The right to form a union is an American value. The right to form a union is critical to a democratic society because it is the only way to assure that employers do not treat their employees as commodities. The fight in Wisconsin is not about the money. The battle of public employees for their rights in Wisconsin is about fairness, the preservation and expansion of the middle class and keeping the American Dream alive. To the extent that Wisconsin has a budget deficit, it is a problem of the Governor's own making, thanks to tax breaks he just gave to corporations. And he wants the states public workers to pay for it.
The workers have already indicated their willingness to negotiate by accepting the increases in their healthcare and retirement contributions (basically, a pay cut) if the Governor would be willing to not take away their right to bargain for better wages and benefits at some point down the road. But the Governor will not budge – he continues to choose his ideological agenda over the people of Wisconsin.
Today, union membership is down, unemployment is up and the current generation of young people is the first in years to expect that they won't be as well off as their parents. Enter Governor Scott Walker, Speaker of the U.S. House John Boehner, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republicans who want an America run by and for the big corporations. Their agenda is to downsize government to dangerous levels, dismantle the public programs that keep our families safe and our communities strong, export our jobs overseas to increase corporate profits and fill their own pockets, and concentrate the nation's wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
These politicians are owned and operated by a powerful corporations and billionaires like the infamous Koch Brothers, who fund many right-wing front groups such as FreedomWorks, who sent people to Madison from across the country this weekend to stage counter-protests.
These politicians and organizations are part of a nationwide effort to take away collective bargaining. They are also trying to take away the important cost-saving benefits and consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act. And they want:
• Social Security to be privatized and eliminate Medicare as we know it – which will effectively kill Grandma, a point they shouted about during the healthcare debate. (They did not really care about Grandma.)
• A government that is so small, it will starve the poor, shrink the middle class, and eliminate small businesses.
• Tell you that if you become a vegetable, you have to be kept alive on machines.
• A government that looks the other way when oil companies recklessly drill offshore and mining firms operate without regard for the health and safety of their workers.
• And a government with enough power to tell a woman, her doctor and her family what to do about private healthcare decisions – basically take away the right of a woman to have an abortion if her life is in danger.
We all do better when we all do better.
Democrats and unions believe that work should be rewarded and workers treated with dignity and respect. They believe in an America where there is opportunity for everyone to achieve their potential and have fulfilling lives, including a secure retirement. We also believe in a robust government that does things that the people cannot do individually for ourselves to improve our quality of life. They believe in pitching in and helping each other out.
The Republicans and their corporate sponsors believe in every man for himself – the "you're on your own" theory of government and life. If you are not well off financially, they believe it is your own fault. They also do not believe corporations, businesses, etc, should be required to give any benefits, such as retirement and healthcare, to the workers. These filthy rich do not want to support their government, or their schools, or their public workers.
In other words, Republicans would like to take us back to the 19th and early 20th centuries where workers had no benefits and no rights – where the wealthy had all the power and all the rights.
As the New York Times explains, "In a year when governors across the country are competing to show who is toughest, no matter what the consequences, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin stands out as the first to bring his State Capitol to a halt." Like many governors, he wants to cut the benefits of state workers. But the Wisconsin Governor's plan goes further, he wants to take away the collective bargaining rights of public employees – which would have no impact on the state budget. They would be barred from bargaining about anything except wages, and any pay increase they win would be limited by the consumer price index. Contracts would be limited to a year, and union dues could no longer be deducted from paychecks. Gov. Walker’s goal is to destroy the workers’ union.
In the face of a vicious Republican and corporate assault on the ability of workers to negotiate for a better life, Wisconsin's workers are fighting back. They are standing up for their right to collectively bargain and they are standing up for all of us. The tenacity, courage and commitment of the protesters have been extraordinary. The community support the workers have received has been inspiring. The people of Wisconsin are making history by drawing a serious line in the sand against unbridled corporate power and Republican extremism.
At the bargaining table, the ballot box, in the halls of Congress, and wherever important policy decisions are made, unions have fought for greater opportunity and shared prosperity, for the real American dream.
Throughout our nation's history, workers and their unions have fought for better wages, benefits and scores of trailblazing workplace improvements. In the post World War II era, unionized jobs with good pay and decent health care and retirement benefits helped create and expand America's middle class. It was the promise of America: If you worked hard and played by the rules, you could get ahead. And your kids could do even better. That promise – the American Dream – has been made possible by the strength of the American labor movement and the sacrifices of countless workers and their families.
It is these different views that the battle in Wisconsin is about, beginning with worker's most basic rights. That is why teachers, correction officers, firefighters, nurses, administrative assistants, sanitation workers, social workers and so many others have banded together like never before.
Wisconsin is ground zero. If the Republicans succeed in Wisconsin, the birthplace of A.F.S.C.M.E., they will be emboldened to attack workers' rights in every state. Workers – including professional teachers, state troopers, nurses, etc, – will once again become servants and slave labor.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
So be it?
House Speaker John Boehner – the self-avowed small government guru who last September said of the Pentagon, "There's got to be wasteful spending there, unnecessary spending there, it all ought to be eliminated" – went to the mat this past Wednesday in a desperate effort to save a multi-billion-dollar fighter jet engine project that even the Pentagon considers to be, in the words of Defense secretary Robert Gates, "an unnecessary and extravagant expense."
Boehner, who on Tuesday showed no concern about draconian Republican spending cuts that would put hundreds of thousands of federal workers on the street (in his words, "so be it"), the next day hypocritically sought to save a jet engine project that the Pentagon has been trying to kill since the George W. Bush era.
The "unnecessary and extravagant" project is headquartered at a General Electric plant in Ohio. The jet engine project provides jobs to 1000 people in Ohio. Without that project, there will be 1000 more people on the street in Ohio.
"We're broke," Boehner said on Tuesday – but just twenty-four hours later, he said that we are not too broke to help the workers of Ohio. Care to guess why Boehner took such a strong stand in favor of this particular wasteful spending?
That’s right. Boehner is from Ohio.
By the way, Boehner said he was fine with government worker layoffs because, in his calculation, President Obama had created "200,000" federal jobs. Wrong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the factual figure is roughly 58,000.)
So, Boehner, who last autumn promised "fiscal discipline," and who this week shrugged off the prospect of thousands of federal worker layoffs with "so be it," saw fit to carve out a convenient exception for his own backyard. He did not care if fiscal non-discipline was required to save Ohio workers from the privations that he is willing to visit upon everyone else.
Then "so be it" magically becomes "it will not be." It is all well and good to voice the desire to cut government spending...until the consequences of the cuts hit too close to home.
Assuming that Boehner is not as heartless as his words sound and that he really believes that reduced spending will bring about a better environment for job creation in America, a more balanced budget could possibly improve the job market in the very long run. But in the short run, the cuts Boehner and his caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow, if not reverse, the recovery.
The Washington Post reported that the $59 billion cuts for the last half of fiscal 2011 would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That is nearly 1 million jobs – possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession.
And however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interest for unemployment to remain high for the next two years.
"So be it" is callous but politically rational.
Boehner, who on Tuesday showed no concern about draconian Republican spending cuts that would put hundreds of thousands of federal workers on the street (in his words, "so be it"), the next day hypocritically sought to save a jet engine project that the Pentagon has been trying to kill since the George W. Bush era.
The "unnecessary and extravagant" project is headquartered at a General Electric plant in Ohio. The jet engine project provides jobs to 1000 people in Ohio. Without that project, there will be 1000 more people on the street in Ohio.
"We're broke," Boehner said on Tuesday – but just twenty-four hours later, he said that we are not too broke to help the workers of Ohio. Care to guess why Boehner took such a strong stand in favor of this particular wasteful spending?
That’s right. Boehner is from Ohio.
By the way, Boehner said he was fine with government worker layoffs because, in his calculation, President Obama had created "200,000" federal jobs. Wrong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the factual figure is roughly 58,000.)
So, Boehner, who last autumn promised "fiscal discipline," and who this week shrugged off the prospect of thousands of federal worker layoffs with "so be it," saw fit to carve out a convenient exception for his own backyard. He did not care if fiscal non-discipline was required to save Ohio workers from the privations that he is willing to visit upon everyone else.
Then "so be it" magically becomes "it will not be." It is all well and good to voice the desire to cut government spending...until the consequences of the cuts hit too close to home.
Assuming that Boehner is not as heartless as his words sound and that he really believes that reduced spending will bring about a better environment for job creation in America, a more balanced budget could possibly improve the job market in the very long run. But in the short run, the cuts Boehner and his caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow, if not reverse, the recovery.
The Washington Post reported that the $59 billion cuts for the last half of fiscal 2011 would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That is nearly 1 million jobs – possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession.
And however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interest for unemployment to remain high for the next two years.
"So be it" is callous but politically rational.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Republicans jumped into a tricky thicket
When Speaker John Boehner lies awake at night wondering how things in the House got so bumpy so fast, there's one person he worries about the most. It's not a triangulating Democrat or a hard right Republican. It's people like Jodine White.
Last year, Jodine took part in a New York Times/CBS poll that found 92 percent of Tea Partiers, like her, wanted smaller government. And almost three quarters of them said they would support spending cuts to get there, even if it meant cutting Social Security and Medicare. Republicans heard that message loud and clear in 2010 and ran with it, railing against the government and making bold promises about cutting it down to size. And they won.
But wait.
In follow-up interviews the Times reported, "Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security ... suggesting instead a focus on 'waste.' When asked to reconcile those findings, Jodine White said:
"That's a conundrum, isn't it?"
Well, yes, that is a conundrum.
Aren't Tea Partiers supposed to be in a rage over an America that has lost its way? Aren’t they determined to get us back to the kind of government our Founding Fathers wanted? Surely no Tea Party patriot could be distracted from that noble task by something as base as self-interest!
"I don't know what to say," Jodine explained. "Maybe I don't really want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security ... I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."
Well…there goes the revolution…
And, apparently, she is not alone. Last week, Pew released a new poll showing that while many Americans want to restrain federal spending, they are against a whole range of specific spending cuts. It is the same thing on the state level. People think state governments should cut spending to help retire huge budget deficits, but they have a hard time finding specific budget cuts that they support.
That helps explain the new Democratic strategy of trying to move the spending debate from the general to the specific. But what about all those Republicans who were elected in 2010 on angry rhetoric and solemn promises to cut spending like never before? If the internal Republican squabbles we saw last week are any indication, the elected Tea Partiers want to move full steam ahead.
It used to be so much simpler to be a Republican. You could bash government because your base (the wealthy individuals and corporations) didn't see why their tax dollars should go to support programs that had nothing to do with them. Democrats defended government because their constituency includes people who sometimes need the government programs that taxpayers fund. But in times of economic distress, Republicans can pull voters from what should be the Democratic base because anti-government rhetoric sounds appealing to people who thought government would be there when the going got tough, and then discovered it wasn't. In other words, they got mad at the government for not saving their jobs and homes – and since Obama had just won the presidency the moment the economic downturn started to sink in, then he and the Democrats got all the blame.
That was wonderful for Republicans on Election Day, but it is complicating things every day thereafter. Because when you have to translate your rhetoric into action, people who were enraged at government yesterday can switch on a dime when they realize something they like is on the chopping block.
It is like the Republicans got fooled. They thought that the message the voters were sending was: "Cut spending!" And they were eager to please. But what if their constituents are all like Jodine White – people who thought they wanted spending cuts until they realized what those cuts could do to them?
They are sending a different message now: "Cut spending! Unless it's spending that benefits me."
If they cut too much or cut the 'wrong' items, if too many Americans are directly affected, it becomes a trickier thicket for Republicans to jump into. The House Republicans could all lose their jobs in two years if they go too far with those cuts – but with the blinders they have on, they can't see it.
*Taken from: Voters Snookered Republicans on Budget Cuts, By ANSON KAYE
U.S. News & World Report
Read more: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/2011/02/17/voters-snookered-republicans-on-budget-cuts
Last year, Jodine took part in a New York Times/CBS poll that found 92 percent of Tea Partiers, like her, wanted smaller government. And almost three quarters of them said they would support spending cuts to get there, even if it meant cutting Social Security and Medicare. Republicans heard that message loud and clear in 2010 and ran with it, railing against the government and making bold promises about cutting it down to size. And they won.
But wait.
In follow-up interviews the Times reported, "Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security ... suggesting instead a focus on 'waste.' When asked to reconcile those findings, Jodine White said:
"That's a conundrum, isn't it?"
Well, yes, that is a conundrum.
Aren't Tea Partiers supposed to be in a rage over an America that has lost its way? Aren’t they determined to get us back to the kind of government our Founding Fathers wanted? Surely no Tea Party patriot could be distracted from that noble task by something as base as self-interest!
"I don't know what to say," Jodine explained. "Maybe I don't really want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security ... I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."
Well…there goes the revolution…
And, apparently, she is not alone. Last week, Pew released a new poll showing that while many Americans want to restrain federal spending, they are against a whole range of specific spending cuts. It is the same thing on the state level. People think state governments should cut spending to help retire huge budget deficits, but they have a hard time finding specific budget cuts that they support.
That helps explain the new Democratic strategy of trying to move the spending debate from the general to the specific. But what about all those Republicans who were elected in 2010 on angry rhetoric and solemn promises to cut spending like never before? If the internal Republican squabbles we saw last week are any indication, the elected Tea Partiers want to move full steam ahead.
It used to be so much simpler to be a Republican. You could bash government because your base (the wealthy individuals and corporations) didn't see why their tax dollars should go to support programs that had nothing to do with them. Democrats defended government because their constituency includes people who sometimes need the government programs that taxpayers fund. But in times of economic distress, Republicans can pull voters from what should be the Democratic base because anti-government rhetoric sounds appealing to people who thought government would be there when the going got tough, and then discovered it wasn't. In other words, they got mad at the government for not saving their jobs and homes – and since Obama had just won the presidency the moment the economic downturn started to sink in, then he and the Democrats got all the blame.
That was wonderful for Republicans on Election Day, but it is complicating things every day thereafter. Because when you have to translate your rhetoric into action, people who were enraged at government yesterday can switch on a dime when they realize something they like is on the chopping block.
It is like the Republicans got fooled. They thought that the message the voters were sending was: "Cut spending!" And they were eager to please. But what if their constituents are all like Jodine White – people who thought they wanted spending cuts until they realized what those cuts could do to them?
They are sending a different message now: "Cut spending! Unless it's spending that benefits me."
If they cut too much or cut the 'wrong' items, if too many Americans are directly affected, it becomes a trickier thicket for Republicans to jump into. The House Republicans could all lose their jobs in two years if they go too far with those cuts – but with the blinders they have on, they can't see it.
*Taken from: Voters Snookered Republicans on Budget Cuts, By ANSON KAYE
U.S. News & World Report
Read more: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/2011/02/17/voters-snookered-republicans-on-budget-cuts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Courageous Egyptian people
I spent last week mesmerized by Egypt's extraordinary democratic revolution via CNN, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera (online English version). There were plenty of placards and chants calling for democracy and justice in Egypt – the most popular "Mubarak, Go, Go". But what was missing were the usual Middle Eastern sign or chant of "Death to America!" or "Death to Israel".
What is most telling is that the demonstrators did not denounce America, although some expressed frustration at the ambiguity of the Obama administration's statement’s about their movement. Friday night, when Mubarak finally resigned, crowds mobbed American reporters in order to tell Americans how happy they were.
This is an indigenous Egyptian movement. It is about lifting 30 years of political repression and creating economic opportunity for a new generation. America and Israel are the last things on the minds of the young Egyptian revolutionaries.
Whether the revolution leads quickly to an Egyptian democracy or whether the military form another repressive dictatorship remains to be seen. The next few weeks will tell whether the military and Mubarak's cabinet, which remains, try to maintain complete control of the transition – or whether the opposition, including the newly constituted opposition of young people who organized the street demonstrations, is allowed to share power in the transition and participate in writing a new constitution.
Having tasted the sweetness of freedom for the first time in their lives, the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who turned out in Tahrir Square will probably not accept a military coup with minor reforms. They will insist on a meaningful democratic transition, taking to the streets again if it does not happen.
While the revolution had little to do with America and Israel on the part of the demonstrators, it does not mean it will not have an impact on America and Israel. America will have to re-evaluate its strategy of support for Middle East dictators in exchange for imaginary stability. And Israel should see this as an opportunity to renew a serious commitment to negotiating a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians, having seen the power of mass non-violent resistance to bring about fundamental change, would do well to back away from an ideology of armed struggle and take up a strategy of massive non-violent resistance of their own. Peaceful resistance is more likely to force concessions from Israel than rockets and suicide bombs.
"What happened in Egypt in those eighteen days was an inspiring, momentous, authentic and heroic movement to promote democracy. It was a dignified and popular uprising that started with the youth and captured the world’s imagination, and proved that it is possible for the people to overthrow a well-entrenched regime through peaceful means."
~Mohsen Milani "What happened in Egypt in those eighteen days was an inspiring, momentous, authentic and heroic movement to promote democracy. It was a dignified and popular uprising that started with the youth and captured the world’s imagination, and proved that it is possible for the people to overthrow a well-entrenched regime through peaceful means."
Congratulations to the courageous Egyptian people for maintaining their resistance in a peaceful manner and achieving the first stage of their democratic revolution.
*Mohsen Milani is professor of politics and chair of the department of Government and International Affairs at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Fla.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Reagan Republicans disagree with today’s GOP
For all the glowing accolades Republicans like to give to President Reagan, especially on the occasion of his 100th birthday, the truth is, if he were still around his policies would be way too liberal for today's GOP. Not that Reagan was a liberal or even that much of a moderate. His administration definitely was right of center. But that is how far to the right and how radical the modern GOP has become.
We have all heard Reagan's former budget director time and time again say tax cuts do cause deficits if not offset with spending cuts. That notion is absolutely rejected out of hand by Republicans today. Today's Republican “Patriots” think tax cuts are the answer to everything. Yet in addition to cutting some taxes, Reagan raised taxes 11 different times – an act totally unthinkable by Republicans today.
There is a constant fascination with the national debt by the GOP – because it’s politically expedient for them to focus on the debt now that they are out of power. But if you mention to them that Reagan tripled the national debt, they will insist it was because of “patriotic” reasons. They will counter that Obama has increased it by 15%, while becoming unglued and ranting like crazy people about socialism and government takeovers.
The biggest argument of the day is the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) that was passed into law last year. Every elected Republican, along with every word ever spoken on Fox News, has called the Affordable Care Act “unconstitutional” because it carries a mandate that all who can afford it has to purchase insurance through private providers or pay a penalty to the government. Regardless of the fact that Republicans have touted “personal responsibility” for decades, this has caused some of the most heated arguments and moments in America since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. It brought us the Summer of Hate where multitudes of elected Republican members of Congress were organizing protests against the government and stirring the pot by calling the president an enemy of the state. Unfortunately it also gave us the Tea Baggers, who are still trying to figure out why everybody cannot protest government services while, at the same time, partaking in government services just like they do.
But something interesting happened yesterday in a Senate hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried, who was Reagan's SG his entire second term as president, firmly told his Republican colleagues that not only is the ACA constitutional, but the individual mandate is too.
It is extremely rare to hear a Republican say such a thing nowadays. It would cost them their career and result in being labeled a liberal by the current rightwing establishment. In listening to Fried, it was refreshing to be reminded of just how moderate Republicans used to be. That is why I, as an independent, used to vote for just as many moderate Republicans as I did moderate Democrats – but not anymore. Fried’s speech highlighted just how numbingly stupid and completely controlled today’s Republicans are by Fox News, the neoconservatives, and the Religious Right.
Again, Fried, who was one of Reagan's inner circle of advisors, is disagreeing completely with not just a policy viewpoint of the modern GOP, but disagreeing entirely with the very foundation of the modern GOP.
As much as Republicans say they adore him, Reagan would be driven out of the party these days.
We have all heard Reagan's former budget director time and time again say tax cuts do cause deficits if not offset with spending cuts. That notion is absolutely rejected out of hand by Republicans today. Today's Republican “Patriots” think tax cuts are the answer to everything. Yet in addition to cutting some taxes, Reagan raised taxes 11 different times – an act totally unthinkable by Republicans today.
There is a constant fascination with the national debt by the GOP – because it’s politically expedient for them to focus on the debt now that they are out of power. But if you mention to them that Reagan tripled the national debt, they will insist it was because of “patriotic” reasons. They will counter that Obama has increased it by 15%, while becoming unglued and ranting like crazy people about socialism and government takeovers.
The biggest argument of the day is the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) that was passed into law last year. Every elected Republican, along with every word ever spoken on Fox News, has called the Affordable Care Act “unconstitutional” because it carries a mandate that all who can afford it has to purchase insurance through private providers or pay a penalty to the government. Regardless of the fact that Republicans have touted “personal responsibility” for decades, this has caused some of the most heated arguments and moments in America since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. It brought us the Summer of Hate where multitudes of elected Republican members of Congress were organizing protests against the government and stirring the pot by calling the president an enemy of the state. Unfortunately it also gave us the Tea Baggers, who are still trying to figure out why everybody cannot protest government services while, at the same time, partaking in government services just like they do.
But something interesting happened yesterday in a Senate hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried, who was Reagan's SG his entire second term as president, firmly told his Republican colleagues that not only is the ACA constitutional, but the individual mandate is too.
It is extremely rare to hear a Republican say such a thing nowadays. It would cost them their career and result in being labeled a liberal by the current rightwing establishment. In listening to Fried, it was refreshing to be reminded of just how moderate Republicans used to be. That is why I, as an independent, used to vote for just as many moderate Republicans as I did moderate Democrats – but not anymore. Fried’s speech highlighted just how numbingly stupid and completely controlled today’s Republicans are by Fox News, the neoconservatives, and the Religious Right.
Again, Fried, who was one of Reagan's inner circle of advisors, is disagreeing completely with not just a policy viewpoint of the modern GOP, but disagreeing entirely with the very foundation of the modern GOP.
As much as Republicans say they adore him, Reagan would be driven out of the party these days.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Is Egyptian-Israeli peace in danger?
The uprising against the Mubarak regime raises the specter of a strategic nightmare: collapse of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. That is not the inevitable outcome – a modified version of the Mubarak government could survive and retain the "cold peace" with Israel. But if, in a worst case scenario, democratic or Islamic forces were to come to power denouncing Israel and repudiating the peace deal, that could herald the resurrection of a major military threat on Israel's southern border.
Mubarak has served as a bulwark against regional chaos and for decades has been a central pillar of American strategy against the radical forces led by Iran. Instead of democracy in Egypt, the world could end up with a two-stage revolutionary process – an initial quasi-democracy, overtaken within months by the emergence of an autocratic Islamic republic under the heel of the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be similar to what happened when the United States supported pro-democracy forces against the Shah in Iran in the 1970s, only to see the emergence of the fundamentalist Ayatollahs. Moreover, in the event of an eventual Muslim Brotherhood victory, the big regional winner would be fundamentalist Iran.
For Israel, the main strategic significance of the peace with Egypt is that it has been able to take the threat of full-scale war against its strongest foe out of the military equation. But a hostile regime change in Cairo could compel Israel to rethink its military strategy, restructure its combat forces, and, in general, build a bigger army. It could also mean that Egypt would be aiding and abetting the radical Hamas regime in neighboring Gaza, rather than, as at present, helping to contain it.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has merely reaffirmed Israel's desire to preserve regional stability. But it is safe to assume that his government would be relieved to see power remaining in the hands of Egypt's current ruling elite through a peaceful handover to Mubarak's recently appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman.
The hope is that Suleiman, the former head of Egypt's intelligence services and a major player in everything related to Egyptian-Israeli ties, would be able to continue Egypt's pro-Western alignment and its support for the peace deal with Israel, while allowing democracy in Egypt and pre-empting the rise of an Islamic republic.
However the events in Egypt play out, they will clearly have an impact on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The very notion of a threat to the peace with Egypt will almost certainly further reduce the Netanyahu government's readiness to take risks for peace. In a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Jerusalem on Monday, Netanyahu re-emphasized the importance he attaches to the security element in any peace package "in case the peace unravels."
The uprising in Egypt seems to be reinforcing both sides of the Israeli political divide in their core beliefs. The right is already saying that Israel should not make peace unless it can be assured of ironclad security arrangements, and the left maintains that if only Israel had already made peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world, then popular unrest such as the protests in Egypt would not be potentially so earth-shattering.
Either way, the events in Egypt may not be good news for those advocating Israeli-Arab peace.
Mubarak has served as a bulwark against regional chaos and for decades has been a central pillar of American strategy against the radical forces led by Iran. Instead of democracy in Egypt, the world could end up with a two-stage revolutionary process – an initial quasi-democracy, overtaken within months by the emergence of an autocratic Islamic republic under the heel of the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be similar to what happened when the United States supported pro-democracy forces against the Shah in Iran in the 1970s, only to see the emergence of the fundamentalist Ayatollahs. Moreover, in the event of an eventual Muslim Brotherhood victory, the big regional winner would be fundamentalist Iran.
For Israel, the main strategic significance of the peace with Egypt is that it has been able to take the threat of full-scale war against its strongest foe out of the military equation. But a hostile regime change in Cairo could compel Israel to rethink its military strategy, restructure its combat forces, and, in general, build a bigger army. It could also mean that Egypt would be aiding and abetting the radical Hamas regime in neighboring Gaza, rather than, as at present, helping to contain it.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has merely reaffirmed Israel's desire to preserve regional stability. But it is safe to assume that his government would be relieved to see power remaining in the hands of Egypt's current ruling elite through a peaceful handover to Mubarak's recently appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman.
The hope is that Suleiman, the former head of Egypt's intelligence services and a major player in everything related to Egyptian-Israeli ties, would be able to continue Egypt's pro-Western alignment and its support for the peace deal with Israel, while allowing democracy in Egypt and pre-empting the rise of an Islamic republic.
However the events in Egypt play out, they will clearly have an impact on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The very notion of a threat to the peace with Egypt will almost certainly further reduce the Netanyahu government's readiness to take risks for peace. In a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Jerusalem on Monday, Netanyahu re-emphasized the importance he attaches to the security element in any peace package "in case the peace unravels."
The uprising in Egypt seems to be reinforcing both sides of the Israeli political divide in their core beliefs. The right is already saying that Israel should not make peace unless it can be assured of ironclad security arrangements, and the left maintains that if only Israel had already made peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world, then popular unrest such as the protests in Egypt would not be potentially so earth-shattering.
Either way, the events in Egypt may not be good news for those advocating Israeli-Arab peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)