Both Sides of the Jordan

My last post failed to expand on the new Jordanian cabinet, and there is a lot to discuss within Israel, so here it goes.

First off, Jordan. With a new cabinet will come new viewpoints, but there is one that is definitely not reassuring. Hussein Mjali is the new Justice Minister. But Mr. Mjali has some interesting views on the geopolitical situation at his western border. First, he rejects the 1994 treaty with Israel, and considers Israel a terrorist state. Which leads us to our second point, which is that he defended Ahmed Daqamseh, a Jordanian soldier who killed seven Israeli schoolchildren at the Israeli-Jordanian Island of Peace Park on the border. Now, with reports surfacing that he wants his former client freed, there seems to be some instability in Jordan that Israel should watch closely. Especially with a new cabinet coming in following the dismissal of its predecessor, populist moves make you popular, and what happens when the people decide they like the Justice Minister? Abdullah is going to struggle with this one, but he better recognize the need to keep Mjali in check or otherwise draw the ire of Israel and possibly destabilize relations.

And what of Netanyahu and Lieberman on the other side of the river? When Aluf Benn thinks you're being publicly emasculated by your deputy, there might be some problems. Netanyahu has lost a lot of his political capital to the coalition, and he doesn't seem to be gaining any back anytime soon. Fear-mongering by both Bibi and Lieberman won't help either, but Bibi has taken a step in the right direction by responding to Hizballah's Nasrallah with an acrid comeback. Bibi is losing control of his party and his coalition, and it looks like the cycle of parties in and out of party will continue in the coming election, whenever it arrives.

But the religious parties will remain, and people will be allowed to do stupid things like Dov Lior. So now, there will be a law that allows you to say whatever you want as long as the Torah backs it. This is a new low. But it is very possible that this backfires. Hell, soon you could see gay marriage legalized, or the rabbis completely removed from any sort of power. Unless the law has conditions that keep that from happening. And making an equivalence with "left-wing academics?" What a joke. Left-wing academics do not condone violence against non-Jews. If this doesn't make people stop believing in coalition politics, what will?

Finally, another right-wing proposal may find itself backfiring, as now it has been revealed that the leader of Im Tirzu is doing business with Iran. Im Tirzu is an organization that focuses on responding to any criticism to Israel, not admitting any missteps, which is exactly what Peter Beinart finds to be the main issue with American Zionism. Without some sort of internal criticism to actions, what is the point of free speech?

Short-term and Long-term Forecasts

Things are changing quite a bit in the Arab world, and in the Persian world, we are getting some more of the same. As protests have risen in Bahrain, Iraq, and Libya, as responses to those successful ones in Tunisia and Egypt, one is left to wonder what is the future for the region.

The protests in Arab countries have been marked by violence, but not like those protests in the streets of Tehran last year following the Ahmadinejad election. There has been more change, as both Egypt and Tunisia have seen governments overthrown and now wait for permanent replacements to come to power. Jordan is seeing some sort of reform, but it does not seem to be the type that will satisfy a country where 2/3 are Palestinians treated like second class citizens. Bahrain seems more likely to placate its citizens, and it is a strategic locale for American interests in tampering Iranian regional hegemony. It also has a large Shia population, which makes it likely to go to Iran's open arms in the case of a government overthrow. However, the tone of the king in his response to protesters following the death of two protesters was mild and seemed to favor some sort of reform, as opposed to Mubarak's defiant and stubborn reaction to those in Tahrir Square. By continuing to let the people protest, he is showing an ear for their demands that Mubarak did not show, as he hid in safety and sent the police and army to hear them out.

Iraq shows an interesting case. As American troops will be out by the end of the year, Moqtada al-Sadr has shown himself to be the leader of the final push, allowing no mercy if American troops stay beyond their deadline of the end of the year. And with protests arising in Kut against a provincial governor, it may worry some about the stability of the region. al-Maliki has already declared the end of his time as prime minister, and it's a crapshoot on who will replace him, but it will probably be a Shia. We must wonder: how much influence will Sadr have? Will it be a similar influence to the Khameini in Iran, the country in which Sadr was in exile to avoid American threats?

Speaking of Iran, now that protests will become a part of life again, I cannot say that I see legitimate democracy overthrowing the theocracy in place. Why? Well, it isn't so much a theocracy as it is a theocratic oligarchy. The Basij wield a monopoly on violence that non-violent protest has shown itself unable to overcome. The Revolutionary Guard helps them hold that force, with the aid of their monopoly on the economy. Whoever Khameini wants to lead will lead, this is a certainty. Khatami's one-term rule was not questioned, because everyone knew what was happening in 2003 when his democratic reforms lost to a believer in the traditional, Ahmadinejad. However, as Iran basks in the glow of having been the catalyst for these revolts with their efforts in 1979 (yes, it took 32 years), they may be seeing a sea change in the part of the world. What if secular rule does rise? How do Khameini and Ahmadinejad explain that? Why do they continually put the blame for protests on other countries?

We may end up seeing Bush's democratization goal reached in much of the Middle East soon. Could it be something that he uses in 2012 to get voters to switch sides? Probably not, but it's a damn good foreign policy selling point. But the point I want to make is that Bush's strategy didn't work as well as Obama's approach. Obama let it stay in the hands of the country, trying to stay as hands-off as he could until things became too chaotic. Bush just talked about reform, bombed the countries he thought needed reform, and didn't speak another word. Soft power is on the rise, folks.

And speaking of soft power, the US is making a tangible attempt to increase their reserves of it with this cancellation of the extra F-35 engine. Military spending takes up a huge chunk of our spending, and while money is pulled out of programs like NPR and PBS,

PLUG: CLICK THIS LONG LINK AND SIGN THIS PETITION TO MAKE SURE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KEEPS FUNDING NPR AND PBS

we usually have money continually funded to a defense budget that is greater than those of every other country in the world combined. But things have changed. This shows a weakness, sure, but think about how far ahead the US military is compared to other countries, besides the obvious nuclear deterrent.

While there are some spotty issues, my pessimism, for today, is gone. Some intermittent showers, but the sun is coming.

You can't always get what you want....

...but if you try sometimes, you get what you need! Or so the song goes. Apparently the Rolling Stones weren't thinking of authoritarian despots when they wrote it. Shocker, there.

So what do the people of Egypt want? What are they trying to accomplish? And what, precisely, do they need? These are all questions that a whole lot of people are attempting to answer. The chatter from the media, politicians, pundits, whosits, and whatsits regarding the situation in Egypt and the wider Middle East has become an absolute roar. I mean, even Sarah Palin has chimed in. Even the person who stands for all things ignorant and insular in the American public sphere knows what's going on in Egypt. Or think she does. Or thinks that Obama does, and thinks that Obama should tell us. Or her. Or maybe her and those other people she likes. Not the people she doesn't like...well, you get the idea.

Now, apart from those brief flashes of brilliance, there has been a whole lot of crazy going on. Let us be assured, the protests in Egypt and the (possible) fall of the Mubarak regime do not signify the resurrgence of a Muslim Caliphate. Let's just lay that to rest...if the Iranians didn't ressurect the Caliph in 1979, its highly unlikely we're going to see that system of government again. And even if we did, it's even less likely they're going to steal our refrigerators. Or whereever it is Beck is going with that train of thought.

Let's make another thing clear: No one knows who the Muslim Brotherhood really are. Or if the Egyptian people even want them. I mean, people know that they were founded in 1928, they've been violent in the past, some of their most famous leader/philosophers have espoused violence, and once in awhile they catch someone doing something violent that claims he's a Brother. They developed at least in part as a response to imperialism in the Middle East following World War II. This is at least mildly entertaining because the other major response to imperialism in the Middle East, Arab nationalism, was the purview of Assad of Syria, Hussein of Iraq, Nasser of Egypt, and even to some extent Mubarak today. Every time someone claims "foreign influence" they're basically hearkening back to the nationalist movement of the post World War II era.

ANYWAY, the reason this is entertaining is because the nationalists have basically stood in opposition to the Brotherhood since the two ideologies were created. This makes more sense if you realize that the Brotherhood, and Sayyid Qutb, one of their most important leaders, are widely credited as the predecessor to the modern Islamist movements. Like Hamas. Who is the main opposition to Fatah. Which was lead by Yasser Arafat. Who got his start opposing the occupation of Palestine. By "imperialists" (we'll leave that one in quotes lest it be perceived as controversial). So basically they started out hating us (or the us that were all up in their business about 70 years ago), and now they hate each other. And sometimes, they hate us. Though hate is a strong word.

Which brings me to my last point. Mubarak has been using the Brotherhood as his shadow adversary for years. He has stayed in power, and on our (the United States') good side largely due to his willingness to keep the Muslim Brotherhood down. And by proxy, serve as a buffer between us and Islamists across the Middle East. It stands to reason that the scarier the alternative, the better he looks. So for all we ("the West" - I love me some arbitrary labels) know, they could not really exist at all. Or the Brotherhood could consist only of those old dudes walking arm in arm at the protests about a week ago (I don't really know when that was, it all starts to run together after awhile). Or the Brotherhood could have supporters in every person in Tahrir Square. We simply don't know.

So every time a pundit, or a politician, or a journalist - the lines blur after awhile - mentions that the protesters seem to be secular, they're playing on your fears. Fears that the fall of Mubarak inherently means the rise of the Brotherhood, and the rise of the Brotherhood indicates another tide of Islamist (read: terrorist) feeling across the region. It doesn't. One, assuming the Brotherhood is violent is a leap. They stood in the 2005 elections, indicating their willingness participate in the democratic process (not institute another Caliphate). Assuming their rise to power would immediately lead to a rise in anti-American activity across the Middle East is a stretch. If someone who sympathizes with Brotherhood took power in Egypt, it would not automatically empower Hamas in Gaza. A power vacuum in Egypt leading to anarchy on the Sinai border is more likely to cause trouble, and even then it wouldn't necessarily be the doing of Hamas. Keep in mind, Hamas now represents law and order in the Gaza Strip, and therefore don't really gain from anarchy.

For now, let's not make any assumptions about the Muslim Brotherhood, the protesters in Tahrir, or who wants what where. Instead, let's try to understand what the Egyptians are saying. The Brotherhood, Mubarak, the protestors, even El Baradei (who appears to be totally irrelevant to everyone except "the West"). And let's not jump to conclusions.