Natan Sharansky, Jewish Freedom Fighter and Israeli patriot,
foresaw to a certain extent the revolution that is taking place in Egypt.
Writing in The Case for Democracy, he acknowledged the fledgling reforms that were taking place under the Mubarak regime, including open elections to opposing parties.
He also pointed out that it would only be a matter of time before subjects in these oppressive Arab nations would rise up, demanding more freedom and accountability from their governments.
Much of the debate in international circles has turned on what would be the long-term effects of regime change in Egypt, along with Tunisia, Yemen, and Jordan. Many fear that more radical Islamic elements will rise to power on the wave of populist revolt sweeping the Middle East. Even worse, state officials and Zionists fear that a democratic Egypt will give birth to a nation hostile to Israel, repudiating the Camp David Accords which President Jimmy Carter had helped broker in 1979.
I am more inclined to accept the cautious optimism of Natan Sharansky, who has gently chided Western Leaders that for too long they have compromised their democratic ideals all in the name of regional stability. To refute the value of this policy, Sharansky merely indicates the decisive devastation wrought on this county on September 11, 2001; the vast majority of those high-jacking terrorists were from Saudia Arabia, one of the "moderate" authoritarian states which the United States had chosen to ally itself with. Consider also the frequent concessions expected from the Jewish state to purchase peace from the PLO. Every time that Israel concedes land or liberty, the jihadist elements in the region increase their attacks on Israel.
It is in the best interests of every freedom-loving nation to support broader political, religious, and cultural freedoms throughout the world.
Sharansky qualifies this point: We must support democractic reforms in these Middle Eastern countries, yet our support cannot be merely blind sympathy. Democratic reform must entail more than sporadic elections with token opposition parties whose votes and policies ultimately yield to a censorious political climate that restricts free speech and minority rights.
In spite of the growing concerns rising in the minds of many policy wonks and pundits, I believe that the growing unrest and demand for change which we are witnessing in Tunisia, Egypt, and to a lesser extent Yemen and Jordan, is in the best interests of the United States and Israel, both countries firmly committed to the cause and spread of freedom and democracy. As Sharanksky writes, "The free world continues to underestimate the universal appeal of its own ideas." He later expounds the belief, which I share in turn, that all peoples want to be free, and are willing take the steps necessary to achieve, even those oppressed nations in the Middle East.
It would be in the best interests of foreign policy here and abroad to review the opinion and practices which guided Natan Sharansky and his political allies, both within Israel, the Middle East, and the United States.