that people are actually shocked that hizbullah is gaining control in Lebanon, and that the Muslim Brotherhood is positioning itself quite well in Egypt.

My favorite non-shocker is Jordan. What actually makes people think that Jordan is immune???

Ben-Yehudah on February 1, 2011 at 3:10 pm

Debbie,

You forgot to add to the list of “new Islamic democracies” one more country going to be radical islamic republic, this time armed by pretty modern US weapons. It is Turkey. When Erdouan’s party won elections first time, Turkish army (which was only warranty of stability of Ataturk’s vision (and it is past now after Erdouans cleaning of army elite under false charges) removed them from power. Second time, EU politicians(most of them are even dumber than Obama, Hillary, Bush and Condi) didn’t let them, under (false) promises of including them in EU… Now Turkey is on fast track to becoming new Iran (with newer and better weapons))…

Mike on February 1, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Mike, you should add something to your handle to distinguish yourself from the OTHER Mike who calls peeps “See You Next Tuesdays”. He’s a loon-troll and you always have something substantive to say in the debate.

    Skunky on February 2, 2011 at 11:40 am

One of the more unusual things I’m noticing about the street protests and/or riots is that nobody seems to be burning the American flag or for that matter, the Israeli flag. That is rather unexpected.

This could end up turning out for the better. After all, Mubarak wasn’t going to serve another term. This will get him off his fat, lazy butt to do what he needs to do.

I don’t see the Ikhwan taking over Egypt because the Ayatollah’s have demonstrated to the Army what they will do if that happens. The Army still rules Egypt and the generals are not going to willingly be marched before Sharia-run firing squads.

The LIB news media is milking this story and the State Department is incompetent. Everybody knows that there are over a million homeless people in Cairo; probably close to 2 million. If someone wants to protest against the government to complain about poverty, there’s no problem getting a lot of people involved. For the news media (and worse, the State Dept) to conclude that Mubarak has lost support from “the people” is to ignore the fact that homeless people don’t run Egypt. The Army is the veto power of the Egyptian government. The Army runs Egypt. As long as the Army rejects the Ikhwan (aka Muslim Brotherhood) there’s little to worry about.

I’m here in Israel (where it’s sundown now) and the Israelis are watching this with more curiosity than concern.

There is NO Santa Claus on February 5, 2011 at 11:17 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field