The Obama administration may believe the $1.3 billion a year the United States gives to Egypt provides it with leverage in the standoff over that country’s attempt to criminalize the activities of American non-governmental organizations that promote democracy and human rights. The indictment of 16 Americans and a refusal to let another six leave the country has rightly earned Egypt a stiff condemnation from Washington, which has sent Cairo a signal that further such misbehavior will make the passage of future aid packages problematic. But the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, which constitutes Egypt’s leading political party in the post-Mubarak era, has made it clear they aren’t impressed by President Obama’s concerns or any implicit threats from Congress. As the New York Times reports today, the Brotherhood is promising that any slowing of the U.S. gravy train will result in a “review” of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
This threat from the Brotherhood reinforces two key factors of the U.S.-Egypt relationship. The first is that most Egyptians have always thought of the 1979 pact that ended decades of war with the Jewish state as merely a financial bargain in which the United States paid them to keep the peace. The second is that the Brotherhood, much like the Islamists who run Iran, doesn’t think much of President Obama.
The peace between Israel and Egypt has remained ice cold even at the best of times during the long reign of Hosni Mubarak. But under his military successors, who must work in partnership with the Islamists of the Brotherhood and other extremists, the constituency for peace is virtually nonexistent. The only argument in favor of the treaty that makes any sense to either the military or the rest of a country (whose popular culture has reinforced anti-Semitic stereotypes and where hatred for Israel and Jews is rampant) is the need to maintain the flow of U.S. aid. If the aid goes, so too does the rationale for the cold peace.
Of course, neither Egypt’s military or even the Brotherhood is actually interested in reliving their country’s disastrous wars with Israel. But they do believe President Obama hasn’t the guts to stand up to them on any issue, including the role of Americans in promoting democracy. Just like the ayatollahs in Iran, they see this administration as being too weak to stand up to them. Though they neither wish to lose their annual billion-dollar bribe nor to have to revert to a state of war with Israel, they think Obama hasn’t the nerve to force them to back down.
Though it is a bit late in the day for him to be able to change his reputation, it is incumbent on Obama to prove the Brotherhood wrong. While neither the United States nor Israel wants an already shaky treaty to collapse altogether, it is the Egyptians who have the most to lose in this equation. The American demand must be backed up. If the Egyptians want any more U.S. taxpayer money, they must back off on their crackdown on those trying to promote democracy in that country.
I wish I was President. There would be no "aid" money going to any countries. America is the brokest nation in the history of the world. Pretty soon Uncle Sam is not going to have any cash to give to anybody anyway.
I think the better move is for Israel to call Egypt's bluff and make them look weak: Declare that Israel will also "review" the peace treaty if Egypt does and let it be known that any attempts to abrogate it will result in Israel retaking the Sinai. Of course the US should help, but the peace treaty ultimately has to be enforced by Israel, not US dollars.
The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood have coöpted the Egyptian revolution. This same Muslim Brotherhood is what Bashar al-Assad is battling in Syria, as his father did. And as it was with Hafez al-Assad the focus for son Bashar is on the Brotherhood stronghold of Hom. Recently, Commentary was decrying a "Ted Turner mouthpiece" for opposing UN intervention in Syria, presumably on behalf of the "Freedom Fighters". Will we be as naive about whom the overthrow of Assad will bring to power as we were about Mubarak? n nWhile it's true that the Assads have supported the Iranian proxy Hezbollah, Syria has worked with Israel to come to terms with issues like the Golan Heights. And as bad as Assad is, do we want Israel to end up bracketed north and south by Islamist regimes bent on Israel's annihilation?
Yes, America's elites WILL be as naive about whom the overthrow of Assad will bring to power as we were about Mubarak. You can go ahead and bet money on this proposition and you will not lose your money. However, it does not really matter anyway, no matter what America does, the Assad regime is a goner.
Fox just announced tonite that one of the few things at the UN Obama did right was stop funding UNESCO because of its Palestinian ties. guess what? Obama's asking for that money to be put back now. and he's going to get tough with Egpyt over their $1.3 billion? I highly doubt it. n nthe Iranians are partly right: Obama's weak. but mostly it's because he has sympathy for their cause. I hate to say that…I don't want to believe it…but I can't see why he would act the way he does if this wasn't true.
The money should have been stopped the very moment after the threat was made. That's the only way to deal with a blackmailer.
I am impressed, and read twice, all of the thoughtful comments, above. Also was pleased at calmness and lack of hateful invective from commenters. These are dangerous times for Israel and the World. Thank you commenters.
In Obama's mind, not giving Egypt any money so that they murder Jews is a win win.