Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem Chair of West Midland PSC
Dear All,
The electronic newspapers—domestic and foreign—are full of events in Egypt. No wonder. Nevertheless, I avoided temptation, and instead of overloading you, have only 5 items below, 3 of which are about these events. Here in Israel there is more talk about the office of Chief-of-Staff and who will be the next to hold that office than about anything else. That’s not a topic that I care to discuss. That is not what will determine our future, nor Egypt’s. And besides, I aim to inform rather than to bore you.
The first item below almost speaks for itself. The Jews who in the report are ‘Fearless in the West Bank,’ believe that it belongs to the Jews. Indeed, what is not spoken of sufficiently is that the occupation is not only physical, it is also psychological. Hence during Ariel Sharon’s Premiership all the road signs on the major arteries that Israelis travel were changed (a) to the model used inside Israel, and (b) solely with names of Israeli colonies and junctions. We were left with road signs with no indication whatsoever that Palestinian villages were in the vicinity, too.
Thus colonists could drive to work in Israel and back and never notice a Palestinian village or Palestinians. And the media helps convey the notion that the West Bank is Israel. Thus today, for instance, I heard on the news that the vicinity that had had the most rain in Israelwas Ariel, which in fact is in the West Bank, constructed on the lands of at least 4 villages (Yasuf, Marda, Kief el-Hares, and Salfit). However, the people in this article need none of these gimmicks. They are sure that it is all Israel without anyone telling them. They are religious idealists—one branch of Israeli fundamentalism.
Item 2 relates the episode that changed Anat Kam’s life. When a soldier, she copied secret files and later turned them over to a reporter for Haaretz, who wrote an article grounded on the info that she gave him, submitted it to the military censor, who okayed it, yet is himself now in hot water for having published his piece.
Item 3 tells us that the protesters in Egypt fear for their lives, and with good reason. Mubarak and his government have not been lenient with opposition.
Items 4 and 5 are opinion pieces. Item 4 raises the issue “Once again, the U.S. and its allies find themselves embracing the idea of democracy but not necessarily its outcomes. America is still grappling with its ‘Islamist dilemma.’” I venture to say that the ‘Islamist dilemma’ replaced the ‘Communist dilemma.’ This has more to do with politics than with ideology. What would the United States do without an enemy? To whom would it sell arms? How would it justify its wars? How would it control its people without keeping them fearful? The United States need not fear Islam any more than it needed to fear Communism, which, had it been run by the right people might have brought a theoretically much more just system to peoples than is Capitalism, which by its nature exploits.
The final item takes up the issue of ‘Why Israel fears a free Egypt.’ I thoroughly agree with the author’s closing statement respecting Mubarak: “This is one pharaoh that Israelis wish had stayed on the throne.” Of course. However tyrannical he was to his people, he got along fine with Israel’s leaders.
Am keeping my fingers and toes crossed hoping that Egypt will throw off its old order and don a better one, and that Israel follow suit.
All the best,
Dorothy
===================================
1. Ynet,
February 6, 2011
Ynet Special
Dangerous trips Photo: Shalom Bar Tal
Fearless in the West Bank
Special: Jewish hikers ignore security warnings, go on trips throughout Judea and Samaria
It happened early Friday morning, one week ago; a large group of hikers descended down the dry river bed from the Kfar Etzion settlement, westbound. The plan was to reach the Tel Dor archeological site, and dip in the clear springs there. In addition to the maps and the water flasks, they also packed a few M16 rifles – in case trouble strikes.
And trouble did strike. After three hours on the trail, they arrived at the site, which is located about 200 meters (roughly 220 yards) away from the Palestinian village of Beit Ommar. As the hikers sat down to eat, they attracted the attention of Palestinian youths on their way to Friday prayer who quickly gathered at the edge of the village with slingshots.
“When we descended to the wadi, a barrage of stones began,” one of the hikers said. “We started running and they followed us.”
After a few tense moments, the hikers opened fire, which evidently killed a 17-year-old boy. Intending to have a quiet hike, the travelers instead ended up arrested and questioned by the Shin Bet. Four of the armed men were released only six days later.
No spot out of bounds
The incident did not surprise many residents of Judea and Samaria. Friday trips around territories under Palestinian rule have grown into a trend recently, drawing hikers from around the country. These excursions have turned into yet another territorial battle between Israelis and Palestinians in the area, keeping security forces busy.
At the frontline of the hike trend stands David and Ahikam Tours, a company named after two young men who were killed in the region and whose death has served as a type of inspiration for the trips. A statement on the company’s website warns potential clients. “Dear travelers, the trip organizers relinquish all responsibility for your safety and security,” it reads. “We make every effort to obtain permits, but we cannot promise them.”
Angry mob (Photo: Samaria and Binyamin Settler Committee)
In fact, the hikers often find themselves facing an angry Arab mob, or angry police officers. But these kinds of difficulties do not deter the travelers – on the contrary, they are part of the reason to hike.
For the wonderers, almost no spot is out of bounds. In one case, five IDF soldiers on leave found themselves in a shootout with Palestinian hunters adjacent to the Palestinian village of Ein Yabrud. One of the hunters died in the shooting, and the soldiers were sentenced to 10 days in military jail. In another incident, two IDF officers serving in the Nahal Infantry Brigade were incarcerated after facing a violent Palestinian crowd close to the Tapuah Junction, injuring a boy.
An order forbidding soldiers on leave to travel in the area without permission was issued following these events, but failed to reduce the number of visitors.
Protest trips
Naturally, there are those looking to cause trouble. The activist group Garin Jericho and its Nablus and Hebron equivalents hold protest trips to the cities that had Israeli presence prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords.
“The goal is to return to these cities, and through that return to the rest of Judea and Samaria,” says Meir Bretler, one senior activist.
Each tour begins with five or six trekkers who are generally familiar with the region and are armed with a gun or an IDF rifle that belongs to their unit. More travelers, mostly religious ones, join the tour through Facebook. A member of the Observation Unit, a group of volunteer photographers, accompanies most of the tours. The photographers aim to document violence perpetrated by the police or by Palestinians, and collect evidence for court – in case one of the hikers ends up on trial after the trip.
The routes are chosen especially for the landscapes and their historic significance. Many of the heritage sites are found next to or in hostile Palestinian villages, which is where the problem begins; the law does not prohibit trips in the region as long as they avoid official Palestinian territories, and the IDF order to coordinate each such trip is not enforced.
Headache for army ((Photo: Samaria and Binyamin Settler Committee)
Lieutenant Colonel Ze’ev Gottesman, an officer in the Judea and Samaria division, often finds himself powerless. He approves most of the permit requests, but organizers normally do not even request a permit. According to Gottesman, the biggest fear is that IDF soldiers will mistake the travelers for terrorists and open fire. In addition, the presence of the hikers makes it easier for terrorist organizations to attack or kidnap someone.
“If one of them is kidnapped and they haven’t coordinated with us, we don’t even have a lead to follow,” he said.
‘We just want to travel’
Meir Kahane, a 57-year-old tour guide from the Ofra settlement, says that trips in the territories are not a new phenomenon.
“We have been traveling in the area for more than 30 years,” he said. “Before the Oslo Accords, schools from around the country would come here and walk inside in the villages. We didn’t even have to be armed; we were received very well almost always.”
Following the Intifada, the routes shrunk considerably. Only now, after years of relative quiet, visitors are coming back to the hills and creeks of Judea and Samaria.
“As opposed to the youth groups, we are still accepted very well at most places, and we often drink tea with the local Palestinians,” Kahane said. “We are not interested in showing our presence, we just want to travel. We even helped the farmers during the olive harvest.”
But the lack of coordination worries security officials within the settlements as well; Avigdor Shatz, a security officer of the Binyamin Regional Council, characterizes this conduct as negligent.
“We have told hikers more than once, come tell us where you want to go, and we will do in an orderly manner,” he said. “Once they asked to reach a well near El Jib. We took the challenge, coordinated with the (Palestinian) Authority and hundreds of people entered and traveled unharmed. But it hasn’t been done since, and they hike without permission.”
Recently a group wanted to make a pilgrimage from the Shilo settlement to Jerusalem – a three-day trip that passes through hostile villages like Sinjil, Ein Yabrud and Jaba. The hike, which was secured by the IDF, featured confrontations with Palestinians, during which one soldier was injured.
“I am all for the trips and they have an immense Zionist value,” Shatz said. “But the IDF is the entity that is supposed to fight terrorists, not citizens.”
On the other hand, there is the trip organizers’ approach: The attackers are the ones that should be punished, not the victims.
“The government must deal with the rioters, not the travelers,” said Ester Amichai, whose son, Ahikam, was shot to death by terrorists along with his friend David Rubin in December 2007, while hiking in the Hebron area. Their friends decided to turn such hikes from the undertaking of the brave to a project that drew crowds.
According to Amichai, her son’s last wish comes true every Friday morning.
“If you ask me, this is exactly the way to immortalize him,” she said. “What makes me the happiest is that people come from all over the country, not just religious people or settlers. I think that the travelers have no interest in causing friction with the local population, and this will only help to calm the situation.”
This past Wednesday, the Beit Ommar travelers collected their water flasks, caps and maps, and hiked to the Magistrate’s Court in Jerusalem. Though the judges released the four suspects in the shooting incident, they used the opportunity to protest.
“Anyone who thinks that they will stop us from traveling by using stones and bullets should understand that it’s exactly the opposite,” said Mordechai Sayed, the father of one of the suspects.
============================
2. Papers leaked by Anat Kam cast light on Israeli policies towards the arrest of militants. Photograph: Kobi Gideon/EPA A former Israeli soldier is facing a long prison sentence after admitting that she passed thousands of classified military documents to a newspaper reporter.
Anat Kam, 24, has been under house arrest since she was charged in January 2010 with espionage and intent to harm state security with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In a plea bargain, that charge was dropped when she admitted to collecting and passing on secret information. She faces a maximum sentence of 15 years, but prosecutors are reportedly asking for about nine years.
Among the documents leaked by Kam to the Haaretz reporter Uri Blau were papers showing that Israeli military and security officials had authorised the killing of Palestinian militants in operations where they could have instead been arrested. Kam made copies of 2,000 documents, including 700 marked top secret, during her national service as a clerk in the office of a top Israeli general.
Blau published an investigation revealing the content of the documents in November 2008. The assassinations contravened an Israeli high court judgment which ruled that militants must be arrested where possible.
Blau’s article was approved by the military censor, and Kam was not arrested for more than a year after publication. The Haaretz journalist remained in London, where he was at the time of Kam’s arrest, for many months, fearing he would face prosecution if he returned to Israel. He flew back in October after his lawyers struck a deal with the Shin Bet security service under which he returned the documents.
After Kam’s arrest, the Israeli authorities imposed a gagging order on the reporting of the case, which was lifted last April.
Kam admitted the lesser charge of possession and distribution of classified information at Tel Aviv district court. She declined to comment beyond issuing a brief statement.
“We agreed to a plea bargain today,” she said. “Out of respect for the court, I don’t intend on discussing the sentence. Today I admitted to committing the crimes attributed to me. I’m not thinking about the punishment. What’s written in the law is out of my hands.”
Eytan Lehman, Kam’s lawyer, urged a “proportionate” punishment. “What we said from the beginning is true – there was no intention of harming Israeli security,” he said. A harsh sentence would damage Israeli democracy, he added. “If people are afraid to speak out about things that happen that should not happen, this is very dangerous.”
=========================
3. Huffington Post,
February 6, 2011
Though members of the Egyptian government have made some concessions, political activists remain worried about their safety and the future of Egypt. This will be especially true in the coming week, when many officials are expected to return to work.
“The calmer things are, the more fear there will be because the Ministry of Defense people will be back to work,” Cairo native Eman Hashim told The Huffington Post by phone.
Activists are concerned about the continued detainment of their associates, the rhetoric of politicians, and the broadcasts of state media.
Hashim said the protests marked her first political demonstration. Born and raised in Cairo, she works as a pediatric opthamalogist for kids with special needs and blogs on women’s rights issues. During the protests, she says she was beaten and even shot in the hand. Despite these attacks, she has attended every day of the protests except this past Friday.
She sees the continued disappearance of prominent activists as a bad omen.
“We’re asking about Wael Ghonim and no one is answering us,” said Hashim, referring to the missing Google executive who was the first admin of the “We are all Khaled Said” Facebook group and has been missing since January 28.
Marwa Rakha, an adjunct professor at American University in Cairo and pregnant woman who has been attending the protests, is concerned about last Thursday’s speech by Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman.
“In his speech… he was talking clearly about investigations, those who were behind the chaos, and those were chanting and shouting for Mubarak to leave and depart were not Egyptians. That’s accusing them of grand treason!” Rakha said. “His words were very slippery and I don’t see how activists and bloggers and people behind this can walk away. It’s a scary thought.”
According to Enduring America, Suleiman claimed in his speech on Thursday “that the pro-Mubarak supporters didn’t go to Tahrir Square on their own, but were rather forced there by elements he did not identify.”
“It doesn’t matter if Mubarak stays or goes, the whole regime has to go: the president, vice president,” Rakha said. “If Mubarak steps down today, his vice president will pursue us and that’s what he said in his speech clearly.”
Activists fear retaliation from the government if they stop protesting.
“Most of the famous political activists, the names that are known, they are so scared now of being arrested after everything goes to normal,” Hashim said. “So this is why they are still demonstrating in Tahrir, some of them are still in Tahrir, because they need a guarantee that they will not be arrested and I think that they are rational. It makes sense for them to say so.”
State Media
The continued broadcasts on state TV also concern activists. Even if the government doesn’t directly target activists, the rhetoric broadcast on state media may provoke others to target them.
“The state media is inciting violence and hate against westerners and foreigners in the country. They are making any foreigner in the country look suspicious. And they are inciting violence against journalists who have cameras,” said prominent blogger and activist Wael Abbas.
“The state media is like the Nazi media in the ’30s spreading hate all of the country and I blame Anas El-Fekky for that, he is the current minister of information,” Abbas said. “This guy should be put on trial. He is a murderer, he’s ordering murders now on TV.”
Rakha describes one program on an Egyptian TV station.
“There is an Egyptian-funded channel and they brought a girl on TV, veiled, kind of hid her face. She started saying she was one of the organizers of this protest and Freedom House gave her $50,000 and trained her at the hands of Jews,” Rakha claimed. “Can you imagine this — how the conspiracy theory is there: money, Jews, and a foreign entity?”
She continued, “They gave her money and the Jews trained her on how to start a revolution, on how to organize on Facebook, and when she says what’s happening she realized this is wrong and that’s why she decided to step forward. That’s on Egyptian TV! “
Hashim describes another program.
“The street is just hard because of the national state TV and the local media. They’ve been lying.” Hashim said. “They had a few people say they’re the (Jan.) 25th people and we’ve been paid from America, $100 each per day, and we are paid by food and we are paid by money and we are pushed by other countries to do that and people started to believe them.”
But the activists will not give up. In some ways, recent events only provide them more motivation to keep going.
Egyptian blogger and activist sandmonkey wrote in a new post they are all aware of the challenges but adds, “we have proved all the critics and the haters wrong. It’s time to do that again!””
Follow our Egypt live blog here and learn about the unrest with our Egypt revolution guide.
You can also send us Egypt tips anytime at egypt@huffingtonpost.com or by leaving a message at 00-1-315-636-0962.
============================
4, LA Times,
February 2, 2011
Op-Ed
America’s ‘Islamist dilemma’
The fear of Islamists coming to power has long paralyzed U.S. policy. That shouldn’t guide our approach to Egypt.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s promise on Tuesday that he will not stand for reelection in September was too little, too late. The Egyptian regime is fatally wounded, with protesters demanding nothing less than a complete break with the past. Mubarak may not relinquish power tomorrow, but his days are numbered. And the government that replaces him is likely to include the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s oldest Islamist movement as well as one of its most feared.
In the coming days, the prospect of the Brotherhood’s rise is likely to be one of the big stories out of Egypt. Alarm about this prospect is already being sounded in the West. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently cautioned, “We also don’t want to see some takeover that would lead not to democracy but to oppression and the end of the aspirations of the Egyptian people.”
More recently, the White House said it was open to a Brotherhood role in a future government, provided the group renounces violence and commits to the democratic process. But these caveats indicate that the U.S. is still nervous — and not very knowledgeable — about the actual nature of the group, which satisfied both of President Obama’s conditions decades ago.
Once again, the U.S. and its allies find themselves embracing the idea of democracy but not necessarily its outcomes. America is still grappling with its “Islamist dilemma.” In 1992, the U.S. tacitly supported a military coup in Algeria that overturned a democratic election in which an Islamist party had gained a majority of the seats in parliament. The coup ended what was, at the time, the most promising democratic experiment in the Arab world. More recently, the George W. Bush administration buried its own “freedom agenda” after Islamists did surprisingly well in elections in the region, including in Egypt.
The fear of Islamists coming to power has long paralyzed U.S. policy. This has prevented bold American leadership in situations where it could have played a decisive role. Today, during the largest pro-democracy protests in Egyptian history, this same fear threatens to derail U.S. policy once again. Despite some nods to the demonstrators from the Obama administration, Egyptians still see the U.S. as holding out hope that the Egyptian regime, long a stalwart ally, might survive, reconstituting itself in a new guise.
Senior American officials have called on Mubarak to take “concrete steps” toward change and to initiate a “national dialogue.” And Obama said Tuesday that he had spoken directly to Mubarak of the need for an orderly transition, starting immediately, to a democratically elected Egyptian government. But the hundreds of thousands of protesters holding forth in Tahrir Square have moved well beyond such talk. Their insistent call, made with unmistakable clarity, is for Mubarak to step down immediately, something Obama has so far refused to specifically endorse.
To be fair, Western powers have reason to worry that a democratic government in Egypt will be less amenable to their security interests. The Muslim Brotherhood has said it has no leadership aspirations. However, the group, known for its inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric, is likely to be part of a broad-based national unity government.
But Westerners should not lose sleep over the Brotherhood’s inclusion. A pragmatic organization at its core, the group will avoid getting tied up in foreign policy, knowing that this might cause the international community to withdraw support. Also on the line is $1.5 billion in annual U.S. assistance, an amount Egyptians will need even more after the devastation of their economy in the past week.
That said, with or without the Brotherhood, a democratic government will reflect popular preferences, and it happens to be the case that most Egyptians, secular and Islamist alike, share a rather pronounced dislike of Israel. This may introduce some tensions between Egypt and Israel, but it will not threaten the peace treaty the two countries signed more than three decades ago. Egyptian opposition figures across the political spectrum know this is a line that cannot be crossed.
In any case, it is impossible to have everything all at once. There will be tradeoffs. Some tradeoffs are worth it. More democracy in Egypt may give the U.S. headaches. But if Mubarak tries to cling to power in the coming weeks and months — against the wishes of hundreds of thousands of defiant, determined Egyptians — the U.S. will have a far larger problem. America will always have an “Islamist dilemma.” But it can be managed. Egypt is a good place to start trying.
Shadi Hamid is director of research at the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
Having dealt with the Israelis for the better part of 40 years, I have learned never to dismiss or trivialize their foundational fears. As both former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and current premier Binyamin Netanyahu reminded me on different occasions, Israelis don’t live in some leafy Washington suburb, but in a much tougher neighborhood.
And today, it is impossible to overstate the angst, even hysteria, that Israelis are feeling about their neighborhood as they watch what is unfolding in the streets of Cairo.
Israel prides itself on being the Middle East’s only true democracy, so most Israelis may be loath to admit their fear of self-government spreading to Egypt, their most important Arab ally. But by their calculation, freedom in Egypt is bound to morph into venomous anti-Israeli attitudes and actions.
Among Israel’s most dire fears: Would a new Egyptian government be taken over by radical Islamists? Would it break the peace treaty between the two nations? Would it seek to go to war again? All Israeli prime ministers since the treaty was signed in 1979 have carried such fears in the back of their minds, yet they gambled that in giving up the Sinai Peninsula, the country had exchanged territory for time, perhaps in the hope that a different relationship with Egypt and their other Arab neighbors would emerge.
It’s hard to imagine any of these fears materializing. Egypt’s new leaders, whoever they are, will be beset by huge internal challenges, none of which could be diverted by confronting Israel. The new Egypt will need billions of dollars from the United States and much help from the international community. And violating the treaty and threatening war with Israel would be the last thing the Egyptian military needs during the uncertain transition after President Hosni Mubarak’s departure.
But there’s no doubt that a new Egyptian government and president, more responsive to public opinion – indeed, legitimized by the public in free elections – will be, by necessity or inclination, far more critical of Israeli actions and policies and far less likely to give Israel the benefit of any doubts. Will the new Egyptian leadership monitor smuggling across the Egypt-Gaza border as carefully? Will it be more supportive of Hamas and less understanding of Israeli concerns about Hamas’s acquisition of rockets and missiles? And how will a newly elected Egyptian president interact with an Israeli prime minister? (Mubarak met regularly with Netanyahu; it’s hard to imagine a new Egyptian leader doing so without demanding concessions for Palestinians or progress in the peace negotiations.)
Take a tour of the neighborhood through Israeli eyes, and you’ll understand why such worries have taken on new urgency. To the north in Lebanon, Hezbollah is now the dominant political force, reequipped with thousands of rockets and backed by Syria and Iran. To the east there’s Jordan, with which Israel also has a peace treaty and whose government was just changed after protests sparked by the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt. In the West Bank and Gaza, there’s the Palestinian national movement, which thanks to the Hamas-Fatah split is a veritable Noah’s Ark with two of everything – prime ministers, security services, constitutions and governments. And then there’s Iran, whose determination to acquire nuclear weapons may force Israel one day to live under the shadow of an Islamic bomb.
Israel, nuclear weapons or not, and despite its shortsighted and harmful settlement policies, must be understood as a remarkable country living on the knife’s edge. The old adage that Israelis fight the Arabs during the day and win but fight the Nazis at night and lose may be dated, but it still reflects fundamental and enduring security concerns as well as the dark side of Jewish history – both of which make Israelis worry for a living.
The inevitable hardening of Egyptian attitudes will not just constitute an Israeli problem but will pose significant concerns for Israel’s major ally: the United States. The old devil’s bargain in which Washington relied on Cairo for support in its war and peacemaking policies, in exchange for giving Egypt a pass on how it is governed, is probably dead. And perhaps it’s just as well. The Egyptian people deserve better, and that deal didn’t produce a peaceful, stable and secure Middle East, anyway – just look around.
For Egyptians, who hunger for freedom and better governance, democracy will probably secure a brighter future. For America, Egyptian democracy, however welcome in principle, will significantly narrow the political space in which U.S. administrations operate in the region. On any number of fronts, a more representative Egypt will be far less forgiving and supportive of Washington. On U.S. efforts to contain Iran, on the Middle East peace process, on the battle against terrorism and Islamic radicalism – especially if Egypt’s own Islamists are part of the new governing structure – there is a great deal of uncertainty about how much cooperation we can expect.
The irony is that the challenges a new Egypt will pose to America and Israel won’t come from the worst-case scenarios imagined by frantic policymakers and intelligence analysts – an extremist Muslim takeover, an abrogation of peace treaties, the closing of the Suez Canal – but from the very values of participatory government and free speech that free societies so cherish. In a more open Egypt, diverse voices reflecting Islamist currents and secular nationalists will be louder. And by definition, these voices will be more critical of America and Israel.
Events in Egypt represent not just the end of the Mubarak regime but a point of departure in Arab politics. In Tunisia and Egypt, the brush was dry and ready to burn because of deep-seated, long-held grievances – and it’s hard to imagine that more sparks won’t fly. Every Arab state is unique, but in many, two common conflicts persist: an economic division between the haves and the have-nots, and a political divide between the cans and the cannots – those who participate meaningfully in shaping their political systems and those who are excluded. It’s hard to predict what will happen next, but change is more likely in places like Jordan, Libya and Algeria, where vulnerabilities abound, than in the Persian Gulf region, where ruling families can use cradle-to-grave benefits to co-opt opponents and preempt change.
I’d like to believe that democratic change will be peaceful, orderly and evolutionary – not hot, mean and revolutionary. But the region, penetrated for years by foreign powers and dominated by corrupt authoritarian governments, is teeming with pent-up humiliation, frustration and rage. And we can never underestimate the repressive capabilities of authoritarian regimes that tighten their grips even as power slips from their hands. The Mubarak regime’s campaign to send its agents to provoke violence and to kill, wound and intimidate the opposition and the news media reflects only a fraction of its latent power. And the Syrian reaction to domestic unrest might be far worse.
In the middle of all this turmoil sits the United States, unable to extricate itself from the region yet probably unable to fix these problems or alter its policies, along with Israel, which looks at the possible transformation of the Middle East not as an opportunity but as a moment replete with risks. (In this environment, to believe, as some analysts have argued, that any Israeli government would negotiate a conflict-ending agreement with the Palestinians to preempt further radicalization in the region is to believe in the peace-process tooth fairy.)
Without Egypt, there can be neither peace nor war, and for 30 years Israelis had the first and avoided the second. Peace with Jordan, the neutralization of Iraq and the U.S.-Israeli relationship all left the Israelis – despite their constant worries – fairly confident that they could deal with any threats to their security. But now, with Egyptian politics in turmoil, Iran emerging as a potential nuclear threat and the prospect of trouble in Jordan and elsewhere, they’re not so sure. That Mubarak is falling not by an assassin’s hand but because of a young generation of tweeters is hardly consolation. This is one pharaoh that Israelis wish had stayed on the throne.
aaron.miller@wilsoncenter.org
Aaron David Miller has advised several U.S. secretaries of state on the Middle East peace process and is the author of the forthcoming “Can America Have Another Great President?” He is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and will be online at 12 ET on Monday, Feb. 7 to chat. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
