Video opinion: Future of peace with Egypt is imperiled
“…As Israel moves into the uncharted territory of managing its relations with the post-Mubarak Egypt, it is imperative that our leaders understand the lessons of the past.”
“…As Israel moves into the uncharted territory of managing its relations with the post-Mubarak Egypt, it is imperative that our leaders understand the lessons of the past.”
3 comments
1 | Bob Levin Sun, Feb 20, 2011 12:27:44am |
Talk to me about Caroline Glick, please. I’ve been reading her for, going on ten years, and my impression is that she is always talking about a looming disaster—which never arrives. Of course there is more political tension in Israel than any place else…yet it seems like her topic is, now we have reached the crisis that will explode. And it never does. She has good observations, does her homework in terms of research, is knowledgeable, but the conclusion is that we’ve always taken one step too far off of the precipice.
Am I mistaken?
2 | Samson Sun, Feb 20, 2011 10:17:08am |
re: #1 Bob Levin
In this particular case I think she is right on the mark. In fact, if you listen to the entire video, I would say that most of her remarks are not controversial at all. As she indicates, the peace that Israel made with Egypt was with a military dictator (Sadat), not a democratically elected government. It has been maintained by a successor of the same ilk (Mubarak), and many of the would be leaders of the new Egypt (both secular and Islamist) have already either hedged or outright admitted that they would not honor the treaty with Israel. As Caroline further indicates, the past 30 years has in many was been a long cease fire rather than genuine peace. Certainly Israel has benefited from the absence of a state of war and some degree of cooperation with Egypt, but her argument that it was way overpaid for (return of the entire Sinai) considering its limitations - no real normalization of relations between the two countries, persistent demonization of Jews and Israel with the tacit approval of the regime and, of course, its obviously shaky foundations from the Egyptian side - has merit. I believe she is also correct when suggesting that Begin and other Israeli leaders of that period tended to personalize the achievement, remarkable as it was in many ways, and may have therefore overestimated its long term significance and viability. Last but not least, the lack of continued intelligence collection on the Egyptian military - now trained and equipped by the US as a result of the accords - and diminished preparedness for military conflict with Egypt is now a significant weakness, hopefully one that will not come back to haunt Israel and can be overcome.
For more on the same, see:
[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com…]
[Link: www.usnews.com…]
3 | Bob Levin Sun, Feb 20, 2011 2:10:35pm |
Okay, so my sense about her writing has some merit. I wanted to check that out.
Of course, this argument hinges upon our “luck” that the unscrupulous Mubarak somehow decided to have some scruples by maintaining the ceasefire. I would put it to the fact that the US found the right combination of gifts at Corruption-mart to keep giving Mubarak. There really isn’t another good reason that he maintained the peace.
We haven’t talked about this, but it’s hard to discuss the fate of Israel and the Jewish people without discussing religion. The discussion is fraught with deep potholes. I imagine that many differences of opinion, among Jews, regarding Israel, hinge on just where the religious discussions begin, and our interpretation of religion. I don’t remember religion entering into Caroline’s writings… so for her, it seems, religion comes in far down the line.
I have a hard time believing, especially after 1973, that Israel doesn’t have the necessary intelligence to know where Egypt stands militarily.
People always talk about Israel being a US proxy in the Middle East. I would disagree. I think that role goes to Egypt, who must maintain a close connection to the Arab world and act as the liaison to Israel. The US State Department has only regarded Israel as a necessary ally for a short period of time. They regard the continual hostilities between the Arab world and Israel as an issue that must be continually dealt with, and are not happy about this fact.
The State Department truly cares about the Suez Canal and oil. Hence, the careful nurturing of an alliance with Mubarak.
Now, both the fate of oil and the Suez are up in the air. The light of those two items reflects on to Israel and the PA. And like all reflected light, what everyone sees is this conflict. They don’t focus on oil and the Suez. The US might help Israel in an overt way if Israel was in danger. The US would definitely do anything and everything to keep the Suez open and oil flowing. The Egyptian generals are well aware of this fact.