Comments on: War in Gaza: no upside for Egypt

By: Joshua Muravchik

Joshua Muravchik — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:08:22 +0000

One theme of Steven Cook's post, repeated at several points, is that by fighting its enemies Israel will only make things worse because it will "radicalize" the region. This is a refrain heard whenever Israel acts forcefully in self-defense. So I repeat my question. Is robust action by Israel more provocative than weakness or acquiescence? Joshua Muravchik is a member of MESH.

By: Steven A. Cook

Steven A. Cook — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:28:14 +0000

I have no idea why Josh Muravchik is taking issue with my observation that instability and conflict in the Gaza Strip provide opportunity for Iran to play Arab politics. It's fairly obvious to most observers of Middle East politics, though perhaps not to Josh. Of course, Israel has a right to defend itself. I don't believe that my post implied otherwise. Steven A. Cook is a member of MESH.

By: Joshua Muravchik

Joshua Muravchik — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:05:30 +0000

Steven Cook writes: "Israel's airstrikes have produced widespread outrage in the Arab world and provide opportunity for actors like Iran to play Arab politics. It is only a matter of time before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad will use Israel's attacks on Gaza to advance his own popularity (second only to Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah) and Tehran's influence in the region." The Arab world is in a permanent state of outrage against Israel (and the United States, for that matter), which spikes whenever Israel raises a hand to defend itself. A broad review of 20th-century history suggests that democracies are more likely to be provocative by showing weakness and acquiescence (World Wars One and Two, Korea, Persian Gulf 1990) than by acting belligerent, i.e., being forceful in self-defense. In Israel's recent history, withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza proved highly provocative, strengthening radicals. If Steven Cook believes that forceful self-defense by Israel is more provocative than weakness and acquiescence would be, I would like to see him spell out the argument and offer some proofs or evidence. Joshua Muravchik is a member of MESH.

By: Nabil Fahmy

Nabil Fahmy — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:18:48 +0000

Steven Cook is correct in his basic conclusion that the present situation in Gaza is tenuous and of very serious concern for Egypt. He however misses a number of major and fundamental points because he focuses on the tactical consequences and ramifications rather than the strategic ones. The cycle of violence serves no one in the long run. It feeds the incessant Israeli feeling that they are always threatened and the false assumption that they benefit from using tactical force rather than negotiating strategically for peace with the Palestinians. Amongst the Palestinians it will breed more frustration and calls for revenge, and in the long term strengthen those who oppose negotiating peace even if some may feel weakened in the short term. All the Arab and International peace makers such as the United States and the Quartet see their efforts discredited in the eyes of the public as the violence continues, as they stand helpless and very little progress is achieved in negotiating permanent settlement issues. Egypt is of course uncomfortable with present developments, but it has been consistent in its policies. The Israeli occupation must end; nothing less will provide Israel with security. The cycle of violence serves no one. It will not secure the Palestinian-Israeli border or bring the Palestinians closer to their independent state. Nevertheless, once the dead are buried and the dust settles, the Israelis and Palestinians will once again search for Egypt. While its border proximity can create delicate problems, it also ensures it a continuing role, especially on issues of security and supply of basic needs. It has also proven to be the only constant partner in the peace process that has not backed off in face of crisis or conflicts and the only one talking to all the parties. Serious disagreements with Israel exist on the negotiations with the PA, and with Hamas on its position regarding a two-state solution. However, Israel understands the peace with Egypt ensures it no more wars, and cannot afford to risk that even if it is playing a precarious game now; and Gazans understand that Egypt is their lifeline. Nabil Fahmy was Egyptian ambassador to the United States from 1999 to 2008, and is a former political adviser to the foreign minister of Egypt.