There are dates that symbolize more than just a political event. They reveal a deeper truth about the world in which we live.
June 24, 2012, was such a day.
Fourteen years ago today, Mohamed Morsi’s victory in Egypt’s presidential election was announced. For the first time in the history of the largest Arab state, a president affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood movement was elected.
For many in the West, this was a cause for celebration. In their view, the Arab Spring had proven that democracy, free elections, and social media would inevitably lead to a more liberal, open, and tolerant society.
Reality was different.
Within a few months, it became clear that democratic elections do not guarantee democratic outcomes. A well-organized Islamist movement exploited the mechanisms of democracy to advance an agenda that was far removed from the values of liberty and pluralism championed by supporters of the Arab Spring.
Morsi did not emerge out of nowhere. For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood had operated beneath the surface. They built community institutions, social networks, educational systems, and a broad political infrastructure.
The events of 2012 were a reminder that we live in a far more fragile environment than it sometimes appears. For decades, many Israelis had grown accustomed to viewing the peace agreement with Egypt as a permanent fact.
Yet within a matter of months, Israel found itself facing a new reality in which the most important Arab state in the region was governed by an Islamist movement sharing ideological roots with Hamas.
The fact that this scenario did not endure for long does not mean it was impossible. On the contrary, it happened in practice. On the contrary, it happened in practice.
Just one year later, Morsi was removed by the Egyptian military under the leadership of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Yet the very fact that the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded in gaining power in a country of more than 80 million people should remind us how quickly regional realities can change.
The broader lesson extends beyond the Middle East.
The Western liberal world often tends to assume that progress is a natural process. That if elections are held, internet access expands, and integration into the globalized world increases, societies will inevitably become freer and more moderate.
History teaches otherwise
For Israel, the lesson of June 24, 2012 remains relevant today. In many respects, Israel is an island of stability, freedom, and prosperity within a region that has experienced revolutions, civil wars, collapsing regimes, and the rise of extremist movements over the past decades.
We must remind ourselves again and again that the environment in which we live is volatile. The forces seeking to undermine the existing order have not disappeared. They are merely waiting for an opportunity.
This is precisely why the events of 2012 remain relevant to the strategic debate currently taking place regarding Iran and Palestinian society.
For many years, voices in Israel and the West argued that time would solve the problem. That economic integration would change the regime. That the younger generation would make Iran more moderate. That globalization would triumph over ideology.
Here, too, as in Egypt in 2012, much of the discussion was based on hopes rather than an assessment of reality.
And the reality is that we live in a volatile environment where crises develop rapidly, extremist ideologies continue to exist beneath the surface, and the existing order can change within a matter of months.
The Middle East teaches time and again that radical forces do not disappear on their own. Sometimes time actually strengthens them. Sometimes it grants them resources, legitimacy, and capabilities they did not previously possess.
This is the most important lesson of June 24, 2012.
Not that the Muslim Brotherhood won an election.
But that fundamental assumption of many in the West was proven wrong.
Those who remember prevail.
Because those who remember how, within a matter of months, the face of the most important Arab state in the Middle East changed, understand why Israel and the West cannot afford to base their security on wishful thinking.
They must base it on preparedness, strength, and the understanding that the stability we enjoy today is an asset that must be protected, not a natural condition that can be taken for granted.
The author is the deputy chairman of the Institute for Security Policy of the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF).