Israel a winner, US a loser in Egypt?
Israel: For the Israelis, the only thing worse than the Morsy government was an Egypt with no government. Throughout it all, the Israelis have maintained their close ties to the Egyptian military. So for now, I'd put the Israelis in the "win" column. Maybe the Egyptian military will be induced to pay greater attention to lawless Sinai; and certainly Israel won't object to a less friendly approach to Hamas in Gaza. Still, whatever the future brings -- military government or democratic polity -- the Egyptian-Israeli relationship will remain a cold one, pending some resolution of the Palestinian issue.Actually, the Egyptian-Israeli relationship is likely to remain cold (at least on the surface) so long as both countries exist. The coldness is most definitely not about the 'Palestinians.' It's about the fact that the average Egyptian has never really accepted Israel, although its secular leadership - including the military - has accepted that it cannot destroy Israel. I'd put Israel in the win column and keep us there so long as what comes next is not an Islamist government seeking an apocalypse.
The United States: I really struggled with where to put the Obama administration: Did it win or lose when Mubarak fell? And is it winning or losing now, after the SCAF coup? The Suez Canal is open; the U.S.-Egyptian military and intelligence relationship is intact; the peace treaty with Israel survives.
And, yet, there's something not right about U.S. policy toward Egypt. We are disliked by just about everyone. Maybe we were too weak the first time around in telling the military that it needed to do a better job of managing the transition democratically. We were definitely too slow in making our views known about Morsy's ham-handed governance.
And, now, as we wrestle with how to react to the SCAF's coup, we still can't find the balance between protecting our interests and speaking up for our values. Perhaps they will always remain at war with one another, particularly in a situation where stability, however superficial, plays such an important role in our thinking. We may have learned something from our years of dancing with Egypt's military. And perhaps we'll be tougher with our partner this time around. But we will keep dancing -- and probably cheek-to-cheek.It's not just a question of finding a balance between interests and values. The United States has effectively espoused neither. Its interest ought to be in an Egypt that contributes to stability in the Middle East and in the Arab and Muslim worlds by maintaining the peace, while recognizing the rights of minorities. The Muslim Brotherhood was none of the above. The SCAF is far more likely to bring stability although it may be at the cost of repression of the Islamists. So yes, the SCAF would raise the balance question. But the Brotherhood was bad on both accounts.
Labels: Aaron David Miller, Barack Hussein Obama, Egyptian Revolution, Mohammed Morsy, Muslim Brotherhood
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home