"These are heady days in the Arab world’s fragile democratic bridgehead."
Cohen concludes:
"There will, in coming weeks, be agents provocateurs bent on the worst, and the usual Muslim-hating naysayers. Arab democracy is threatening to a host of vested interests and glib clichés. It is also the only way out of the radicalizing impasse of Arab klepto-gerontocracies and, as such, a vital American interest."
Lest we forget, in 2009, in an op-ed entitled "Iran Awakens Yet Again" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/opinion/11iht-edcohen.html), Cohen, who doesn't speak Farsi, informed us:
"Iran, its internal fissures exposed as never before, is teetering again on the brink of change. For months now, I’ve been urging another look at Iran, beyond dangerous demonization of it as a totalitarian state. Seldom has the country looked less like one than in these giddy June days."
So, in Iran Cohen witnessed "giddy" days, and now in Tunisia Cohen is witnessing "heady" days.
Unfortunately for Roger and the rest of the world, his Iranian bubble burst, but this did not prevent him from ignoring the agony of Iran's Baha'is, Kurds, homosexual community, Sunnis and political dissidents, while fabricating that fairytale. Today, in making the case that Tunisia is the Arabs' "Gdansk", which will bring democracy and freedom to the Arab world, Cohen is again choosing to ignore the inconvenient.
Hamas, which came to power in Gaza by way of democratic elections in 2005, is not willing to hold new elections. Instead, they are still busy consolidating power in the Gaza Strip by imprisoning and executing Fatah opponents, while persecuting Christians and gays. For the record, the Hamas leadership does not consist of aging despots clinging to power; rather, its leadership consists of brutal Islamists, who do not hesitate to kill and terrorize in order to maintain power.
Cohen disparages 82-year-old Hosni Mubarak, but fails to acknowledge the brutal massacre of Egypt's Christian Copts outside a church in Alexandria earlier this month, which left 25 persons dead. When Mubarak departs the scene, Cohen does not tell us what the Muslim Brotherhood, if they come to power in Egypt via democratic elections or otherwise, has planned for Egypt's Copts, who comprise some 10% of Egypt's population.
In Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, head of the Hezbollah party (i.e. Party of God) and far from being "old", just brought down the Lebanese government, owing to a draft indictment by a UN tribunal, pinning Hezbollah with responsibility for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Saad Hariri, Rafik's son and no "oldster", has thus far not caved in to Hezbollah; however, this past week Hezbollah threatened a coup, when it sent its "blackshirts" throughout Beirut in a display of force.
Tunisia is the Arab world's "democratic bridgehead"? Roger, don't you think it's a little early to be making such pronouncements? Don't you think before doing again what you did in Iran, you should first take several years to learn more about this country?
Forgive me, Roger, for suggesting that one need not be an "agent provocateur" or "Muslim-hating naysayer" in order to disagree with your latest analysis, particularly given how wildly off the mark your past analysis has proven. It could just well be that much of the Arab Middle East is currently not ready for freedom of thought and expression, which are the hallmarks of western democracy.
Jeffrey,
ReplyDeleteYou quote some funny sentences:
"Arab democracy is threatening to a host of vested interests and glib clichés. It is also the only way out of the radicalizing impasse".
Actually, the only cliche "Arab democracy" is threatening is the cliche that it is the "only way out of the radicalizing impasse". As reality shows everywhere (Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestinians, Egypt, Afghanistan, Turkey,...), "Arab democracy" (or, rather, Muslim democracy) is the reliable way into "radicalizing impasse", not out.
Now, he can call us "agents provocateurs bent on the worst, and the usual Muslim-hating naysayers", or whatever, - he just can not prove us wrong. As he proved wrong himself.
I find it amazing that Mrs. Clinton, who expresses point of view of our administration, agrees with Cohen. American taxpayers are paying for intelligence a lot, and where is it?!
The New York Times refused to post this comment online in response to Cohen's op-ed. Abusive? Not on topic? Or refusal to tolerate contrary opinions, i.e. censorship, pure and simple?
ReplyDelete