Very brief. So the one world leader whose feelings are unmixed on the subject of Egypt is Netanyahu. Obviously he'd like Mubarak's regime to continue. Egypt has a long-standing peace treaty with Israel, it helps keep the border stable, etc. Israel does not want a Devil It Doesn't Know. I understand that.
But I think Netanyahu is being a fool for going on and on about this in public, unless it's something he has to do for the Israeli public--is there an election about to happen or something? No one in Egypt wants to hear this. If you're interest is in keeping Mubarak in power, then the laaaaaaaast thing Mubarak needs is Israel dancing around saying KEEP MUBARAK IN POWER PLEEEEAAASE!!!!
I skim-read some other opinion piece right now that said what Netanyahu should be doing is not trying to prop up Mubarak, but talking to the Egyptian people, reminding them of the strategic reasons why peace with Israel is in their best interest. I agree there are good strategic interests to continue the peace--the same reasons they started the peace. Because Egypt is poor, they don't have any personal land they need to get back (unlike Syria or the Palestinians), they need to focus on their own problems. And of course, in return for supplying intelligence, and not tolerating rocket attacks from their borders, they get much needed aid from the US. Possibly any new govt will understand this.
But I do NOT agree that this is the time to be making appeals to the Egyptian people about this. Because Israel: IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. For heaven's sake! I know international politics in self-centered by nature, but could we not paint on a slight veneer of nice-a-tude for the occasion? Just PRETEND to care about the Egyptian people? For five minutes? Because that would be in their own self-interest, and work better than all this "wah wah wah don't destabilize our authoritarian ally!" or "Appeal to them that their new govt continue a treaty!" What new government?
Oh for the love.
Okay, I just had to get that off my chesst.
8 comments:
Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but isn't the concern that, if this all leads to an open election, the party likely to form the next Egyptian government is a moderate Muslim party that has stated that one of the first things they'll do is tear up the peace treaty with Israel?
Yes. That's what I was addressing. They would rather Egypt keep an authoritarian government in power than have free and fair elections, which might end in a result that isn't good for Israel.
What I'm saying is...
a) Going on and on about their support for Mubarak doesn't help Mubarak because people don't really like being the only country in the Middle East that's in bed with Israel and the US, to begin with. Having it crowed about couldn't possibly be helping. Mubarak's western and Israeli connections is one of the things that makes his regime more vulnerable t being protested against in the first place. So if Israel wants him to stay in power, I'm not sure they're helping him by being reeeaaally vocal about it.
b) I think it just makes you look like an "asshat" when you're a democratic country, but you're not willing to support a very large group of people, from all segments of society, asking for their own democracy. I totally understand why, realistically, you wouldn't want them to have one. But you still look like a bit of a jerk. That's why the US was having to ice skate the whole time, because while they wanted to support Mubarak for practical reasons, they know they can't come right out and not support a peaceful democratic movement. It's not their Image.
c) What the article I had just read before writing this had written, was that Egypt has good strategic reasons for keeping a peace treaty with Egypt, and they should be stressing that. I agree they have good reasons, but I don't think now is the moment to talk about that.
d) It's not a given that the Muslim Brotherhood would come into power. But it's a reasonable fear that ANY party coming into power would do something anti-Israeli if only to win popular support. On the other hand, I think it's reasonable any winning party wouldn't do anything stupid either, either Egypt has enough trouble of its own, without making trouble with Israel.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a Salafi extremist party. It is hated by Al-Qaeda because it doesn't want a theocracy and doesn't allow clerics to become public officials. In terms of its theocratic aspirations, it's kind of like the Tea Party. Not the people we'd like to have in charge, but not terrorists either.
Also, from everything I've found, the Muslim Brotherhood is a minority opposition party in Egypt (Statistics I'm finding say between 10 and 15 % of the population are affiliated with them.). Also sort of like the Tea Party in the US.
So, they're not theocratic, and even if they *were,* it's very unlikely that they would have the support in place to start ruling the government. They have said they support El-Baradei as an interim leader. They have also promised to support all existing international treaties that Egypt currently has in place--meaning, of course, that they would support the peace treaty with Israel.
It's REALLY not about Israel, then, and the US/Israel really do need to stop propping up autocratic regimes because *this* is what autocratic "stability" looks like--what's happening now. It's also the kind of hypocritical realpolitik that produces hatred/terror, but then we never think long-term in international politics.
Anyway, journalists have been very very clear that the leaders of this movement aren't "Islamists." They're secular humanists. The US and Israel should be overjoyed.
Also, we all need to stop insisting that Arabs have only two options: to be governed by an autocrat or a theocrat.
So, now there's this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/middleeast/04diplomacy.html
Problem is, Suleiman is "just another strong man." He will not pursue real reforms. He's a torturer--led the US extraordinary rendition program to Egypt. With the military and defense minister... It's all just the same old regime.
The leader of the Wafd party says he trusts Suleiman more than Mubarak, in terms of someone leading a transition. I guess we'll see. Whoever does it, I guess we'll see pretty early on how serious they are. Just opening up the state media would be a show of good faith, and anything else that could lead up to a good election (things that foster parties etc.) Hm hm hmmmm!!!
TOmorrow (er later today) I'll be glued to the TV!!
But the Wafd party isn't popular--and is viewed as illegitimate by most of the protesters, from what I can see. For basically colluding with the government all these years--and not providing real opposition.
I dunno, but I need to stop discussing this on FB. I am sick of Palestine/Israel discussions. Because, yeah, IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT.AND ZOMG ENTRENCHED DISAGREEMENTS DISCUSSED AD NAUSEAM ON FACEBOOK WITH SECOND DEGREE FRIENDS WHO ARE ACTUALLY COMPLETE STRANGERS.
Really surprised by what happened today--was really expecting major violence. It could still come, I guess, but maybe the international community talked them out of it.
Also, I have been so obsessed with this... I've been glued to the TV and my computer, and have five major live blogs up from all the major news networks at all times... So I can see every single detail as it breaks, up to and including the whole Kenneth Cole fiasco. I don't eat, I don't sleep...
Because, really, it's kind of amazing to see politicians scared of people not because they have guns but because they won't shut up.
lol You've been having Pal/Isr debates on FB?? I guess I haven't friended the right sort of people.
Since not much progresses today, I had Al-J on for awhile as I did other things on the internet, and I caught up with the news, but I was otherwise unglued from the story today. Just relieved there wasn't A Big Violence. Not sure what'll happen next, though. Fascinating situation.
Kenneth Cole. fuul.
Post a Comment