Obama: Wise Move Toward Egypt

At a time when the Israeli public disagrees on every subject — Galant*, Netanyahu and even the former Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff Ashkenazi— it looks like one Israeli point of agreement is buoyant: President Obama has failed the U.S. in the Middle East and thus jeopardizes the state of Israel.

This is not surprising. We are a country accustomed to look at things in a simplistic way, so many saw no wrongdoing in our ties with South Africa during the apartheid regime, as long as they were instrumental in advancing the aspirations of our defense exports. The “good” and the “bad” are always those who agree or disagree with us. Should a negligible member of the European parliament rise and speak in favor of the existence of the settlements — he’s already a supporter of Israel and deserves applause.

However, Obama is not our president. He is the president of the United States of America. Yes, even there he evokes objections and arguments, since the political and social agenda he was been elected on is not, for instance, like Bush’s or Reagan’s. Moreover, the fact of electing a black man for the highest job in the world is perceived as a political miracle, an almost impossible one. The social reforms he’s trying to carry out are receiving criticism from the conservative right in the U.S, although the circumstances require dialogue and agreements between the president and Congress.

But as for his policy concerning Egypt, his position has pulled around him the support of both parties and of both Houses. They understand there that the U.S. cannot bolster a ruler like Mubarak, certainly not when there’s a spontaneous and unorganized people’s opposition has risen against him.

Faulty Israeli Consensus

After all, previous U.S. presidents have told Mubarak for years that he should introduce more freedoms, suppress corruption and speak to the people. But he paid no heed to their entreaties because he believed that he could install his son as his successor and that he would always enjoy the protection of Omar Suleiman’s forces.

True, Mubarak sympathized with the West. True, he respected the peace treaty with Israel, but as a ruler, as a leader, as a sovereign — he went bankrupt. Therefore, Obama acted decisively toward him (even if he agreed for a moment that it would be better to transfer power in a more controlled way, at the price of Mubarak remaining in office as a president for the short term). It is the lessons of Khomeini’s coup in Iran that urged Obama to take a stand and be in dialogue with the opposition elements in Egypt. Indeed, the U.S. doesn’t want an Islamic republic built on the ruins of Mubarak’s rule.

Yes, Israel is going to need to reassess her way in the region — for any Egyptian regime in the future won’t be similar to Mubarak’s. But for Israel, this is also a transformation compelled by reality, since she can’t change the circumstances in Egypt.

Obama’s attempt to engage in discussion with a more rational Islam is a necessary effort in a world where the incitement against Islam is so great.

The consensus emerging in the Israeli public opinion, where Obama is an “enemy” to our interests and a “traitor” to his good friend Mubarak, is a faulty and delusional one. The state of Israel, with or without the Egyptian upheaval, will need to implement an active and real peace policy in dealing with her neighbors. The world is changing in front of our eyes, yet we’re still positive that lashing Obama and hoping to replace him is essential to that change.

*Translator’s Note: Galant’s appointment as IDF Chief of Staff was recently rejected at the last minute because of an exposed affair around his significant real estate purchases, which caused a very public scandal.