"Mabruk" Mubarak

Ironically, the temperature in Cairo today was a balmy 94 degrees compared to Washington's oppressively steamy 97 degrees. But that did not deter 81-year-old Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from winging into DC for encouraging meetings with President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton to reinvigorate Egypt's pivotal diplomatic role in forging the outlines of an Obama doctrine for the Middle East.

The timing of Mubarak's visit is somewhat unusual. Mubarak has not visited Washington in over 5 years because of an icy relationship with the Bush administration, and the Capitol is pretty well empty what with Congress on summer break along with many of the 4th estate who would normally cover the visit.

However, President Obama is anxious to leverage his outreach to the Muslim world with strategic policy initiatives that would reinvigorate America's role in forging a durable peace. Mubarak, for both domestic and regional reasons, shares the president's goal of moving the Middle East peace process off dead center, and is as well positioned now as any Arab leader to be Washington's go-to guy in the Arab world, once again. Despite Egypt's internal travails and concern over its human rights record, particularly toward Mubarak's domestic opponents, few in Washington would argue that Egypt and its stable leadership succession are essential to American security in the Middle East.

With the Ramadan holy month beginning next week, both leaders were eager to assess their regional diplomatic options, particularly with respect to Iran's nuclear program pending President Obama's September deadline for assessing Tehran's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions to cease its nuclear program.

It was just a little over two months ago when President Obama traveled to Cairo to deliver his landmark address to the Muslim world. By all accounts, Mubarak and Obama were then able to establish the beginnings of a comfortable and warm working relationship, especially following Obama's very disappointing visit to Saudi Arabia just twenty four hours before landing in Cairo.

During Obama's brief stopover in Riyadh Saudi King Abdullah unexpectedly cold-shouldered the president's entreaties to undertake several confidence building gestures toward Israel in order to reinvigorate Israeli public support for a two state solution. As the promoter of the Arab League's peace initiative, the Obama administration was counting on the Saudis to begin walking the walk of peace, rather than merely talking a big talk about a peace plan the King has yet to risk anything for.

Obama had devoted considerable effort courting the Saudi monarch and the Saudis knew full well what president Obama was hoping to achieve, so the unexpected Saudi diplomatic brush-off was not received well at all within the administration and Egypt became the intended beneficiary -- not that Egypt was in any more of a mood to push the Saudis or other Arab states into such gestures.

Saudi hesitancy is not completely without reason even if the Saudis owed it to Obama to avoid a pre-Cairo speech diplomatic dead zone. After all, with Israel's leadership ever reluctant to fully embrace the concept of a two state solution and shut down all settlement construction activity, the Saudis are holding out for more tangible evidence of Israel's good faith, as well.

The low-key nature of Mubarak's late August visit belies a critical moment in the Middle East and Egypt's increasingly central role as a linchpin in Washington's diplomatic initiatives.

Mubarak's able intelligence chief Omar Suleiman was instrumental in forging a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and facilitating talks between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Mubarak has maintained respectful, if not cordial, bilateral relations with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government, and has kept an open line with Jerusalem. Moreover, below the diplomatic radar, Mubarak and Presidential Envoy George Mitchell have been quietly working with Team Obama to develop an Obama Middle East peace initiative which the U.S. would like to unveil to a receptive Arab AND Israeli audience.

But conditions are not yet ripe in the region for an American-sponsored peace proposal to emerge, and remains very much a work in progress, complicated by an inopportune chill in U.S. -Israeli relations and ominous developments inside Iran.

Meanwhile, final status issues grow more complicated by the day. Israel is insisting on a completely demilitarized Palestinian state with a withdrawal of the right of return of Palestinian refugees and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state by the Palestinians. And the recently concluded Fatah policy conference triggered statements that further alienated Israeli public opinion as the Palestinian leadership boycotts talks with Israel until Washington is able to extract a complete settlement freeze from Netanyahu. Add to that the rift between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and Israeli disenchantment with the Palestinian leadership (and vice versa), any positive development has to be seen as good news.

Moreover, Israelis are far more focused on events inside Iran and Iran's nuclear weapons program and less on the Palestinian situation in their midst, and waiting to see what the Obama administration is prepared and able to do to turn the screws tighter on Tehran to avoid a further deterioration in the region's precarious stability. This is Israel's real test of Obama's credibility in the region.

Regarding Iran, Obama and Mubarak also see eye-to-eye. Along with Israel and other Arab states, Egypt opposes Iran's inexorable march to nuclear weapons capability and its support for regional terrorist organizations. Mubarak will probably want assurances from the White House that the Obama administration has a contingency plan to deal with Iran's nuclear program should the president's self-imposed September deadline produce a diplomatic dead end.

As pleased as Washington may be with Egypt's newly invigorated regional role, Mubarak faces daunting domestic challenges that could impair Egypt's re-emergence and America's go-to Arab ally. It is an article of faith both in Cairo and in Washington that Mubarak would like to position his son, Gamal, as his successor. But there is considerable domestic opposition to such a succession plan, and it is highly uncertain whether Mubarak may be able to pull the inheritance off even though Gamal is a polished, thoughtful leader in his own right.

As Mubarak emerged from the White House this afternoon he urged Israel to implement a complete freeze on all settlement activity and avoid the temptation to seek "temporary solutions" with respect to the Palestinians. Not coincidentally, the Israelis signaled some additional flexibility on settlement construction by acknowledging that there is a de facto freeze on new construction, which President Obama positively referenced as the two leaders wrapped up their discussions.

Come September and post Ramadan Middle East diplomatic re-engagement, all eyes will be focused on President Obama's decisions regarding Iran, and whether the U.S. will unveil an Obama peace initiative.

How the White House positions itself on both crucial issues will in no small part depend on what Mubarak does to line up other Arab states in support of the President's regional aspirations. So we wish Hosni Mubarak "Mabruk" (good fortune) as he reestablishes a closer diplomatic partnership with Washington to further President Obama's Middle East diplomacy.

Comments

[Witkacy]

A few details on Marc Ginsberg's Layalina Productions - note the GHW Bush, GOP and Swift Boat connections:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Layalina_Productions

[4MARLA]

I DON'T CARE WHO SAYS WHAT...JUST GET ISRAEL OFF OUR BACKS....ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

[Wozzeck]

"Moreover, Israelis are far more focused on events inside Iran and Iran's NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM"

Tell this big lie often enough and it will be accepted as fact.

[uansari1]

There's a world of difference between what Mubarak is concerned with, and what his people are worried about. Mubarak's focus on the peace process, as well as Iranian influence in the region, is only a result of his fear of losing power in his country and influence in the region. The man is a dictator...nothing more, nothing less. He's precisely the reason that so many of the world's Muslims are aligning themselves with Iran over the Arabs. I can't say I blame them.

The problem in the region is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A solution to this problem is the lynchpin to regional security and peace.

[pkafin]

"The problem in the region is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Right, the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites, between the Ethiopians and the Etretians, between the factions in Darfur, the millions of displaced Iraqis, the repressive govts. of Syria and Saudi Arabia, the saber rattling by Iran, the TUrks dispute with the Kurds... these are all irrelevant. The fact that, since the establishment of Israel, there have been three times as many conflicts in the middle East that don't involve Israel than those that did, is irrelevant.

Face it, it's a messed up part of the world. If Israel didn't exist, the politics of oil, the inter-factional conflicts within Islam, and the conflicts between Islamists and secular peoples would still drive the region to conflict. The region still would have suffered (and would still be suffering) from being a theater for the cold war arms races.

It may be fun and bizarrely comforting for some to blame it all on Israel/Palestine, but it is only a small part of a very messy puzzle.

[uansari1]

Ethiopia/Eritrea or Sudan aren't part of the Middle East. I was referring to the constant use of Iran as the scapegoat by Israel and Egypt. The fact of the matter is that Israel wants to do whatever it can to deflect its misbehavior by pointing at Iran and saying that they're doing worse... though Iran isn't using bombs and jets to kill their protesters...that's another issue. Egypt finds itself aligned with Israel against Iran and Hamas/Gaza because Mubarak doesn't want to see a similar revolution play out in his country (like Iran in 1979), nor is he willing to implement democratic reform, as he would surely lose office (like Fatah lost the elections in Gaza). Likewise, the sectarian issues you brought up aren't as large of an issue as you think... in fact, they're only relevant in countries where we, the U.S., have propped up despots from a minority group, who oppresses the majority. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, did this for decades against the majority Shi'a population. As for Turkish/Kurdish relations, it doesn't involve multiple countries in the same way as the Israel and Palestinian problem, where the Arabs are trying to intercede.

As a Muslim, growing up to constant references to U.S./Israeli hegemony in the M. East, I can say confidently that a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem would do much to calm the region. It wouldn't solve every problem, but would open up capacity to dialogue on other issues.

[Thelonius]

As one who knows Egypt well, I essentially agree with your observations. Incidentally, quoting from the wrapping on a favorite local cheese, Egyptians refer to Mubarak as "the laughing cow,"

[bighat]

It is time to stop giving aid to all the countries and the palestinians surrounding Israel.

All of them are callinf for the destruction of Israel so why reward this type of behavior?

[Billy Hell]

If all of them are, as you say calling for the destruction of Israel, there must be a reason don't you think? If all of them are wrong, what is it about Israel's behavior that makes them wrong? The illegal occupation of Palestine, the brutality displayed by their "settler" citizens and military or the ethnic cleansing they have been underway with for the past 60 years?

[MARNIE2]

COME-ON , FRIENDS ARE HARD TO COME-BY ! WHO can please ALL -GROUPS in the MIDDLE EAST ?? MUSLIM S [KILL] MUSLIM'S = { SUNNI VS SHI ITES } ? then u got ISRAEL ? PEACE ? NOT ACHIEABLE ?
TO MUSH DIFFICULTY ! GENERATIONAL -OFFSPRING OF HATE ! SORRY -TOUGH-REALITY CHECK !

[Macready]

Maybe Murbarak was reminding our Prez we need more action from the US on israel . . . the sooner we pull the plug on the zionists and there are UN sanctions and trade embargoes the better . . . it is the only way the israelis will even begin to sit down at the negotiating table . . .

[newyorkid]

Let's get rid of that country and return it back to the PaIestinians. PaIestine belongs to the PaIestinians.

[egaeus]

The time has come to stop treating Israel as if it is the reasonable party in the Israel/Palestine debate. Israel continues to use the same worn-out tactics that it has been using for decades: it pretends to care, pretends that it is addressing the settlement issue, then continues doing what it pleases and eventually sabotages peace talks when they suggest that Israel not carve up Gaza to suit Israeli desires for more land and a unified Jerusalem.

I do not condone or support Palestinian violence against Israel. It is inexcusable. But if Israel wants a demilitarized Palestine, how about a demilitarized Israel? That way they can't murder civilians waving white flags or bomb hospitals. Their illegal settlers cannot shoot at or harass Palestinians trying to live on their own land.

We call Israel a democracy, yet they withhold basic necessities from suffering Palestinians, all of their news is okayed by a military censor, the nation has been attempting to crush non-violent resistance, an increasing number of Israelis support the extreme right-wing position of forcing all Arabs out, and the government refuses to accept a two-state solution even though most Israelis support the idea. Israel is a democracy, but they can kidnap Jews in other countries, trump up charges and imprison them if they reveal Israel's own nuclear weapons program. Israel continues to live in violation of the UN mandate that they retreat to their 1967 borders and blames everyone else when it violates international law.

[Macready]

well said egaeus . . . I for one doubt israel's claim to be a democracy . . it is an apartheid state . . .

[WBMD]

Part 2:
The Jews and the rest of the Arabs battled over the remaining 30% until the U.N. voted to divide the remaining land even further, into yet another Arab state (which could have been named Palestine) and a Jewish state. The Jews agreed. The Arabs didn't, and attacked, in an all-or-nothing gambit. They lost. They lost again in the war they launched in 1967. And again in 1973. Israel has as good, or better a claim to the disputed territories that the Arabs lost to Israel in the repeated wars that they started. This holds even more true for Jerusalem. And no, the U.N. never said that Israel must return to the 1948 ceasefire lines. Is there no price or consequence to be paid for starting and losing wars? Are the Jews alone, among all other nations, to be denied a majority state, where they can determine their own future?

EVERYTHING that is happening in the Middle East today is a result of the Arab-Muslim refusal to accept the right of the Jews, based on history, legality, and morality, to a country in part of their former homeland, and Israel's refusal to commit suicide. Israel will continue doing what it must to protect its people, and survive.

[WBMD]

Part 1:
One more time!. The Jews formed the first governed nation-state in the middle east 3000 years ago, when they defeated a whole kalaidoscope of tribes, and established Jerusalem as the capital of their Jewish state. 2000 years ago, most of the Jews were sent into exile by the Romans. It is only at that point that a province of the Roman Empire was re-named "Palestine". It was never an independent state. Jerusalem was never any other country's capital. The Jews were the indigenous population in the area, and always maintained a presence there, through all the waves of conquering armies, all the while their brethern and co-religionists were being persecuted around the world. The Jews formed a majority of the population of Jerusalem from the mid-19th century to the present date.

The Ottomans were the legal rulers of the area until their defeat in 1918, when the British became the legal rulers. As such, they had the right (and were instructed by the League of Nations) to re-establish a state for the Jews in their former homeland. The problem is, the British made the same promise to the Arabs. To that end, Britain gave 68% of the territory of Mandatory Palestine to the Hashemites.

[arvay]

It's amazing that anyone who is literate enough to write would stake a claim on what some dubiously related people did thousands of years ago.

Why don't you sue the Italians for the Roman destruction of Judea?

If anyone has first dibs, it's the "kaleidoscope of tribes" displaced by those alien Hebrew invaders. Including Phoenician people who were much more civilized than the Semitic interlopers. Or the inhabitants of Jericho. Or some Neolithic people, maybe.

"The Jews were the indigenous population in the area, and always maintained a presence there, through all the waves of conquering armies . . ."

So, you obviously support the "return" of Spain to the Basques, and all of Europe to whatever non-Indo-European people remain after centuries of conquest? And all those Indo-European people in India, also should turn the country over to the people they overran?

See how absurd all this is?

[Steamboater]

" .. Egypt and its stable leadership succession ..." How diplomatic Ginsberg. Then you go on to speak of Mubarek's son as "thoughtful" etc and not once do the niceties come even near the truth. Mubarek is a dictator and a brutal one. For all intents and purposes his successor son would be the same. While Obama speaks of international women's rights, African human rights in general it's always in the context of heterosexual rights. Mubarek and his filthy courts have rushed through trials for Gay men and those men now are imprisoned just for the fact that they're Gay and we hear nothing from Obama on it. Scch 'fierce' advocacy of of Gay rights is domestically limited by a desire for votes and not much else.

[Billy Hell]

It's really heartening to see the comments on this article. The author has no idea whatsoever of the realities of life in Egypt or how the majority of the worlds people and governments view Mubarak. This article is pure unadulterated propaganda and no one is buying.

[Witkacy]

Exactly! I understand what Marc Ginsberg is selling - "Buy this stooge - Please." - but can't understand why he thinks we the readers should buy this garbage.

Venal, cynical plutocratic leaders like Mubarak are the problem - not the solution. The "enemy of my enemy" nonsense peddled here (Mubarak had a frigid relationship with the Bush Administration, etc.) is also blithe and cynical. Back to 9/11: it's exactly our commercial and political relationships with soft tyrants and quislings like Mubarak that exacerbated the growth of religious fundamentalism in Egypt among other places (remember that this is the nation that brought us Mohamed Atta). Ginsberg is writing this nonsense as if there is no reality outside of cushy gladhanding confabs among rich power-brokers - but, no, sir--you go on ahead and start the love-fest for Mubarak without us....

[uansari1]

Perhaps Ambassador Ginsberg is propping up Mubarak, because doing so indirectly furthers Israel's interests.

[louisamast]

It does not appear that he actually cares who would believe his article. He most likely is doing this as part of a mission and perhaps somehow is compensated.

[Thelonius]

Accurately stated!!

[arvay]

Mubarak is made in the mold of the late Shah of Iran -- an American-Israeli stooge -- and a dictator hated by his people.

Egypt, with its large educated but largely unemployed army of youth is a tinderbox, waiting for the right moment to go off. Like Iran, exempt the Iranian youth are beyond the religious fervor stage.

Hopefully, there will be an armed forces coup and an interim government, better than the Sharia law that the Muslim Brotherhood will put in place. But success by the Muslim Brotherhood, unfortunately, is the most likely outcome.

At least that will end Egypt's client-state relationship with the US and israel and open Gaza to Iranian arms. And the Egyptian armed forces have been heavily equipped and trained by the US, so much more capable of countering any israeli moves.

[S1m0n]

Mubarek is the strong-man dictator whose election 'victories' manage the impressive feat of being considerably less credible than even Ahmadinejad's recent triumph in Iran*, and whose every breath makes a mockery of the United States' supposed commitment to democracy.

*No one in Egypt would bother rioting to demonstrate their shock at a declared election result they didn't see coming and don't find plausible. No one's been surprised by an Egyption election result in decades.

[AhnAmuru]

What does the ageing despot want ... he should first apologize for single party rule & human rights violations.

[James Carthew]

Egypt's not doing it to demand aid, they're doing it to be big shots. A lot of the middle eastern/African dictators are like this. They all want to conquer/take over as much as they can and look good while doing it. Mubarak is doing this to look good in the eyes of muslims all over the world. He's basically kissing ass so he can come off looking like the hero.