Posted on 05/30/2005 5:14:23 PM PDT by SJackson
Power will not moderate them, let's not be naive and make even more problems for the Middle East.
The following may soon be true – the good news is that Islamists are not committing terrorism; the bad news, that they are running the governments.
Welcome to the latest Western debate: Should Islamists be helped to run in elections in order to moderate them? Both in Washington and Europe this idea is seizing people's minds. The European Union advocates dealing with Hizbullah and may decide the best way to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace is to strengthen Hamas. In Washington the main example of such thinking is to help the Muslim Brotherhood run in fair Egyptian elections.
The short answer is that radical Islamists will not be moderated by participating in elections or gaining power. The Communist party in Russia and the Nazi party in Germany ran candidates for parliament. Yet the retort to criticism of this latest bad idea seems to be "there certainly seem to be a lot of them, don't there?" For example:
The Oslo peace process was based largely on the idea that once Yasser Arafat and his colleagues governed Palestinians and dealt with daily problems, they would be more moderate, responsible and abandon terrorism.
In Algeria an imminent Islamist electoral victory sparked a military coup and bloody warfare. Blocking Islamists when they play fair, it is claimed, will only means more civil wars and instability.
Many American experts predicted in 1978 that once Islamists gained power in Iran they would be easy to live with.
This discouraging record does not mean that pious Muslims cannot be real democrats. A Middle Eastern equivalent of European Christian Democratic parties might eventually emerge. Though Turkey is often used as an example of such a prospect of Islamic moderation, the Turkish case, with its more moderate brand of Islam and entrenched democracy, is quite different from Arab countries'. Turkey's governing Islamic party knows it must act moderately enough to avoid antagonizing the secular-oriented majority and army.
In addition, Turkey had three vital preconditions for creating Islamist democrats that don't exist in the Arab world: a clear split between radical Islamists and moderates, a charismatic leader with the courage to reshape Islamism, and an explicit and real change in ideology.
An obvious but vital point is that radical Islamist groups do not commit terrorism for its own sake. Their objective is to seize power for specific purposes. Once in power, Islamist parties would change laws and society to produce more Islamists. Such regimes will use foreign policy adventurism – including attacking the West and Israel – to mobilize support and distract attention from failures at home.
The result will be to replace one repressive authoritarian regime with another, adding two more generations to the process of real moderation and democratization of the Arab world. What is going to stop this from happening, assuming that Islamist parties have enough votes?
HERE THE debate gets silly. To quote a liberal Arab reformer I respect, "This does raise questions about who would guarantee that all parties abide by the rules of the game." He suggests the courts do this, concluding, "There must be faith in the system."
Given the risks involved – a bloody, repressive dictatorship, foreign wars and the Islamization of society – basing one's future on faith in a system that does not yet exist and on rulings from courts that are notoriously impotent is not quite sane.
Of course, each specific example is important, so let's take three. Hamas wants to rule a country extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea based on what amounts to an openly genocidal attitude toward Jews. It will use any power it obtains, including a large share of the Palestinian parliament, create a base for more terrorism, including social and educational changes to ensure a 100-year-long war with Israel.
Hizbullah wants to take power in Lebanon but cannot since Shi'ite Muslims are only 40 percent of the electorate. It demands proportional representation to give it the largest possible influence. The Christians, Druse and Sunnis resist. What Hizbullah will win is the right to remain the country's only armed militia, and control over the south. It will bide its time looking for future opportunities.
Lastly, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood already participates in elections using front groups. It is barred from running itself because the government insists, not unreasonably, that no party can claim a monopoly on proper Islam. If it is legalized, its ambitions will grow.
Two key points to keep in mind. First, the factor most likely to moderate larger Islamist groups is their knowing power is beyond their reach. Hamas never challenged the Palestinian leadership because it knew it would be crushed in a civil war. In Jordan and Egypt, Islamist parties take the quota of parliamentary seats permitted them and cause no trouble because they know beating the regime is impossible.
Once they conclude they can win, however, the result will be instability and more militancy.
Finally, the most likely result of any Western belief that power will moderate radical Islamists will be unilateral Western concessions to such groups. They will be given immunity for past terrorist acts, diplomatic backing against the local regimes, money and other benefits in exchange for promises to be good. They will then break these promises, most likely without cost.
Let's not be na ve about radical Islamism and make even more problems for the Middle East.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Well, DUH!!!
Does someone have one of those "Captain Obvious" pictures to post?
:-)
Those idiots need to get their lips off the crack pipe and join the real world. MUSLIMES CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!!!
The only solution is to destroy them.
"The only solution is to destroy them"......Bingo! You have seen the light!
BUMP!
Rome tried to negotiate with the Huns. Chamberlain tried to negotiate with the Nazis. We tried to negotiate with the Soviets, the Iraqis, and with N. Korea. Republicans try to negotiate with Demonrats. Abject failures all.
The only way to deal with with tyrannical opposition is to soundly defeat it and beat it into submission.
Elric: "You are a worm, Yrkoon. But I wonder, were you given that for which you lust, were you given power... would you cease to be a worm?"
Elric found out, to his sorrow, that the result of his experiment was a resounding "No."
The ones that want to kill me and my family, and those that acquiese to the nutcases among them, yes.
DON'T MULTIPLY YOUR ENEMIES.
You are falling into the same rhetorical trap that the appeasement crowd does. The groups you mentioned: communists, islamists, dictatorial regimes, etc. are already our avowed enemies.
We should NEVER sacrifice our principles on the altar of "getting along". We should have dealt with N. Korea 55 years ago, Cuba 40 years ago, and should be alot more brutal and direct in the middle east today than we are now. We should not trade or even maintain diplomatic realtions with China.
"Can't we all just get along?" Nope, and trying just puts our children and grandchildren in a poorer position. The only thing a tyrant understands is brute force. For the sake of future generations, we should take them all down - hard.
Then you, ( and everyone else here) had better be ready to go Full Empire Boogie on them ALL., and I mean that in a very ROMAN sense. Colonies, roads, baths, social engineering, brutal punishments for any that step out of line, and keeping several Legions in the hot spots at all times and admitting that we are on a War Footing..
Export Civilization with a vengence and with teeth.
It would take at least two more generations to make them all submit and three is more likely.
Personally, I don't see political will for that
You are correct in that it would take at least two generations to do. I don't see the political will for it NOW either.
All bets are off once al queda sets of a nuke in NYC, DC, or LA.
It won't happen unless we get hit here again.
Maybe not once, but twice.
Most people have gotten "bored" with the War.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.