Silence Is Golden
Published in Maariv
(Israel) on 14 February 2011
by Shmuel Rosner (link to original)
(Israel) on 14 February 2011
by Shmuel Rosner (link to original)
Translated from
by Viktoria Lymar.
Edited by Hoishan Chan.
Israel is scoring high grades in Washington for her public demeanor in the face of the events in Egypt, but less highly as a result of things said behind the scenes.
Some of the Republican candidates for the presidency in 2012 are betting on the gloomy result at the end of the revolution in Egypt. They are betting on the chance that they’ll be able to accuse Barack Obama and knock him out for “losing” Egypt. They are issuing statements disturbingly similar to what can be heard in the governmental corridors in Jerusalem. (Israel has a clear interest to not appear as a country supported only by one political faction — from the right.)
For example, here is what Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor and soon-to-be candidate for the presidency, said, “We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, the Czech Republic and Colombia, among other friends. Meanwhile, we appease Iran, Russia and adversaries in the Middle East, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.” And here is Newt Gingrich, another potential candidate: “I don’t think they” — meaning, Obama’s people — “have a clue. It’s very frightening to watch this administration.”
Frightening? Not for all the Republicans. Obama’s rival of 2008, Sen. John McCain, was even more aggressive than the president in his demand that Hosni Mubarak vacate his position. Mitt Romney, considered the “leading” candidate at the moment, supports Obama.
As long as Egypt is quiet, as long as the stable rule there is upheld by the army, as long as the Muslim Brotherhood hasn’t risen to power — so far Obama has come out of the events in Egypt strengthened. He gambled on a move leading to the end of Mubarak’s era and won. Of course, should it become clear that the dish has been burned and Egypt slides into chaos or a hostile, oppositional regime — the ricochet will hit President Obama as well.
The chance Vs. the Risk
Israel is scoring high marks in Washington for her public conduct, and lower marks because of her expressions behind the scenes. For the government’s silence, for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s success in curbing an unnecessary chatter from the ministers and in avoiding statements for and against the situation, Israel is enjoying appreciation. For the incessant drip-drip of criticism of Obama, for the talk about “abandoning” Mubarak, for the light hysteria that the American president will abandon Israel as well, for all of that and more, Israel is barely scoring passing grades.
The Obama administration understands Israel’s fear for the democratization of Egypt, and shares it to a certain extent. The gap between the two countries’ standpoints originates both from the different estimates of risk and chance — in Israel, scales tip towards “risk”; in the U.S. they tip towards “chance” — and also on account of American calculations, in the case that Washington doesn’t have a strong enough leverage of influence to route the happenings into the desired destination.
Either way, these are reasonable and understandable gaps in perspectives between the United States and Israel, which have different ethos and world outlooks in their foundations, though more than that, these differences in awareness stem from geographical location, from living spaces and possible risk margins. Therefore, the administration staffers don’t have anything in their heart against the predilection of Israel to stick to Mubarak, and they are not astounded that it prefers a stable Arab dictator over the crazy whims of a democratic regime.
The status of Israel has been reinforced by the rampage in Egypt. At least for the moment, it is indeed an island of relative stability in raging waters. At least for the moment, it is an anchor for the United States in the region, which is likely to change its appearance to something beyond recognition within a few years. But this reinforced status is conditional on behavior: In order to maintain this status, Israel has to keep adhering to the wisdom of silence of the last weeks. In order to cultivate this status, it’s going to need to get accustomed to the new reality without sullying the president.
Some of the Republican candidates for the presidency in 2012 are betting on the gloomy result at the end of the revolution in Egypt. They are betting on the chance that they’ll be able to accuse Barack Obama and knock him out for “losing” Egypt. They are issuing statements disturbingly similar to what can be heard in the governmental corridors in Jerusalem. (Israel has a clear interest to not appear as a country supported only by one political faction — from the right.)
For example, here is what Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor and soon-to-be candidate for the presidency, said, “We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, the Czech Republic and Colombia, among other friends. Meanwhile, we appease Iran, Russia and adversaries in the Middle East, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.” And here is Newt Gingrich, another potential candidate: “I don’t think they” — meaning, Obama’s people — “have a clue. It’s very frightening to watch this administration.”
Frightening? Not for all the Republicans. Obama’s rival of 2008, Sen. John McCain, was even more aggressive than the president in his demand that Hosni Mubarak vacate his position. Mitt Romney, considered the “leading” candidate at the moment, supports Obama.
As long as Egypt is quiet, as long as the stable rule there is upheld by the army, as long as the Muslim Brotherhood hasn’t risen to power — so far Obama has come out of the events in Egypt strengthened. He gambled on a move leading to the end of Mubarak’s era and won. Of course, should it become clear that the dish has been burned and Egypt slides into chaos or a hostile, oppositional regime — the ricochet will hit President Obama as well.
The chance Vs. the Risk
Israel is scoring high marks in Washington for her public conduct, and lower marks because of her expressions behind the scenes. For the government’s silence, for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s success in curbing an unnecessary chatter from the ministers and in avoiding statements for and against the situation, Israel is enjoying appreciation. For the incessant drip-drip of criticism of Obama, for the talk about “abandoning” Mubarak, for the light hysteria that the American president will abandon Israel as well, for all of that and more, Israel is barely scoring passing grades.
The Obama administration understands Israel’s fear for the democratization of Egypt, and shares it to a certain extent. The gap between the two countries’ standpoints originates both from the different estimates of risk and chance — in Israel, scales tip towards “risk”; in the U.S. they tip towards “chance” — and also on account of American calculations, in the case that Washington doesn’t have a strong enough leverage of influence to route the happenings into the desired destination.
Either way, these are reasonable and understandable gaps in perspectives between the United States and Israel, which have different ethos and world outlooks in their foundations, though more than that, these differences in awareness stem from geographical location, from living spaces and possible risk margins. Therefore, the administration staffers don’t have anything in their heart against the predilection of Israel to stick to Mubarak, and they are not astounded that it prefers a stable Arab dictator over the crazy whims of a democratic regime.
The status of Israel has been reinforced by the rampage in Egypt. At least for the moment, it is indeed an island of relative stability in raging waters. At least for the moment, it is an anchor for the United States in the region, which is likely to change its appearance to something beyond recognition within a few years. But this reinforced status is conditional on behavior: In order to maintain this status, Israel has to keep adhering to the wisdom of silence of the last weeks. In order to cultivate this status, it’s going to need to get accustomed to the new reality without sullying the president.