Americans believe that power is derived from the will of the people. We decry despotism. Yet our sense of fairness often drives us to allow the mob to rule even when we know that its rule is unfair. That contradiction results in another, namely a contradiction between the belief that the rights of every person are sacred and the belief that the will of the majority, even to trample upon the rights of the minority, must be followed.

Today we are witnessing upheaval in the Middle East. Mob rule threatens to overturn despotism. Ethically, we must support the mob because power should derive from the will of the people. Yet also ethically, we must oppose the mob’s efforts should they gain power, to create a tyranny of their own. Our conflicted minds think, “Down with the dictator! Beware the victors!”

I wish that I could say that this conflict was limited to foreign lands. It is not. This week, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum, mobs gather to press their voice, to press their power, in states across our Union. They speak and act in righteous indignation at affronts, at unfairness, or in religious fury. I will not for a moment declare all of these groups wrong to do so and, in this place, will not even criticize a one. What I offer here is one man’s sense that times are changing. The majority is feeling empowered to act as a mob. Minorities, both ethnic minorities and those who hold minority views, are under increasing threat.

Thus, when I hear the words of those advocating for the United States to support condemnation of Israel precisely because the majority of nations do and when I can note that this reasoning seems to be starting to resonate, I find myself, as I do today, becoming increasingly concerned. I am concerned not only for Israel. Israel has friends. Israel has strength. Israel may take care of itself. I am concerned that the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s will be reborn and that Israel’s purpose as a safe haven for the persecuted Jew will be made manifest again. I am concerned that the rights of minorities in America and throughout the world will be under threat because the masses so wish. I am concerned that the rule of law will be increasingly unable to be sustained against the will of the masses.

There is little or no difference between the resolution proposed in the UN Security Council today in condemnation of Israel and many others that have been proposed before. The real difference is in the sense that standing up for the persecuted minority, or even standing apart with a minority, increasingly appears to be seen as unreasonable and even as unrighteous.

Should the United States today vote to support the majority for that sole reason, it will be a shameful day in our nation’s history and a frightening omen for the future.

Today is Purim Katan, “Little Purim”. Today is the 14th of the First Month of Adar. Today, though we are not required to read the Megillah, the Book of Esther, as we will be required next month on Purim, we are reminded of the persecution of minorities everywhere in the world. We are reminded that the tide may swiftly change against us and others. We cannot forget.

If we are vigilant, we may live the blessing from the Book of Esther, “And the Jews had light and Gladness and Joy and Honor.” Kein yehi ratson!

Egypt could be expected to aid flotillas into Gaza and to make it much easier for arms shipments and other deliveries to enter Gaza. Israel would then likely need to retake the Gaza border with Egypt and/or would need to place more troops on that border than ever before. Israel would additionally need to dramatically increase its military strength all along the Egyptian border because Egyptian troops would not be trusted to prevent incursion by militants, even if they could be trusted not to participate or directly aid in the incursions. Obviously, all previous agreements between Israel and Egypt would be in question either officially or unofficially.

The Palestinian Authority faces the possibility that its greatest supporter, Egypt, would suddenly become a supporter of its arch enemy, Hamas. The PA has been holding “We love Mubarak” rallies throughout the West Bank. Suddenly the PA’s best ally will be Israel. *I guess that I shouldn’t say this publicly because the PA would then be accused of being traitors to the Arab cause. Israel must be a hated enemy and the cause of all evil.

Jordan would have its best allies (Egypt and America) fomenting rebellion within its borders. It is almost a certainty that Jordan’s rhetoric regarding Israel in the months ahead will be much more hostile than it has previously been. This will be so as to avoid being accused of being a friend of Israel. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority’s leadership all have applied for and received Jordanian citizenship. This, just in case Jordan turns into a Palestinian state after all.

Saudi Arabia would face a highly hostile Egypt battling for hegemony in the region that will attempt to foment Islamist rebellion in the kingdom at every turn. Worse, for the King and his family, is the clear indication that the United States would abandon its close ally at the drop of a hat in favor of a hostile democratic rebellion within its borders.

So, looking at what is actually happening in Egypt, is it any wonder that the Saudis have told the Obama Administration where to place its proverbial oil rig? Is it any wonder that the Saudis have come to the aid of Mubarak, threatening to replace any aid that America would deny, and likely will or are coming to the aid of the leaders in Jordan and Yemen as well? Is it any wonder that America is no longer seen as a friend and supporter, but now as a potential threat for emboldening revolt? It is indeed a wonder that among Egypt’s best friends, among the Palestinian Authority’s best friends, among the Saudi’s best friends, is Israel!

We now look at a Middle East in which the peoples and nations that were/are at war with Israel find common cause with it against Iran, against Political Islam, and against America’s foment of insurrection.

It is indeed a strange new world.

In 1979, America had a friend in the Shah,  but we were fairly sure that the alternatives would not be good. Popular uprisings were not democratic movements, but tended to be socialist or communist ones. At the height of the Cold War, many in the West felt more comfortable with Islamists than with “socialists.” Any socialist or communist government was going to become a friend of the Soviets. Who knew with whom the Muslims would ally? Probably not the anti-religious oppressive USSR!

The US helped the Mujahadeen against the USSR in Afghanistan because America felt that the Muslim radicals would at least be neutral.

The fall of the USSR changed the dynamic. Even socialist protesters these days are not necessarily going to be allied with Russia. Venezuela maybe. Russia? China? Not necessarily. And there is a possibility of actual secular democratic movements gaining a foothold today even though they face a difficult road. Islamists are stronger, but they are still no friends of China or Russia. In fact, both China and Russia face Islamic terrorism within their borders.

Today’s dynamic is one in which there is hope for secular democratic movements to gain strength, perhaps even to create democratic states, but it would be very naive to think that they are dominant political players in most nations in the Middle East. The primary dynamic is one between two forms of government opposed by America. The first is form are nationalist governments. Largely fascist, nationalist movements have installed dictatorships in most of the nations in the Middle East. Elections in those countries tend to be among groups loyal to the regime and the leader of the dominant party may even run unopposed or nearly so. The second form of government are Islamic theocracies. These governments are also fascist, opposed to liberal reforms and other Western values.

Supporters of Western style democracy are in a tiny minority in most nations in the Middle East and have even less power than their numbers might indicate.

Too often the media tends to represent one side as evil with the assumption that the alternative must be better, even good. The reality is that in the Middle East, oppressive dictatorships are often opposed by even more oppressive and even dangerously so, theocratic movements. The Muslim Brotherhood is such an alternative for Egypt. Filled with hatred of the West, not only of its political influence, but of its values, the MB coming to power in Egypt would not make the nation more free, but instead simply install a new kind of oppression and fear.

This is a case of pick your poison. What needs to happen, and the Muslim Brotherhood will oppose this with all it is worth, is that secular democratic reformers need to work with the nationalists to end their fascism and to create a moderate secular democracy. Any alternative other than that is going to result in tyranny of one sort or another.

Sometimes, democracy can bring about a worse tyranny. The majority can install a government that is oppressive of minorities. Without a real desire to limit the power of the majority and an iron clad agreement to do so such as a constitution with required judicial oversight, democracies may become more oppressive of minority rights than even some of the worst despotic monarchies.

Free elections result in the will of the majority of voters coming to pass. If the will of the majority is to assure rights and liberties for all, things are going to be just fine. If the will of the majority is to seek revenge against the minority that previously ruled, things are going to be very bad for the minority. If the will of the majority is to impose draconian religious restrictions, if you are not part of that majority and not interested in living under such restrictions, you might not like majority rule.

The situation in many countries in the Middle East today is as follows:

A nationalist, sometimes fascist, ruling party supported by a minority of the overall population, but which controls the military, is headed by a dictatorial leader. These nationalists face Political Islamist groups of substantial size.

Political Islamist groups are those seeking to install sharia law as the law of the land as opposed to modern civil (secular) laws. They also seek to coordinate their efforts across national boundaries in an effort to create a larger Arab led Islamic entity, sometimes called the “Islamic Caliphate.” Political Islamists often harbor dreams of restoring Islamic empires of the past and reclaiming for Islam lands lost to Western powers or to Western ideals.

A relative minority in most of the nations in the Arab world favors secular democratic principles and fewer still favor those principles in such a way that they would be willing to fight and die in order to protect the rights of hated minorities.

In the conflicts going on in most of the nations where unrest is found today, democratic protesters relatively few in number, are being backed by political Islamists who hope that by joining with the democratic protesters they might be able to overcome the rule of the nationalists. For those interested in freedom and democracy following the fall of nationalist governments, this should be of grave concern because the combination of democratic protesters and political Islamists working together will lead to the political Islamists coming to power and simply installing a different set of anti-democratic laws and oppressive rules.

The vital idea to note is that a modern democracy requires that the majority be willing to fight and die in order to protect the rights of hated minorities. No nation failing this test may call itself a free nation. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

The only way to avoid a tyrannical alternative to the nationalists dictatorships currently ruling in many Arab states is for the nationalists to work with those seeking democratic reforms and for the two of them to create together a free society that values and protects the rights of minorities.

Failing this, nations will simply move from one form of despotism to another, suffering and violence will continue, and the Arab world will continue to deteriorate further down a path of hopelessness and hatred.

The primary purpose of these modifications to pure democracy is the safeguarding of minority rights and liberties. While we advocate for democratic reforms and progress toward democracy, mob rule, pure democracy, is not the goal. In fact, mob rule is the greatest of tyrannies and the worst variety of it is a dictator at the head of the mob.

The founding fathers of this nation were equally afraid of mob rule as they were the tyranny of the monarchy. Majorities not only have a tendency to act against minorities, but religious majorities have a long history of doing so with murderous fervor.

Hosni Mubarak is a dictator. The Egyptian people have been suffering under his rule for decades. It is easy to assume that virtually any alternative would be better if you are impoverished, unemployed, and hopeless as many Egyptians are. However, many alternatives are going to be worse in the short run and far worse in the long run. Egypt could turn into Iran overnight.

Not only would an Anti-Western theocratic nation be a problem for America and Israel, but it will rapidly oppress its own population.