Curiously, and perhaps somewhat provocatively the Geneva-born Jean-Jacques Rousseau, philosopher, writer and composer of the 18th century whose works tremendously influenced the French Revolution, was described by Badr Al-Rashed in the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as an “Islamist”. Al-Rashed drew parallels between Rousseau and “enlightened contemporary Islamists thinkers”. The Saudi writer appeared apologetic to the Islamists of today who he says, like Rousseau, made concessions to the state of his day. “I do not insist that the Islamist perspective is necessarily progressive and that everyone must follow its general precepts. Rather, I see that it is our duty to vigorously criticise it for its reactionary tendencies, but not from the perspectives of the Arab intellectuals of the past few decades,” Al-Rashed wrote in Al-Hayat. From Rousseau to Israel via Syria and Egypt all eyes are now squarely fixed on Geneva, and on what Israel would do next. Raghda Dargham, also writing in Al-Hayat in an article entitled ‘The season of compromise between Washington and Moscow over Syria' noted that now that Israel and Iran have become more directly involved in the Syrian conflict, “Washington and Moscow have decided to revive the global Geneva conference on Syria. The United States is grateful to Russia for its willingness to try to arrange a ‘Geneva Two' conference to negotiate an end to Syria's civil war,” Dargham declared. In much the same vein, but from a radically different perspective, Editor-in-Chief of the Syrian pro-government daily Al-Thawra Ali Qassem was candid. “We detect a change of heart from the powers that at one point did not even want to listen to our point of view. This is an interesting and salutary development. We particularly note that the Moscow and Washington views of developments in Syria are becoming quite close,” Qassem wrote in Al-Thawra. “Syrian perseverance will put an end to the tragedy of the Syrian conflict as the country has turned into battlefield of contending foreign forces. The Syrian crisis must not end in tragedy, nor is it a chapter in some play, played out in stages. Syrian perseverance will pay off,” Qassem extrapolated. “We did not need the Israeli aggression to prove that Israel is deeply involved in the Syrian crisis,” wrote Ahmed Orabi Baaj in Al-Thawra. “The Israeli airstrikes denote that the Israelis are collaborating closely with the United States of America. They could not have acted alone, without the green light from Washington and in conjunction with Qatar,” he fumed. The Israeli air strikes on Syria attracted the attention of many commentators. “Many political commentators have attempted to discern Israel's real reasons for the dual strike it launched on military targets in Syria at the end of last week,” Eyad Abu Shakra postulates in the London-based pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat. The paper usually adopts a vehement anti-Syrian government stance. And, Abu Shakra is no exception. “Personally, I figure that neither Israel's strategy — especially in the Binyamin Netanyahu era — nor the Syrian regime's lies of ‘steadfastness' and ‘resistance' that we have heard for over 40 years require deep thinking or further explanation. Rather, I believe that it is naive to consider the Israeli strategy in isolation from the Syrian regime's purpose behind steadfastness. Therefore, I disagree with Omran Al-Zoubi, the Syrian information minister, who hastily argued that Israel's recent attack had exposed its support of the opponents of Al-Assad's regime; neither do I agree with Hizbullah's ideologues who have repeatedly stated that the purpose of the attack was to punish the regime for siding with the resistance camp,” Abu Shakra, the managing editor of the paper, prefigures. The Israeli airstrike was Syria's big test. There was confident belief that the world will huff and puff but do nothing of substance to stop Israel's airstrikes in Syria. Damascus, too, is at a crossroads. Syrian political lore generally derides those who oppose the government — the conservative oil-rich Arab Gulf countries and the Western powers. As always many questions revolve about the country's capacity to cope with the increasing interference of outsiders in its domestic affairs. “Let's get serious. I think those who believe that Israel's attacks on Syria were meant to support and take the pressure off the rebels fighting Bashar Al-Assad are precisely those who benefit from the regime itself, either directly or indirectly, particularly given that Tel Aviv's take on the more than two-year-old Syrian Revolution has been suspicious, if not antagonistic. The same can be said about the Obama administration and the rest of the major Western powers. In what seems to be a game of reciprocal exploitation, the international community has contributed to destroying Syria and murdering its people. Neither the Western powers nor Russia and China seem to be concerned about the Syrian tragedy. On the contrary, they find in Syria a ‘theatre of operations' — where they can exhaust their rival forces — and an arena to conduct negotiations,” Abu Shakra stated categorically. “In a message to Washington, Israel confirmed that it has its own take on the situation whether or not Obama chooses to be a backseat driver, and that its decision to get involved in the crises of the Middle East is not a matter only for the White House. In a message to Tehran, Israel attempted to probe the seriousness of Iran's commitment in supporting Al-Assad's regime, and how far Tehran — and its allies in the region — can go when the situation reaches a decisive stage,” he added. “As for its message to the Syrian opposition, Israel wanted to further embarrass and confuse the rebel forces, urging them to depend further on the West's support. This comes in light of the opposition's disappointment with the region's major players on which they — the opposition — have gambled, namely Turkey and Egypt,” Abu Shakra stressed. “I believe the Israeli strike delivered several messages, and it seems that the airstrikes produced a positive outcome for Israel,” Abu Shakra concluded. Libya also was mentioned by some Arab pundits. “Some Libyan social networking websites have claimed that Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif Al-Islam, who is being tried by the rebels in Zintan, has gone insane. According to these websites, doctors have confirmed that living under a constant state of pressure can result in a neurological condition resulting in brain death,” wrote Mshari Al-Zaydi in Asharq Al-Awsat. “Personally, I do not find Saif Al-Islam's ‘hysteria' that surprising; nor do I believe he is faking. I truly think that Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi is suffering from the early stages of this disease,” Al-Zaydi, a Saudi journalist and expert on Islamic movements and Islamic fundamentalism, asserted. “It is not surprising that people in Saif Al-Islam's position lose their minds, especially after he got to grips with his fate, not to mention the fate of his family. Had he initially shown good judgement and discretion — even amid his claims that there was a global conspiracy against his father's regime — rather than attempting to demonstrate bravery, Saif Al-Islam would have been much better off. However what happened, happened,” Al-Zaydi extrapolated. And, old habits die hard. Can Egypt learn from the Sudanese experience? Or, are the Sudanese willing to look carefully into Egypt's current political predicament? In fact, from Khartoum, the Egyptian experience looks all too familiar. “I am convinced that each country has its own special circumstances and that experiences cannot necessarily be translated from one country to the next, but Sudan and Egypt's experience with the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot of similarities. There are convergences in the approach of Islamists in both countries regarding how to monopolise power, circumvent opposing political forces and break pledges. Even more, the Brotherhood originates from a single ideology, despite the differences in the names of their parties and their approaches to opposition and governance,” insisted Othman Al-Mirghani in Asharq Al-Awsat. “The record of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan has revealed that they are prepared to go back on any promise or commitment to the people for the sake of power. In fact, they are actively conspiring against and deceiving the public in order to implement their plans and secure power. Although the Brotherhood's experience in power in Egypt is more recent than that of the Sudanese Brotherhood, there are many indications that they are pursuing a similar course in trying to exercise control over all aspects of life and power,” Al-Mirghani observed. “If the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood follows in the footsteps of their Sudanese counterparts, then their plans will include seeking to control the economy and restricting business in order to gain control of successful companies. In addition to this, infiltrating the military and security institutes will also be one of their primary goals,” Al-Mirghani concluded. Egyptian affairs also loomed large in this week's Arab press. In his first interview since resigning as Egyptian presidential adviser for legal affairs, Mohamed Fouad Gadallah gave an exclusive interview to Asharq Al-Awsat and spoke quite openly about the country's problems. “Every national government has three branches — the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. No nation can be fully stable while there is a conflict between these different branches. What we are witnessing in Egypt right now is a problem of trust between the judiciary and the other two branches,” Gadallah told Asharq Al-Awsat. “Accusations are being tossed around: the judiciary feels that the executive and legislature are conspiring against it, which is not true — at least, not to the point of conspiracy. In turn, the executive and legislative branches feel that the judiciary is conspiring against them, a fear that is equally exaggerated,” Gadallah explained.
