RUTHFULLY YOURS

Professor Moshe Sharon’s work desk is full. He is currently laboring over the latest volume of his encyclopedia of Arab inscriptions in the Land of Israel. He has discovered treasure troves of information. At the entrance to his study, one can see a copy of a rare Arab inscription belonging to Frederick II, one of the more colorful and fascinating rulers of the Middle Ages. Frederick led the sixth crusade to the Holy Land and gained control of Jerusalem in a bloodless battle after entering into negotiations with the Sultan.

Sharon, a world-renowned expert on Islam, studied under the tutelage of Bernard Lewis and has many titles to his credit. He was, among other things, a close adviser on Arab affairs to Menachem Begin. He had a front-row seat to the peace negotiations with Egypt that culminated in the Camp David Accords. As an IDF officer, he specialized in the Bedouin of Israel and the Shiites of Lebanon. After reaching the rank of colonel, he was appointed head of the IDF General Staff’s Arab affairs division.

The hundreds of articles which he penned for some of the world’s leading academic journals have earned him a reputation as a top scholar blessed with a sharp perspective, a perspective he now uses to scrutinize the changes and upheavals sweeping the Arab world.

Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox

A tribal Muslim identity

Sharon does not share in the excitement generated by the Arab Spring, nor does he leave much room for optimism. “Not much is happening in the Middle East,” he said. “Certainly not an Arab Spring. What was is what will be, only with more radicalization. Since 1979, there has been a return of Islam and to Islam in the entire Arab world. Islam was latent and dormant for a long period of time due to two factors: European imperialism, which had an interest in moderating Islam and confining it to the mosques; and the ‘Westernized’ ruling civilian class.”

“Prior to the 1950s, Arab society was a civilian-based ‘Westernized’ society,” he said. “People lived the lives of Westerners, dressed like Westerners, sent their children to universities in the West, and so forth.”

“In the 1950s, as Arab states gained their independence, the era of military coups began,” he said. “After being liberated from the grip of Western power, the only organized entity in Arab countries was the military. The coups were supported by the Soviet Union, which had an interest in harming the West. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the army continued to dominate, but underneath the surface, a return to Islam, which first began in 1979, was afoot.”

“The key element, the central and most important ingredient in people’s identity – the Muslim element – which was always extant but hidden, awakened,” he said. “Even though the Islamic Revolution began in Shiite Iran, it seeped across the entire region. The desire to return to Islam had engulfed the entire Islamic world. Mosques began to fill up, and preachers grew ever so bolder. Suddenly, a political Islamic movement had arisen. They were either dormant or semi-dormant, but they have been in existence since as far back as the 1920s. The revolution represented the most important layer of the ‘non-Westernized’ society.'”

“In addition, ever since the late 19th century, Muslim scholars in Egypt began to revitalize Islam and they took on intellectuals who used Western tools in order to raise questions regarding the culture of Islam,” he said. “In the last year, these same dormant Islamic elements have come to life. Each country has its own reasons. It may be that the initial trigger took place in Tunisia, when [Mohamed] Bouazizi set himself on fire. But it was in Tunisia, where women enjoy a much better status, that the protest led to the rise of organized forces, namely the Islamists.”

In other words, the more liberal forces paradoxically brought about the right of the more religious, traditional forces?

“Yes. The liberal forces are the ones who thought that they would bring down the organized military entity and replace it with a civilian one. Now it is clear that the central element in the civil societies is the most organized entity. Women who scream and yell and one guy who sets himself on fire are not enough. Who is the organized entity that can ultimately win an election? The Islamic element.”

Egypt will not be Iran

Sharon declines to characterize the changes in the Middle East as a revolution. “All in all, we are dealing with different types of coups,” he said. “I believe that Egypt will be headed by an army general. On the other hand, Islam will rise to a position of leadership in all of these places and it will give an Islamic stamp of approval to a general, unless there is a counter-coup. If the army does not want religious leadership, it will manipulate the election results. If it isn’t possible to forge the results, it will carry out a type of coup. In any event, it is clear that removing the military leadership has not done any good for anyone. The supposedly democratic elections did not fundamentally change the situation in these states.”

What is the difference between the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood? What is the significance of the widespread support that they received?

“The Muslim Brotherhood is an organized body that has been around since 1928 which espouses a pious Islamic worldview. On their extreme flank are the Salafis. The word ‘Salaf’ means ‘past.’ These are people who want to go backwards in time, to the days of the prophet. The past was better than what we have today in the present. The Salafis are of the opinion that Shariah law needs to be strictly imposed and followed to the letter. The Muslim Brotherhood is more flexible, and they use legal tools and nuances to tailor Shariah to present-day realities.”

“In any case, the Brotherhood is not satisfied about their links to the Salafis because it is interested in leading without more extreme elements undermining their authority and questioning their piety. They would prefer to reach understandings with the army without the Salafis at their side. Nonetheless, a united front with them gives their bloc a majority. The major question in Egypt is whether to allow them to turn the country into a Shariah state.”

Assuming they win a majority, do you expect them to abrogate the peace treaty?

“Initially, they will try to offer up a candidate for president from their party. Secondly, if they don’t immediately try to abrogate the treaty, they will at least try to make changes in the military aspects of the treaty. They have an interest in regaining their grip on the Sinai.”

“In any event, Egypt has not turned into a different country. It is increasingly being governed by Islam, but the military high command was not completely eliminated by Mubarak’s ouster. Take a look at who is running the country – the military council. This is apparently what will be in the future.”

Even when a new government arises?

“When a government emerges, the army will play an important role. It will not relinquish its senior position, even if the Islamists win a 60 percent majority. It will retain control of most of the state institutions that have been under its command since the revolution. So I believe that nothing really happened – one general replaced another general, only this time there is a more Islamic atmosphere. So people will just pray more, and the army will also.”

What if the Brotherhood and the Salafis unite in a bid to form their own government without the army?

“Then there will be big problem in Egypt. If the Brotherhood is dragged along by the Salafis and an extremist constitution is imposed on the country, it won’t work. The army will not accept this. You might hear a lot of talk and clichés condemning Israel and there will be a rise in anti-Semitism, for this is always a good escape. But in order to maintain a stable regime in Egypt, it will be difficult to work with such an extremist coalition.”

“Egypt has always been dependent on the Nile. In order to run the Nile, what is needed is a stable, central government. The dependence on the Nile has led to a situation where usually there is a stable regime. So there may be riots in Tahrir Square, but in most of Egypt people yearn for a stable regime, one made up of a coalition including the army and a central actor with an important, unifying identity – the Muslim Brotherhood. The people in Tahrir Square want neither of them, but these are not the masses in Egypt who made their voices heard in the elections. Everything you see in the media is what happens in Cairo, with one group of people in one place.”

So you are reassuring us by saying that what we had in the past is what we will have in the future?

“No, on the contrary. From Egypt’s standpoint, what was in the past is what we will see in the future. But from Israel’s point of view, the picture is far more serious because the entity that will have the greatest impact on diplomatic activity and the relationship with Israel will be elements with a far more Islamic bent. They will also have control of state propaganda, and the army will, to a great extent, have to take them into consideration. The army will continue to be the supreme manager of state affairs, but underneath it all the state apparatuses will be more Islamic.”

Perhaps Egypt will be like Iran?

“No, but it is doubtful that people will be able to do certain things in public places that they were free to do in the past. Let’s wait and see.”

“The West must intervene in Syria”

“There is a struggle between tribes in Syria,” Sharon said. “It is a struggle between the tribes of Assad, who hold the key positions of power in Syria, and the Sunni establishment. The Alawites have, in the past, been viewed as a marginal player in Syria, but the revolution led by Assad the father changed their standing and enabled them to move into important positions. They will not relinquish this position so easily. It isn’t Assad the man that is fighting for his existence. It is an entire layer of the population, including an important Sunni contingent that has enjoyed positions of leadership thanks to Assad. On the other hand, the Sunnis want to restore their previous position of power. The atmosphere in the Arab world lends legitimacy to his change. It is a change that is not going in the direction of democracy, but in the direction of a tribal struggle.

“A junior class of officers deserted the army and formed their own ‘Freedom Army.’ It is not a big force, but it does fight. There is a civil war now. From the army’s standpoint, Assad’s position has not been undermined because most of the army is with him, including the elite units.”

Won’t there be a situation similar to that in Egypt, where the people no longer back him?

“When you have a situation where tribes are fighting each other, there is no issue of ‘people.’ Now, in Dara’a, there is an uprising and the town is being bombed by the air force. As long as the army does not undermine Assad’s authority, he will continue to fight to preserve what he perceives as a legal, legitimate government, even if means hundreds killed on a daily basis. The situation is exactly similar to what took place in Libya.”

This week we heard that Assad agreed to the Arab League’s demand to withdraw his forces from Syrian towns and to allow inspectors access to these areas.

“Let us assume that they allow inspectors in. What will happen next? The regime will collapse? The Arab League wants to take cosmetic steps just to show that it is taking some kind of action. But it is not dispatching a military force and it is not imposing sanctions or acting in a way that will significantly hamper the Syrian regime.

“The fact that the Syrian regime is willing to cooperate with them and sign a piece of paper has no real meaning. You have to understand that doing harm to the Assad family means exposing a large portion of the Syrian public to danger and a possible bloodbath. It is not just Alawites who back Assad, but also some Sunnis, so we are not just talking about replacing one leader with another, like they did in Egypt. This is replacing an extensive, social landscape with another. Assad is just the symbol of an entire system of relationships – political, economic, and cultural – and this system will not easily give up the position that it attained for itself.”

So you are saying that there won’t be change in Syria unless the West intervenes.

“If there is Western intervention and they begin bombing, that’s an entirely different story. What could happen is that if Assad feels extremely pressured, he could open up a front against Israel. He may decide to shell Israel with missiles, and then we will be compelled to respond and the entire Middle East will light up, and Hezbollah and Hamas will join in. That would be unpleasant.

“Under no circumstances should we attack”

Aren’t you concerned by the picture you are painting? On the one hand, you say that this isn’t a real revolution, but on the other hand, from Israel’s standpoint, this is the ascendancy of elements that are far more radical in the way they perceive the Jewish state’s existence.

“I am worried. First of all, I’m worried about the fact that Iran is about to attain nuclear weapons. This could ignite the entire Middle East. When radical Islamic elements are on the ascent, irrespective of where it is, the state of Israel is viewed as a thorn in their side. From their standpoint, Israel is a historical anomaly. The desire to eliminate Israel is something that goes without saying, and there is no difference between the Sunnis and Shiites on this issue.

“If the Shiites get hold of an atomic bomb, it will not just threaten Israel, but it will also threaten the Sunnis. The world does not want to see chaos erupt here, because in that case everyone will be shooting at everyone. Everyone is now looking to U.S. President Barack Obama. In order to put this issue to rest, one needs to focus on the primary suspect, the Iranians, and give them an ultimatum: ‘If you don’t shut down this whole business by a certain date, there will be an invasion.’ Pure and simple. But will Obama do such a thing?

“In such a situation, the Arabs are watching the primary suspect with fear, and they are giving him respect, but behind the scenes they are looking at Israel with the expectation that we will do the work for them. A few years ago, I wrote an article and I want to repeat what I wrote back then: Under no circumstances. It’s not our deal. If the state of Israel attacks Iran, this will border on national suicide.”