Israel Still the Bane of Egypt's Existence, Writes Slackman

"Egypt Prepares for Center Stage When Obama Addresses Arabs"; By Michael Slackman; A8

The Egyptian position regarding Gaza is ambivalent. On the one hand, Egypt expresses concern about Gazans; on the other, it has refused to incorporate Gaza into Egypt, evidencing limits to its sense of brotherhood. Michael Slackman accords this ambivalence, a key aspect of the Egyptian attitude, no space in “Egypt Prepares…”

While he begins the article discussing the paucity of human rights in authoritarian Egypt, Slackman dedicates its middle to Egyptian frustrations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “[Egyptians'] first priority.” Here, an irony appears; whereas the initial topic – human rights – evidenced the discord between the government and the populace, there is accord on attitudes toward Israel - a stunning congruence meriting explanation, though none is forthcoming. (The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in Egyptian society is not a deserving topic.)

One wonders why a settlement freeze, the dismantling of checkpoints, and the opening of Israel-Gaza crossings is an Egyptian priority. Perhaps the excessive attention on Israel is one factor that inhibits a genuine struggle for human rights.

Regarding geopolitics, the evolving Euro-American-Arab position makes an appearance:

“Egypt maintains that to tame Iran — with which it is in open conflict — the issue of a Palestinian state must first be resolved,” writes Slackman.

Doubts about the efficacy of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty are also given their due. “Egypt has struggled to convince its people...that its commitment to the treaty is the best way to…preserve Egypt’s own national security,” the reporter writes. Of course, he does not present a counterargument, one that would suggest the truth of the converse – that the treaty is the key to Egypt’s “national security.” A quote from an American official may have brought forth this point.

“Egypt has already made clear that it cannot begin to give until it gets,” writes Slackman. He then goes on to explain that “giving” would be renouncing “the right of return,” without noting that “the right of return” would destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

At the end of the article, Slackman returns to human rights and democracy. This is the issue that Americans should be most concerned about since human rights and democracy is a part of our governing tradition and strengthening both is in our interest. The inter-Muslim struggle, wherein countries compete to be more hard-line than thou is not a game the US should concern itself with, yet this is what occupies Slackman’s attention.

Even the return to democracy, however, is marred by a quote from a spokesman of the Muslim Brotherhood criticizing the US for not “supporting democracy.” Identifying the Brotherhood with democracy would be laughable if Slackman appeared to be in on the joke.