Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
     
      US Politics and Nonsense on Egypt  
	By James Zogby 
	Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 8, 2011 
	  
	 When U.S. politicians are forced to discuss critical Middle East 
	matters, more often than not, their remarks either display an ignorance of 
	facts, are shaped more by political needs than reality, or are just plain 
	dumb. Commentary about the popular revolt in Egypt provides a case in point.
	
  There was no doubt that the events in Cairo were momentous and, 
	therefore, deserving of response. In the case of most U.S. political 
	leaders, however, struggling to come up with the right TV sound bite didn't 
	require actually knowing anything about Egypt. All that was needed was to 
	frame the issue through either the prism of partisanship or that of 
	unbending loyalty to Israel. The result was a string of comments, some 
	bizarre, others dangerous.       
  The new 
	Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Ileana 
	Ros-Lehtinen, for example, cornered the market on incoherence and 
	contradiction when she observed that "Mr. Mubarak should...immediately 
	schedule legitimate, democratic, internationally recognized elections", 
	adding however that "the U.S. should learn from past mistakes and support a 
	process which includes candidates who meet basic standards for leaders of 
	responsible nations - candidates who have publically renounced terrorism, 
	uphold the rule of law, [and] recognize Egypt's...peace agreement with the 
	Jewish state of Israel". 
  In other words, Ros-Lehtinen supports a 
	democracy where we (not they) set up the criteria. Not quite "respect for 
	the will of the people", but still better than former Republican Speaker of 
	the House Newt Gingrich's partisan tirade. 
  Gingrich who is reported 
	to be considering a Presidential run is shallow and remarkably uninformed 
	about most Middle East issues. He gets by largely because he sounds so 
	authoritative and always has a clever quip or two. In Gingrich's assessment 
	of the current situation "there's a real possibility in a few weeks...that 
	Egypt will join Iran, and join Lebanon, and join Gaza, and join the things 
	that are happening that are extraordinarily dangerous to us". Having thus 
	displayed almost no understanding of the Middle East, Gingrich goes on to 
	ridicule President Obama's "naiveté" charging that Obama "went to Cairo and 
	gave his famous speech in which he explained that we should all be friends 
	together because we're all the same...and there are no differences between 
	us. Well I think there are a lot of differences between the Muslim 
	Brotherhood and the rest of us." 
  Gingrich's parting shot was to 
	state that the Administration "doesn't have a clue". Then in order to 
	demonstrate that he does, Gingrich offers this "advice" to Obama: "study 
	Reagan and Carter and do what Reagan did and avoid what Carter did".  
	 If the need to take a partisan shot is central to some, more important 
	for others, both Democrats and Republicans, is the need to make this all 
	about Israel. Presidential aspirant and former Governor Mike Huckabee, for 
	example, used the occasion of the uprising to make his 15th trip to Israel 
	where he lamented that "the Israelis feel alone...and they cannot depend 
	upon the United States, because they just don't have a confidence that the 
	U.S. will stand with them".
  Representatives Shelley Berkley and 
	Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, worried about "Arab democracies". Weiner 
	observed that "Israel has been seered by the experience recently of seeing 
	democracy elect their enemies", while Berkeley shockingly added "the reality 
	is this: Democracy as we think of it and democracy as it is often played out 
	in the Middle East are two different things".  
  Trying to sound smart 
	and concerned with defense matters, and failing miserably, was Congressman 
	Jesse Jackson, Jr. Said Jackson, "U.S. military technology can't fall into 
	the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood or...Iran's allies in Egypt. Our 
	partnership with Egypt has provided [them] with a technological military 
	advantage...it must be secured and not allowed to fall into the hands of 
	enemies".  A number of other Members of Congress focused on the threat 
	they believe this uprising poses to the Suez Canal and therefore to the 
	price of oil. They, therefore, are pressing the White House to use this 
	crisis to focus on renewing efforts to pass an energy bill in Congress.   
	 What has been so disturbing about all this is that there have been 
	plenty of instances during the past few decades where American political 
	leaders had not only the opportunity, but were challenged with the 
	imperative, to learn more about the Arab World. Despite this, they failed. 
	As a result, they continue to frame critical issues as mere political 
	issues. A transformative uprising in Egypt or Tunisia comes to be seen as 
	being about Israel or as a club to use against one's opponent. 
  The 
	reality, of course, is that Egypt is about Egypt. No one in Tahrir Square is 
	waiting for Newt Gingrich's, or even Barack Obama’s blessing. And the silly 
	U.S. TV anchor, who tonight tried to get the Muslim Brotherhood spokesman to 
	say that he would recognize Israel as a Jewish State, was just that - silly.
	
  And just as silly was Eliot Abrams, one of the neo-conservative 
	ideologues-in-residence in the Bush White House who wrote an article last 
	Sunday attempting to give Bush credit for the uprising in Egypt, since Bush 
	advocated for democracy while Obama has not. The reality is more complex. 
	Bush did speak about democracy, but then went on to pursue regional policies 
	that were so wildly unpopular with the Arab public that governments friendly 
	with us felt compelled to subdue their own public's outcry in order to 
	maintain their friendship and support for the U.S. Arab leaders found that 
	their embrace of and cooperation with the U.S. could be politically costly. 
	Demands on their friendship only served to delegitimize their rule at home. 
	When the U.S.'s favorable rating is 12% in Egypt (and lower still in 
	Jordan), cozying up to America can be quite costly. 
  U.S. politicians 
	may need to hear themselves talk, but they need to realize that, in fact, 
	until they have at least a basic knowledge of the Arab World and work to 
	change America’s policies across the region, they will have no constructive 
	role to play. They can threaten to withhold aid and make more demands, but 
	the wiser course might be to simply assert our principles, take a more 
	humble back seat role and let this situation play out. The Egyptians in 
	Tahrir Square may cheer our pulling the plug on their President, but they 
	won't be cheering for us. When the dust settles, our regional policies will 
	still be the same and Arab anger at those policies, and us, will not have 
	changed either.
  
	  
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |