Natan Sharansky– the former Soviet political prisoner now living in Israel– wrote a book a few years ago called The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.
The book– which was read and warmly praised by then-President George W. Bush and other conservatives– made the case that a genuine and lasting peace between Israel and Arab states (and let’s remember that the peace between Egypt and Israel has been quite cold) was contingent on the transition of those states from dictatorships to democracies. As Publishers Weekly observed:
Sharansky criticizes those who argue that democracy is culturally contingent and therefore unsuited for Muslim societies. Turning to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he mentions documented Israeli human rights abuses, but places the bulk of the blame for the conflict on the dictatorial systems prevalent in Arab societies.
He had a point, didn’t he?
So what about the conservatives expressing the utter certainty that if Egypt throws off the Mubarak dictatorship, it will become an Islamist hellhole and an imminent threat to Israel? Do they now think Sharansky was wrong? Did they believe countries like Egypt would achieve democracy in a dignified and stately manner, with no unpleasant messiness? Or did some of them (as I suspect) piously agree with Sharansky in public while assuring themselves it would never be something they would have to deal with in reality?
