Every day we learn something new about democracy from the United States. Since he took office, President Bush has pledged to democratize the backward Arab world, proposing the formation of a New Middle East where the flags of freedom, democracy and human rights fly high.
Alas, no one in the Middle East – that is, in the backward Arab and Islamic countries of course, not the whole Middle East – responded to this noble call and so the US president decided to bring democracy in himself, stating clearly that the real reason he sent US tanks and fighter planes to Iraq had nothing to do with controlling oil resources or destroying a military force which threatened Israeli security, but had everything to do with introducing democracy, not only to Iraq, but to the entire Middle East region for which Iraq will be the model.
But as usual the US gift of democracy simply passed us by, not least because of our deeply entrenched ignorance. Just ask any Arab about the democracy brought to the Middle East by the US, and he’ll answer with characteristic idiocy: Where is it?
Yet today we have a golden – and perhaps even a last – opportunity to learn from US democracy through the current primaries which will determine the two candidates who will contest the presidency through the competition between the elephant and the donkey, the symbols of the democrats and the republicans respectively.
We really ought to seize the chance, especially after we, in Egypt, have attained all the prerequisites of democratic elections: Instead of one party, we now have 23, all represented by a diverse array of animals – elephants, donkeys, mules and even camels. The one detail left for us to learn are the democratic criteria required to choose the best candidate, which, according to US democratic practice, depends, first and foremost, on their level of loyalty to Israel.
Last week, Newsweek ran a report quoting the supporters of Hillary Clinton who accused her competitor Barack Obama of not showing the traditional US support for Israel. They supported their argument by citing an interview he gave to French weekly magazine Paris Match, where he was quoted as saying that it was necessary to bridge the widening gap between Muslims and the West and where he did not lay enough stress on Israel’s right to exist, and unlike Hillary Clinton, he did not insist on boycotting Iran.
Naturally all these points cast a dark shadow on his level of loyalty to the Jewish State and hence his chances of winning the democratic nomination.
Because Egypt isn’t as democratically-retarded as the rest of the Arab countries in Middle East, we are well aware of the fact that the US boycott of Iran is the pinnacle of political shrewdness and wisdom, whereas any Arab boycott of Israel would be nothing short of ignorance and downright stupidity.
Since US democracy – note that all democracy must be American – is essentially based on the nominee’s level of allegiance to Israel, then in Egypt we must bear this in mind when we nominate candidates, whether at home or abroad.
We must declare our loyalty to Israel, stressing night and day its right to exist. But all the old talk about the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the right of the existence of a Palestinian State, has absolutely nothing to do with democracy because US democracy is Semitic democracy and since we too are Semites, then there should be no problem.
Mohamed Salmawyis President of the Arab Writer’s Union and Editor-in-Chief of Al-Ahram Hebdo.
