The Obama administration seems to be having trouble letting go of Hosni Mubarak. It couldn’t decide whether it wanted the Egyptian president to leave now, or just begin packing now and move out later.
A defiant Mubarak, picking up on Washington’s confusion, seemed to be digging in his heels, insisting that if he left too soon that chaos will ensue — and as if to prove it he sent his goon squads to beat up demonstrators in Tahrir (Liberation) Square.
In a familiar tactic of trying to deflect blame for its problems on Israel, Mubarak’s government spread the word that “Israeli spies” disguised as journalists were “foreign provocateurs” behind “elaborate foreign plots to destabilize Egypt,” according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
It’s an old story with Mubarak, Israel’s most valued Arab ally: stirring up anti-Israel rage as an outlet for popular anger against his own repressive and corrupt government. I was at a meeting with him when he was asked about that; he shrugged it off by lying that Egypt has a free press that he can’t control, and, besides, the people need to “let off steam.” Translation: Better they go after Israel than me.
As Egyptian demonstrators demanded democracy, few seem more worried than the Israeli government. Jerusalem’s greatest fear is that the new Egyptian government could make Mubarak’s cold peace look warm, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood has an influential role.
The Islamist group, which spawned Hamas, says it has abandoned violence, but that doesn’t apply to Israel. It repeatedly has called for abrogating the 1979 peace treaty and told Palestinians they should ditch negotiations because, in the words of its supreme guide Mohammed Badi, “resistance is the solution.”
Israel has good reason to be fearful. If the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan were put to a popular vote, there’s a very good chance they’d lose, with or without the Islamists. Not only because Mubarak has deflected criticism to Israel and the United States, but also because America is seen as an enabler for tyrants, propping up repressive regimes with economic and military aid.
Israel’s complaints that Washington has been too quick to abandon Mubarak — something disputed on the Egyptian street — has a heavy tinge of hypocrisy. For years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — along with Jewish Agency chair Natan Sharansky — has been preaching the need for democracy in the Middle East and
blaming its absence for the lack of peace in the region.
But suddenly faced with the danger of democracy breaking out in Egypt, he has been whistling a different tune: Democracy is good for us, but I’m not so sure you can handle it.
His new message is that democracy could lead to an Islamic takeover, so Israel must beef up its defenses along the Egyptian border and move even more cautiously on all the peace fronts.
Bibi’s hypocrisy aside, Israel has reason to be cautious.
American calls for democracy in the Middle East may have been well intentioned on the part of the Bush and Obama administrations but have produced mixed results, at best — especially for the Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis.
Insistence that terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas be allowed to field candidates in 2005 and 2006 elections resulted in near fatal setbacks to Washington’s goal of fostering democracy and peace. Hezbollah today dominates Lebanon’s government, and Hamas controls Gaza and is challenging Fatah on the West Bank.
Premature elections in Egypt could undermine, not nurture democracy. President Barack Obama in his 2009 Cairo speech said, “Elections alone do not make true democracy.”
Egyptian elections can still be held as scheduled in September, but a transitional government must be formed promptly to allow time for reforms to take root and democratic opposition groups to form so voters can have real choices. If not, the only organized opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, will have an unfair advantage.
Mubarak angrily brushed off calls for democratic reform from the Bush and Obama administrations, and they let the matter fade — mistakes that might have averted the recent crisis.
The United States sees itself as the symbol and voice of democracy, but in Egypt and other countries it is seen in a very different light — as the protector and defender of corrupt and oppressive regimes. We chose stability over democracy, and now we are seeing enraged citizens turning against the dictators we backed.
There is a democracy bandwagon rolling in Egypt and we’re trying to jump aboard without causing too much angst for our other autocratic allies still in power. Our dilemma is avoiding undermining them while at the same time not getting trampled when their people rush to freedom.
The seismic shift under way in the Middle East will require fundamental changes in American and Israeli policy. The challenge for Washington will be to press for political reforms to take hold so that elections will be truly free and fair, and for Jerusalem to find opportunities to make peace, not excuses to avoid it.
Douglas M. Bloomfield is the president of Bloomfield Associates Inc., a Washington, D.C., lobbying and consulting firm. He spent nine years as the legislative director and chief lobbyist for AIPAC.