-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Monday, January 31, 2011 - 11:09 AM
Share
Like nearly everyone-including, I assume, Hosni Mubarak himself -- I've been surprised by the speed, scope and intensity of the upheaval in Egypt. As I write this, it's still not clear whether Mubarak will remain in power. Nor do we know how far-reaching the changes might be if he were to leave. We should all be somewhat humble about our ability to forecast where things are headed, or what the future implications might be.
That caveat notwithstanding, I want to offer a realist interpretation of what these events mean for the United States, along with the basic prescription that follows from that analysis. And though it may surprise some of you, I think realism dictates that the United States encourage Mubarak to leave, and openly endorse the creation of a democratic government in Egypt.
Realists are often caricatured as being uninterested in democracy or human rights, and concerned solely with the distribution of power and a narrowly defined national interest. It is true that realists tend to see calculations about power as the most important factor shaping international politics, and they often see sharp tradeoffs between strategic interests and moral preferences. Yet domestic considerations-including human rights-can be relevant for realists, particularly when thinking about one's allies.
To maximize their own security, states want allies that are strong, stable, and that do not cause major strategic problems for them (i.e., by getting into counterproductive quarrels with others). Other things being equal, states are better off if they don't have to worry about their allies' internal stability, and if an allied government enjoys considerable support among its population. An ally that is internally divided, whose government is corrupt or illegitimate, or that is disliked by lots of other countries is ipso facto less valuable than one whose population is unified, whose government is legitimate, and that enjoys lots of international support. For this reason, even a staunch realist would prefer allies that were neither internally fragile nor international pariahs, while recognizing that sometimes you have to work with what you have.
Accordingly, far-reaching political reform in Egypt is an objective realists should support. Even if Mubarak manages to cling to power, his regime has been fatally compromised. If he uses massive force to suppress the popular movement, it will be damaged even more. Mubarak himself is 83 years old, and even a successful act of repression won't buy him (or his domestic allies) a lot of time. If the United States is seen as complicit in keeping him in power, it will solidify Arab anger and make our exalted rhetoric about democracy and human rights look like the basest hypocrisy.
In fact, this is one of those fortunate moments when the United States does not face a clear tradeoff between its moral sympathies and its strategic imperatives. For starters, Egypt is not a major oil producer like Saudi Arabia, so a shift in regime in Cairo will not imperil our vital interest in ensuring that Middle East oil continues to flow to world markets. By itself, in fact, Egypt isn't a critical strategic partner. Yes, military bases there can be useful transit points when we intervene in the region, but the United States has other alternatives and military intervention isn't something we should be eager to do anyway (remember Iraq?). Egypt is not as influential in the Arab world as it once was, in part due to the social and economic stagnation that has characterized the Mubarak era, and its recent efforts to mediate several on-going disputes have been unsuccessful. Furthermore, U.S. support for dictators like Mubarak has been one of al Qaeda's major reasons for targeting the United States, as well as a useful recruiting tool (along with our unstinting support for Israel and our military presence in the Gulf). It is also one of the main reasons why many Arabs have a negative view of the United States. Viewed strictly on its own, the U.S. alliance with Egypt has become a strategic liability.
As a number of commentators have emphasized, the real reason the United States has backed Mubarak over the years is to preserve the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and to a lesser extent, because Mubarak shared U.S. concerns about Hamas and Iran. In other words, our support for Mubarak was directly linked to the "special relationship" with Israel, and the supposedly "strategic interest" involved was largely derivative of the U.S. commitment to support Israel at all costs. For those of us who think that the "special relationship" is bad for the U.S. and Israel alike, therefore, a change of government in Egypt is not alarming.
In fact, change in Cairo might not threaten Israel's interests significantly, and might even help break the calcified diplomatic situation in the region. For starters, a post-Mubarak government is unlikely to tear up the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, because such a move would immediately put it at odds with both the United States and Europe and bring Cairo few tangible benefits. Although ordinary Egyptians do feel strong sympathy for the Palestinians, the primary concern of those now marching in the streets is domestic affairs, not foreign policy. A new government will think long and hard about taking any steps that might cost it the current U.S. aid package, and the Egyptian military would be dead-set against any actions that would jeopardize the support it gets from Washington. Even in the worst case where the treaty did lapse, this would not create an existential threat to Israel. Why? Because Egypt's military is no match for the IDF and Cairo's capabilities would deteriorate further once U.S. military aid was cut off.
Of course, if the Egyptian government becomes more responsive to its population, we can expect it to be more critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its refusal to accept a viable two-state solution. It will also be less willing to collude with U.S.-backed policies such as the counter-productive and cruel siege of Gaza. In other words, we may be witnessing the birth pangs of an Egypt that it is a more like contemporary Turkey: neither hostile nor subservient, and increasingly seeking to chart its own course. And this might be precisely the sort of wake-up call that Israel needs, to help it realize that its long-term security does not lie solely in military strength or territorial control. Ultimately, its security must rest on being accepted by its neighbors, and the only way to do that is via a two-state solution with the Palestinians (as the 2002/2007 Saudi/Arab League peace plan envisioned).
To be sure, such a prospect is certain to alarm anyone who thinks that U.S. Middle East policy has been pretty much on-target for the past few decades. But the number of people who still believe that should be dwindling rapidly, when one considers the debacle in Iraq, the prolonged turmoil in Lebanon, Iran's growing influence, the failure of the Oslo peace process, and the revolving door of failed U.S. Mideast policymakers, who are often wrong but never disqualified for appointment. For those of us who think that U.S. policy has been bad for just about everyone except our adversaries, the turmoil in Cairo is not a threat but an opportunity.
To be specific, this crisis in Egypt is an opportunity for the United States to rethink the underlying principles of the Pax Americana that Washington has sought to maintain in the Middle East for decades. That arrangement rested on three pillars: 1) unconditional support for Israel, 2) denying or discounting Palestinian rights, and 3) support for and collusion with various "pro-Western" leaders whose legitimacy was always questionable. Though this policy had occasional moments of success-such as the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and the 1991 Gulf War -- it was always a long-term loser. Unconditional U.S. support removed any short-term incentive for Israel to cut a fair deal with the Palestinians, and collusion with leaders like Mubarak made the United States even less popular on the Arab street.
In short, this as a moment when Barack Obama needs to be on the right side of history. And that means openly supporting the forces seeking democratic change in Egypt, not hanging back and losing the moment.As Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday, "It's better for President Obama not to appear that he is the last one to say to President Mubarak, it's time for you to go." And if the Obama administration has cold feet, they might even heed the words of that arch-realist Otto von Bismarck, who famously said "The statesman's task is to hear God's footsteps marching through history, and to try and catch on to His coat-tails as He marches past." I don't think God has anything to do with this business, but the footsteps of history seem to be echoing rather loudly at the moment. The question is: Will Obama hear them?
ELVIS BARUKCIC/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:ACADEMIA, ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, AL QAEDA, DEMOCRACY, EGYPT, FOREIGN AID, HUMAN RIGHTS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
thank you prof. Walt for this post.
As you point out almost anyone will have difficulty predicting what will happen in Egypt and in other Middle Eastern Countries. However, here is a video of how strong the will of a mass of people has become. This kind of determination shows that they will in fact cause major changes. (Caution--It does show people dying) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBtYLBQPRGQ
At a minimum, they will continue to strongly raise issues of human dignity and economic justice for everyone across the globe, not just in the Middle East.
If they continually build an organization of factions and parties and recruit the Army into their movement, then they will take control of the government. Another indicator will be how well Mubarak can maintain loyalty and unity. Whoever is most unified will have a great advantage.
The US can identify itself with the force of their determination, or take a significant risk of becoming isolated from rising powers and rising alliances across the globe.
If I were doing the foreign policy, I would start participating somehow with this people power force. I would also start by changing our focus from western style institution building and loyalty to only governments; but I would begin to penetrate and listen to the voices of multiple factions and interests and above all show respect for their desires and dignity.
Those people are a powerful force and can make a strong ally----for somebody.
Bob Spencer
This has nothing to do with why Obama should let Mubarak step down but, not suprising, allows you to go on an Israel bashing.
dont forget Mr. Walt.
BLAME THE JEWS!!! Right? its seemed to work for you so far.
What on Earth do the jews have to do with president Mubarak's actual problems? Or, rather, the Egyptian people's problem with president Mubarak?
Certainly, "The Jews" do have their fingers in many pies around the world, but not every problem is cooked by Israel. Not this one.
This has everything to do with Israel.
Turn on any cable news channel and you can be guaranteed that the middle aged man in the grey suit is talking about how this affects Israel.
The State Department has been talking about Israel.
There's no point sticking your head in the sand.
Israel might be talked about but I have hardly seen anyone on the TV in Egypt burning Israeli flags and blaming Israel. It is possible that Israel has nothing to do with it.....
Unless you believe they send vultures and sharks to stir up the riots.
The reasons for this revolution are many. The fact that Israel is one of them, but not front and center, does not mean it isn't one of them.
Every so called expert who has been interviewed on cable news, and every State Department official has cited Israel's security as the reason why the US has supported a dictator.
The Israelis know it and so do the Egyptians.
State Department said quite plainly that democracy is OK for Tunisia but not Egypt because of Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmEcQMwprIo&feature=player_embedded
There are many dictators in the world
Indeed, the United Nations is full of them, including many such states that even sit on the so-called Human Rights council.
One can either deal with dictators or not. We deal with Singapore, and we deal with China. We deal with Russia, we deal with the Caucus states. We deal with Pakistan.
One can either deal with these states, or watch as others do.
Of course, that's a "Realist" perspective, as Walt himself points out. It matters little to him if those ruling their subjects are brutal torturers, only that their purpose serve US interests.
Bloodletting? Torture? Mere nuisances not worth discussing. Repression? A slight bother at that.
The reality is though Arvay, is that the Egyptians are fighting
for Egypt. Not Israel
They want jobs, they want food, they want a government that represents them, that doesn't steal from them (reported yesterday on Bloomberg radio, that Mubarak has some $25.0 Billion sequestered away, think about that).
They're not marching for Gaza.
They're not marching for HAMAS
They're not marching for Fatah
They're not marching for the Palestinians
That's the reality of it. Mubarak wouldn't lose his throne over Israel. It's easy enough for Egypt's government to placate the crowd on that issue, and the government has done so before.
No, as my old political science professor reminded us, the most sensitive part of the human anatomy, is his or her wallet. Egyptians have faced substantial economic hardship for years, and it is getting worse.
Mubarak, has been unable to 'put a chicken in every pot', and this is the result.
Only the Israel haters look to find a reason to blame the Jews.
Neo Lefty is Dr. Walt's Nomme de Plume
After all, he parrots Walt's "Blame Israel for All the World's Ills" line! Egypt's protests have nothing to do with Israel...and the US supports many, many dictators across the Middle East and the world. As a realist, Dr. Walt undoubtedly supports such a policy, except when it tangentially touches upon the Zionist Entity. Never let your guiding philosophy stand in the way of a good prejudice I always say!
There's dealing and there's enabling
Al BAredei happens to be a dictator who relies almost entirely on our support. And while we support human rights abusers like him, it rings pretty hollow when we talk about human rights with China.
Thansk for the compliments THEANTICLAUS
But I am not in the league of Professor Walt.
"Egypt's protests have nothing to do with Israel...and the US supports many, many dictators across the Middle East and the world."
Egyptians are protesting against a tyrant who has remained in power due to US backing, which has come in exchange for cow towing to Washington over Israel.
it's not that difficult.
And Yes, the the US supports many dictators across the Middle East, and they too are on notice. That includes Israel.
Man, that's hypocrisy for you!
THEANTICLAUS: "Neo Lefty is Dr. Walt's Nomme de Plume. After all, he parrots Walt's "Blame Israel for All the World's Ills" line!"
That, dare I say it, is the very the dictionary definition of an ad-hominem.
Which is odd indeed, considering that just two-Walt-posts ago our non-red-suit-wearing friend had responded to a post by NEOLEFT by shouting....
THEANTICLAUS: "POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK. I am afraid your ad hominem attacks don't work and are transparent. People see by attacking me personally you lack a cogent response."
Back 'atcha', Clausie-baby.....
PRETTY CLEAR OLD WALT HAS A HARD ON FOR ISRAEL
One of the most amazing elements of the evolving revolution in Egypt, Tunisia and other parts of the Arab world is the degree to which all of this is NOT ABOUT THEM.
For the tens of thousands of protesters who took to Egypt’s streets over the weekend, defying the curfew and calling for the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, Israel and the Palestinians were simply not on the agenda.
And the same was the case during the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia earlier this month, and in the demonstrations intermittently taking place in Jordan, Yemen, Algeria and Morocco. No cries of death to Israel, no signs to “lift the siege” of Gaza, no chants against housing projects in Ariel.
And to all those who would answer this by asking what kind of egotistical people would think that everything is about them, that they are the center of all regional developments, just consider what everyone from US President Barack Obama, to US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and to PROF WALT HERE have been saying for years: that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is the main source of foment and ferment in the Middle East.
Remove that source of antagonism, this argument ran, move Israel out of the West Bank, stop building a new apartment complex in Gilo, and stability would be much easier to bring to the region.
Really? Truly? Let’s imagine that two years ago Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had accepted with open arms Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of a Palestinian state on nearly 95 percent of the land, with a land swap for the rest, half of Jerusalem and an international consortium in control of the “Holy Basin,” would Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia not have set himself on fire, would rivers of people not be marching now in Egypt against Mubarak’s autocratic regime?
It’s clear that the tidal wave of popular anger against the Arab world’s “moderate” regimes would be washing over those regimes regardless of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Why? Because Middle East instability is not about Israel – it is about them. It is about Arab unemployment, and Arab poverty, and Arab despair of a better future.
One of the axioms repeated ad nauseum over the years by pundits around the world is that Arab despair breeds the radicalism that breeds the terrorism, and that the source of that despair is the Palestinian issue. Take that issue away and there will be far less despair, and thus far less terrorism. Hogwash.
True, there is hopelessness in the Arab world – but the source is not the Arab masses concern about the Palestinians; the source is the Arab masses concern about their own lives, their own unemployment and their own lack of freedoms. Fix that and you get stability; ignore that, and you get revolution.
But everyone – led by the US under Obama and the EU, and parroted by pseudo-academics like Walt – ignored that, fixating instead on the building of another house in Ramat Shlomo, another apartment unit in Efrat. How many times have international leaders bewailed the humanitarian situation in east Jerusalem and in Gaza? How many statements have been issued expressing righteous indignation and concern? And, by comparison, how much attention did these same leaders pay to the humanitarian situation in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Morocco, Jordan and Algeria – in the “moderate” Arab states. And which situation, really, threatens the stability of the region?
The Middle East is now at a crossroads. There is a democratic moment fast approaching, but one looks at it with fear and trembling. The events in Tunisia and now in Egypt may indeed represent the Arab world’s first popular revolutions, but they are by far not the world’s first revolutions.
The fear and trembling is that what happened in France in 1789, in Russia in 1917 and in Iran in 1979 will repeat itself in Egypt and the Arab world in 2011. After the old was thumped out by the new in those countries, there was a brief moment when democratic forces arose – be it the National Constituent Assembly and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France, Alexander Kerensky in Russia, or Shapour Bakhtiar in Iran – only to be swept away by the radicals: Robespierre in Paris, the Bolsheviks in Moscow, Ayatollah Khomeini in Teheran.
In Egypt, too, democratic forces are on the march, but the radical extremists are lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce.
None of this, of course, gets Israel off the hook. The conflict with the Palestinians is real, it’s acute and huge efforts must be found to try and justly manage if not solve it. But this conflict also must be put in its proper perspective; it must not be magnified far beyond its true dimensions.
When WikiLeaks began publishing US diplomatic cables in November, the world got a good glance at the degree to which the Arab leaders themselves did not see Israel – but rather Iran – as their main threat and the primary source of regional instability.
Now on the streets of Cairo, Tunis and Saana, the world is getting a good glance at what the people see as the main threat – their own governments.
Neither the people, nor the leaders, are holding Israel and the Palestinians up as the main problem. Is the West listening? Is Prof Walt?
Pretty clear you're an apologist for Israeli atrocities
You only post on topics that mention Israel. You're like a crazed stalker. Get over it. How many times does your account need to be suspended to either tone it down or go away?
THEANTICLAUS spinning his wheels again
"For the tens of thousands of protesters who took to Egypt’s streets over the weekend, defying the curfew and calling for the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, Israel and the Palestinians were simply not on the agenda."
Except that every talking head (aka foreign policy expert) on cable news, is talking about Israel.
The State Department can't stop talking about Israel.
Mike Huckabee in in Israel denouncing the demonstrations in Egypt, because of what they mean for Israel.
Netenyahu has sent out an SOS imploring world leaders to back Muabrak and keep him in power.
But according to THEANTICLAUS, it's all Walt's fault that Israel is being mentioned.
"Let’s imagine that two years ago Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had accepted with open arms Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of a Palestinian state on nearly 95 percent of the land.."
Let's not, given that the Palestine Papers have revealed Olmert's offer was pure BS and that Olmert had no intention of delivering.
"Why? Because Middle East instability is not about Israel – it is about them."
Really? So the people of the Middle East are to blame for the fact that Washington supports dictators in the region, who put the interests of the West and Israel before their own public?
It's really a scream watching the Israeli firsters on the blogs these last few days, running around with their hair on fire.
@Israelisapartheid (however wrong that name is)
he only posts on things regarding to Israel?? Is it not possible that this just so happens to be a topic he is most interested in?
no....impossible right?
Do tell Mr. Durban! You're only a winner in your fantasy world, aren't ya?!
I don't know why THEANTICLAUS can't grasp the logic.
Because it's pretty simpe...
Q1: Why are the Egyptians up in arms?
A1: Because their economy is in the crapper.
Q2: Why is their economy in the crapper?
A2: Because Mubarek hasn't been looking after their interests.
Q3: Why hasn't Mubarek been looking after their interests?
A3: Because he has spent 30 years doing what the Americans tell him to do.
Q4: Why did the Americans spend 30 years telling Mubarek what to do?
A4: Because they want Mubarek to play nice to Israel.
Q5: Just that, and for no other reason?
A5: Yeah, pretty much just that.
You can't really expect the Egyptian "street" to articulate that when they are out protesting about having an empty stomach. But pointing that out does not "prove" that there is no linkage between that Egyptian's "Hey! I'm hungry and food costs too much!" and the American refrain of "Play nice with Israel, Hosni, or else...".
There is, most definitely, a link between those two, and only someone who is terminally clueless (or deliberately blind) would dispute it.
DECONSTRUCTION? NICE TO KNOW YOU OWN A DICTIONARY
I hope the Egyptian government that eventually follows Mubarak is truly democratic, and I hope the Muslim Brotherhood turns out to be a responsible participant in the democratic process, but I doubt it...
The next Egyptian government - or the one after - might well be composed of Islamists. In that case, the peace with Israel will be abrogated and the mob currently in the streets will roar its approval. In addition, it will likely be anti-American, misoginist and threaten oil supplies through the Suez Canal..
The Muslim Brotherhood's most influential thinker was the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb. He was hanged in 1966, but not before he had managed to turn out a vast amount of writings. He showed almost superhuman courage and was, in many respects, a formidable man. But he was also a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, an anti-Semite and a fervent hater of most things American. ...
The Islamists of the Brotherhood do not despise America for what it does but for what it is. Read Qutb's purplish alarm at the dress and appearance of American women. Read his racist remarks about blacks. The Islamic state Qutb envisioned would be racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian as well. It would treat women as the Taliban now does — if only because the Taliban, too, reveres Qutb. ...
It's possible that the contemporary Islamists of Egypt think differently about these matters than did Qutb. If that's the case, then there is no cause for concern. But Hamas in the Gaza Strip, although recently moderating its message, suggests otherwise. So does Iran.
Theanticlaus I could not agree with you more on all accounts. This is not a case of Israeli apartheid and a Western fueled inferno looking to shape the Middle East back into its 1970's form. This is not about Israel I repeat not about Israel this is an uprising of a repressed people who are ready to be human and are sick of the midnight dissapearances and torture sessions. This about a people who are politically active and are heavily invested in their nation's well being more than I can say for the United States general public.
On another note ISRAEL APARTHEID may find it interesting that the Egyptian people have for the most part p=backed the lasting peace treaty with Israel that has been in place since President Sadat's reign. There is no general dissent towards the Israeli peace treaty. The treaty represents the only shred of civility and compassion in the MIddle East when it comes to the Jewish/Arab relationship. To blame the peace yes peace for the cause of a nation wide uprising is juvenile...
JohnBoy, Yours is an excellent description. Beats listening to all the experts talk for hours. Actually, many of the talking-heads reach the same conclusion, albeit in a more veiled manner, but it takes them lots longer. Been watching AlJazeera almost 24/7 and, judging from the chants and signs carried by the protesters, many have reached the same conclusion. -- there was a dummy of Mubarak hung by the neck, with a Star of David drawn on his tie, for example.
And then there was this Israeli exAmbassador to Egypt on British SKY TV who ranted and raved about AlJazeera, that it was leading the protests, was distoring things, etc. Of course, Mubarak closed AlJazeera's offices in Cairo down, has arrested its reporters, stolen their equipment, but Al Jazeera is still getting the story out!
Johnny bio you forgot to ask one question?
Where do you think egypt would be today without the peace agreement?
first there might have been more war and bloodshed before Israel would have left sinai peninsula which had lots of oil so maybe Israel would not have left it, second Egypt is a very poor country it desperately needs the aid of the U.S .
Would war make it's economic situation better, would it improve the lives of egyptians.
What does Egypt do for Israel? Not let hamas smuggle weapons? Sells natural gas?
Both countries gained from the peace, economically and in lives.
You period wont see a democracy
the egyptian military just won't tolerate islamists in the government mubarak might get thr boot i doubt it but you will not see true democracy in that region it tends to get mesy with divided interests in a country so large i believe there best option is a slow transition of the next decade or two to democracy will work best under a moderate military government look how well south korea turned out under such an arrangement.
Lot of typos i know on my lunch break
You are correct that the military does not tolerate the Muslim Brothers, and you will never advance beyond the lower ranks should you belong to this organization. Unfortunately, it was exactly these lower ranks that were infiltrated by the MB that assassinated Sadat. Also, Iran and its proxy Hizb Allah are now on the ground in Egypt, and I am sure they are not there as passive observers. Watch in the coming days for signs of increasing influence by the MB as they attempt to hijack this revolution as the clerics did in Iran in 1979 and as the Bolsheviks did in 1917. If the Egyptian military capitulates to these forces then it's game over for Egypt.
I think we all agree that we hope the MB doesn't co-opt this movement, just as the neo-cons co-opted the Tea party.
"Even in the worst case where the treaty did lapse, this would not create an existential threat to Israel. Why? Because Egypt's military is no match for the IDF and Cairo's capabilities would deteriorate further once U.S. military aid was cut off. "
Because military weakness did a whole lot to stop Egypt from starting Yom Kippur.
Now Toro, take your 'worst-case' scenario and step it up a notch
Instead of a "United Arab Republic" between Egypt and Syria, you have a new "Islamist" alliance between an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and an AKP led Turkey. Neither state which views Israel as legitimate.
I can imagine that "A World Without Zionism" Iran and Assad's Syria would like to make sure that they received their portion of the pie in such a fight.
You're looking at 1948 all over again.
you're gonna freak when Jordan falls in two weeks.
Walt's transparent ignorance of the Middle East
"Even in the worst case where the treaty did lapse, this would not create an existential threat to Israel. Why? Because Egypt's military is no match for the IDF and Cairo's capabilities would deteriorate further once U.S. military aid was cut off. "
I had to read this sentence about 5 times to make sure you were saying what I thought you were. Having the 10th largest army in the world as a new enemy, when you've not considered them a potential threat for the past 30 years, is a strategic change like no other. To play it down as a minor issue is utter idiocy.
I'm going to second that opinion kerpin
The idea that the Israeli / Egyptian peace treaty could fail and not have huge ramifications is either total idiocy on Walt's part, or total ignorance of the entire Middle East.
Remember, the entire idea of Israel withdrawing from any of the land captured in 1967 was UN242, the old land for peace formula.
What we're hearing now is, well, the peace part really doesn't matter because hey, Israel can still fight Egypt and win.
But here's the thing, what it says to the rest of the Arab world is that, no, you don't have to have peace with Israel, because sooner or later, we're going to get it all back. Either we can fight them for it again and again, or the world will twist Israel's arm for us so that we get it back anyway.
Cost free militarization.
What Walt's argument also points to is the reality that the so-called "Arab" or "Saudi" peace plan, isn't worth the paper its printed on. To Israelis, who already have a dim view of the trustworthiness of any peace agreement with the Arab world, this would put a stake in the heart of any future peace agreement.
Intersting take Jacob, but a little paranoid
"What we're hearing now is, well, the peace part really doesn't matter because hey, Israel can still fight Egypt and win."
The US has given the Israelis a security guarantee. You can still count on the fact that if Israel were to find itself with it's back to the corner, the US would step in.
"Either we can fight them for it again and again, or the world will twist Israel's arm for us so that we get it back anyway."
The land that doesn't belong to Israel? Sure. Wouldn't you prefer it be done without bloodshed?
"What Walt's argument also points to is the reality that the so-called "Arab" or "Saudi" peace plan, isn't worth the paper its printed on."
On the contrary. Israel's rejectionism will go down as a massive missed opportunity. Unlike the treaty with Egypt, the Arab Peace initiative was not only signed by 22 Arab states, but accepted in principal by hard liners Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. I would not have relied entirely on the continuity of leadership in any one country.
"Israel can still fight Egypt and win" that's not true , because if Egypt went to war (which very unlikely) they won't be alone even Benladen will be very happy to join , imagine Israel who lost war to Hesbuallh gang twice fighting all those enemies , sure it won't be 48 or 67 again, even if they think nuclear It's impossible to fight Benladen ghosts with nukes.
Neo, this is the 2nd time in...
... this comments section that I've had the urge to buy you a beer.
Cheers
Yes Neo the US has given security guarantees.
That and a buck – fifty will get you a ride on the cross-town bus. Remember, the US also has security guarantees with Egypt. We see how well that’s helping things at the moment. Remember Israel also had ‘guarantees’ from the Bush administration after withdrawing from Gaza. We see how well President Obama decided to follow that.
No Neo, I’m talking about pre-1967 Israel. Groups like HAMAS, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brotherhood reject the existence of Israel in total. To them, it’ not just an issue over the West Bank, but all of Israel. Indeed, these are groups wedded to “Resistance” and Jihad. There will be boodshed, because it is their desire for bloodshed.
Again you are incorrect. We see here that a treaty signed by Egypt’s government would get tossed in the trash heap as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood got into power. During the Beruit meeting of the Arab League, the Arab states fought long and hard over what ‘real peace’ meant with Israel. As a result, the language put forth in the plan was vague enough to let the treaty lapse without much issue on the Arab side. Indeed, the Syrian government noted that even if Israel handed back the entire Golan, it would not lead to ‘normalized relations’ between the two states or people.
As for a nation like Iran, its government is on record that even if Israel comes to terms with the Palestinians, it would never accept Israel as a legitimate state. The same attitude is present in both HAMAS and Hizballah.
That you argue that ‘continuity’ of governance is the only reliable measure of a treaty’s strength shows again, how meaningless such papers would be in the hands of any Arab state. Given that the Arab states were unwilling, even at the height of their support for this plan, to directly negotiate with Israel, and that they rejected the idea of normalized relations between the two groups, shows how truly empty this offer was.
US PEACE GUARANTEES...YEAH RIGHT!
By abandoning Mubarak so readily (in addition to comments he made regarding withdrawal by a fixed date from Iraq and Afghanistan), Mr. Obama has yet again displayed he is an ingenue when it comes to international relations. Right now every US ally from the UAE to South Korea is re-examining its defense posture in light of the fact they can not depend on the US to stand by them when the going gets rough. You will now find it far harder for the US to gain multilateral cooperation from erstwhile allies on a host of issues...particularly when it comes to security guarantees.
yes, the US has security guarantees with Egypt in return for Egypt being nice to Israel.
"Remember Israel also had ‘guarantees’ from the Bush administration after withdrawing from Gaza. We see how well President Obama decided to follow that."
Those were guarantees Bush had no legal authority to make. A US president has the authority to enter into a security alliance with a state, not to give away someone else's land.
"Groups like HAMAS, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brotherhood reject the existence of Israel in total."
Hamas and Hezbollah didn't exist in 1967 and Isrla were rejecting the very suggestion of a Palestinian state.
22 Arab States have signed a peaces Initiative, which recognizes Israel and normalizes relations. Israel has rejected it 3 times, so clearly, Israel have no regard for who reconzes them or not.
"We see here that a treaty signed by Egypt’s government would get tossed in the trash heap as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood got into power."
Did your crystal ball tell you that Jacob? Only time will tell, but in any case, Israel threw away a golden opportunity with the Peace Initiative. Had they accepted it and ratified it as a treaty, Egypt would have been bound by 2 agreements,
"As a result, the language put forth in the plan was vague enough to let the treaty lapse without much issue on the Arab side."
For example?
"Indeed, the Syrian government noted that even if Israel handed back the entire Golan, it would not lead to ‘normalized relations’ between the two states or people."
The Syrians made a fuss and then signed it anyway, thereby agreeing got eh terms, which stipulate NORMALIZING relations.
"As for a nation like Iran, its government is on record that even if Israel comes to terms with the Palestinians, it would never accept Israel as a legitimate state."
False. Iran has said that it would accept the terms of the Arab Peace initiative, if the Palestinians agreed to it. In other words, they would indeed accept Israel as a legitimate state. Of course, Israel refuses to recognize Iran as a legitimate state, but that's OK with you I take it?
"The same attitude is present in both HAMAS and Hizballah."
Both HAMAS and Hizballah have said they would not stand in the way of the treaty. Hamas has accepted a 2 state solution. In 2005, Hamas proposed diplomatic relations with Israel.
"That you argue that ‘continuity’ of governance is the only reliable measure of a treaty’s strength shows again, how meaningless such papers would be in the hands of any Arab state."
Israel has violated the treaty on multiple counts, but don;t let that stand in the way of your Arab basing. And FYI, I did not argue that continuity of governance is the only reliable measure of a treaty’s strength.
Nice straw men though.
"Given that the Arab states were unwilling, even at the height of their support for this plan, to directly negotiate with Israel, and that they rejected the idea of normalized relations between the two groups, shows how truly empty this offer was."
Sorry Jacob, but your argument is completely incoherent (a Zionist trademark). It as Israel that rejected the offer, which included directly negotiating with Israel, and normalized relations. Yet you blame the Arab states for not directly negotiating with Israel, and normalizing relations?
If you don't appreciate US help, you ingrates, give us the money and weapons back and screw yourself
Prof. Walt is being kind to you ZioExtremists, don't you get it? It's worth it to see Netanyahu's knees knocking together, as he awaits another Iran developing in Egypt. Let's see, you've got Hamas in Gaza, Hibullah in Lebanon, Iran up North, a likely Iran down South (per Netanyahu) . . . it's a matter of time before the Jordanians take matters into their own hands. You won't have a friend left in the neighborhood -- time to move back to New York and leave Palestine to the natives.
Living in a parallel universe is convenient, isn't it?
Given that most Israelis were born in Israel, and that among those born abroad a large group came from Arabic-speaking countries, you'll have a hard time implementing your "move back to NY" policy.
In any case, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Israel's fought off all of the Arab countries multiple times, in periods when it was much less prosperous and didn't have US support. If necessary, they'll kick their asses again.
Now you can go back to your lala land.
You are dreaming , recently Israel was defeated twice by Hisbuallh gang and couldn't defeat Hamas, what makes you think they well do better next time against more enemies including Alqaeda cancer which waiting for the chance to fight for their original cause. Wake-up it s not 67 anymore , and pray for peace .
what has Israel done for herself? lie, steal, kill innocents
What wars were those? When you French and British support in the run for the Suez? Since 67 and that war was conducted with US support, it's all been with US support. And, don't forget that we bailed your asses out in '73.
The Natives are home...they are the Jews who have a 3000 year unbroken presence in the Land of Zion. It is the Arabs who are interlopers, ever since they invaded and occupied the Holy Land, as well as huge swaths of Africa and Europe 1300 years ago. You are right that the Natives should stay and the invading Arabs should go home. Thanks for your insight ;>)l
Do you realize how anti-Semitic you sound?
The Palestinians, the Kosovars, the Southern Sudanese - they all the right of self-determination, but the Jews? We'll just stick them in our backyard and hope they don't accumulate too much power, in which case we'll have to go back to our old habit of expelling them or killing them off.
Right, I'm sure Israelis would love to get the same kind of treatment you now bestow on the Native Americans.
Juan has a strange sense of reality
He is convinced that Israel lost against Hizbollah in 2006...
Well Israel lost 117 of its soldiers while Hizbollah and the auxillary terrorist organizations lost over 8,000 of their terrorists. No, the reason Israel pulled out was not because they lost, but because there was no attainable reason to sit in Southern Lebanon, except to cause unnecessary civilian casualties.
Israel entered the war with two goals, to stop rocket attacks, and to release some captives. The captives were shot in cold blood shortly after the start of the war, and I'd say they did a darn good job stopping rocket attacks, seening as Haifans don't live in their bomb shelters today.
Well Juan, if you apply the same logic you do to Hizbollah, I wonder what you see out of your glasses. I guess the U.S. lost World War II because Germany still owns their country?
"He is convinced that Israel lost against Hizbollah in 2006..."
That's becasue Israel thinks Israel lost against Hizbollah in 2006.
"Well Israel lost 117 of its soldiers while Hizbollah and the auxillary terrorist organizations lost over 8,000 of their terrorists."
False. Israel killed 1,300 people, most of whom were civlians. Hezbollah didn't even have 8,000 fighters invoved through the whole conflict. In fact, they had no more than about 3000.
Of course, Vietnam showed us that body counts do not win wars. Winning wars comes down to achieving strategic objectives.
Israel's strategic objectives were to destroy Hezbollah and take the Litani. Israel never stopped the rocket attacks. The rockets atatcks from Hebollah contonued right up until the day of the ceasefire. They failed in all of these aims.
Hezbollah 's strategic objectives were to destroy survice the atatck and keep Israel out of Lebanon. Hezbollah succeed. So much so that Israel's government was ordered to form a Commission to investigate why Israel were to badly humiliated.
Israel pulle dout because Israeli poubli has no stomach for casualties and they getting nowhere. Througout the conflict, they kept annoucing that they were crossing the border in to Lebanon and were expcting to reach the Litani. They never got close.
The Pentagon’s J-8 Directorate for Force Structure Resources and Assessment conducts analysis, assessments, and evaluates strategies for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. it reports that the next Hezbollah-Israel war will not see Israel using many ground forces outside of armored personnel carriers once they enter Lebanon. The reason being that based on previous battlefield performance, it will likely require 5 Israeli soldiers to offset one Hezbollah defender’s battlefield acumen.
Hebollah have defeated Israel twice already, and they will a 3rd time.
The Romans drove out the Jews from the promised land. That was after the Babylonians did it twice. Maybe when the Arabs crush your dreams you'll finally admit that you've cried "Uncle" three times already, and can't claim to have controlled that land for 3000 yrs.
That said, there are indeed Jews who are native to that area. They told Moshe Dayan to show the Arabs mercy. Proud Moshe didn't listen, you never do. I hope and believe the Arabs will indeed show mercy to those that lived there for centuries. Then again, those that have lived for centuries aren't the ones occupying land, destroying homes, orchards, basically smashing each of the 10 commandments.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(115)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE