Egypt’s President Speaks Out: Hamas Has to Lose
After letting leading figures of his country’s parliament, actors and journalists wage a rhetorical war on Hamas, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak has finally spoken out himself. He did so during a conversation with an EU delegation which went to the Middle East in order to come up with some kind of compromise regarding the Israel-Hamas crisis.
Mubarak told the EU delegation that Hamas cannot be allowed to win. He told the delegation that he had proposed a ceasefire agreement to both sides, which would require Israel to withdraw from Gaza and to break up its blockade while Hamas would have to agree to stop firing rockets at Israel.
Egypt’s president is playing with fire. One of his predecessors was murdered by Muslim extremists after he went to Israel for a peace mission; he signed a peace agreement with the Israelis which cost him a lot of support domestically and finally resulted in his death. Mubarak is obviously aware of the fate of his famous predecessor Anwar Sadat so he has to be aware of the great risks he is taking by speaking out against Hamas publicly. Since Egypt has a serious Islamist problem, one gets the impression that Mubarak has truly had it with Hamas and that he does not fear Islamists as much as he once did. Perhaps, one could say, he improve his country’s security agencies and ability to fight terrorists.
Mubarak led talks between Hamas and Israel for months in 2008. He tried to convince the terrorist organization to agree to an extension of the peace deal already in place. Hamas refused, however, and started launching hundreds of rockets at Israel immediately after the temporary ceasefire ended. Since Hamas clearly showed Egypt that it does care about Cairo’s opinion, Cairo has now turned on Hamas, letting them feel the consequences of acting in defiance of one of the region’s most powerful states.
Meanwhile, Turkey – which was Israel and America’s traditional area in the region for decades – has taken a different path ever since the crisis erupted. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called the Israeli operation “inhumane” and told a pro-AK Parti crowd in a small municipality that God would punish Israel for its crimes. Additionally, he said, Israel’s operation would eventually lead to its own destruction.
These are words other, secular and Kemalist leaders of Turkey would never have spoken. They can be interpreted as definite proof that Turkey is moving to the East rather than West under Erdogan’s leadership. Interesting enough it seems that Egypt is filling the gap Turkey is leaving behind somewhat (somewhat because one should not exaggerate Turkey’s current attitude either; it is likely that realpolitik will eventually triumph). Where Turkey might be moving to the East, Egypt is moving to the West, at least for now. The West and Israel would be wise to exploit these recent developments: it should be made clear to Erdogan that his drift to the East is not appreciated while Egypt should be rewarded for its change in tone.
One of the ways in which to reward Egypt is to let Mubarak be in charge of peace talks. If Mubarak not Erdogan eventually succeeds in bringing both sides together he will be a hero to many and he will be able to defend himself attacks from domestic Islamists and religious conservatives by arguing that his approach resulted in peace, which they would never have accomplished with their extreme views. Erdogan, on the other hand, would be humiliated for Turks would once again see that Turkey would lose its role of regional leader if it moves too much to the East.
Dear Michael:
You make a few interesting points regarding the current situation and the different players position. It is true that Erdogan’s rhetoric would never have been used a few years ago, and maybe this signal a shift eastward of his foreign policies. But i also think that you left out of the middle eastern equation two facts:
First, it is Turkey, not the US not the EU, nor Egypt, that is playing peace broker between Syria and Israel.
Second: It is the EU that sternly rejected Turkey’s membership to the EU. Not the other way around.
Could it be that the current regime in Turkey is truly interested in peace but cannot condone Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza? Could it be that their position is a genuine concern for the Gazans regardless of their leaders’ position or actions?
Apprehension and caution towards political parties with religious overtones like the AK party are not more warranted than towards any other political party. History has shown that religion no more than secular philosophies have been responsible for the most inhuman atrocities.
Furthermore, although many a political analyst would agree with Egypt or Saudi Arabia’s stances on Hamas (for some reason many forget to mention the critical and positive role played by Saudi Arabia in the peace process), the same pundits would also argue that the current course of events taken by Israel, the Arab/Muslim world and the international community is counter productive and plays actually in the hands of extremism on both sides.
You also seek to reward Mubarak for his position towards Hamas. So be it. But why not reward Saudi Arabia then, or myself for that matter? I don’t condone their actions nor policies , nor do i find them clever. But allow me to remind you that we’re giving both the Egyptians and the Israelis over $3 billions each every year to keep them in our sphere of influence without seeing any letdown in the crisis. In your opinion, this reward strategy would help Mubaraks’ government to defends itself against attacks from “domestic Islamists and religious conservatives by arguing that his approach resulted in peace, which they would never have accomplished with their extreme views.” Let me remind you that Egypt has long advocated a peaceful, far less religious course in its foreign policies. And we still end today with the same quagmire.
I would argue here that the main reason for Egypt’s failure abroad and at home, as for the Fatah led government, is not religion or the lack thereof, but instead CORRUPTION! People don’t trust them anymore to work for the good of the many. In the region people have tried arab nationalism, people have tried the PLO, people have tried arab socialism. And all have led to corrupted governments that are more concerned with their shopping trips to Paris, London or NYC than the suffering of their people. Just as socialism seemed to people like the only answer at the sunset of colonialism, maybe religion seems like the only answer today at the sunset of arab social-nationalism. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t.Time will tell.
In the meantime, punishing civilians for the deeds of a few is called collective punishment. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions (not sure in the turmoil we face in Gaza what is the relationship between the people of Gaza and the armed faction of Hamas, and neither does anyone of us here i guess). In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. Egypt and any country worth being part of this human community should heed the call for cessation of hostilities and allow Gazans to cross over to seek refuge. Mubarak is here today but he won’t tomorrow. Mahmoud Abbas is here today but he won’t tomorrow. Hamas is here today, but it won’t tomorrow. The arab and muslims’ anger and suffering is here today and will probably be here tomorrow. Unless we acknowledge the grave historical injustices and humiliation inflicted upon them, the same way we recognized the ones inflicted on the german people at the end of the WW I, the same way we recognized the ones inflicted on the jewish people throughout history.