Michael Slackman: For Egypt, Promise of 1979 Peace Still Unfulfilled
[Michael Slackman is New York Times correspondent.]
In the past week, Egypt marked the historic 30-year anniversary of its peace treaty with Israel without any public celebration and only the barest public mention.
It is not surprising, really, that there was no cheering here. The timing could hardly have been worse, with memories still fresh of the Israeli offensive in Gaza.
But mention of the anniversary also served as a reminder of promises unfulfilled. Egyptians were told that the treaty would lead to a comprehensive peace, and it did not. They were told that it would allow the government to focus on political, social and economic development, instead of war. But they still live in an authoritarian state, defined for many by poverty.
Egyptians were told that the treaty would give them a voice to advocate for the Palestinians. But few see it as having turned out that way.
“Today Egypt is not influential in anything,” said Osama Anwar Okasha, a leading Egyptian television writer. “It is a third-class country in this region. Egypt was the leading country and it gave up this leading role. Now it is like a postman, delivering messages.”
The public mood is dark all around right now, and the sentiment points to the treaty as the start of Egypt’s decline and diplomatic impotence.
“Of course the treaty is not the cause of all of this, but it was the initial seed,” said Fahmy Howeidy, a writer and political analyst in Cairo.
The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is a bedrock of the Middle East peace process, positioning Egypt as a key player in every international diplomatic effort to resolve the Palestinian conflict. It is a pillar of Egypt’s foreign policy, as well, and an institutional given among Egypt’s governing class. President Hosni Mubarak has demonstrated that he is committed to the treaty, and to the diplomatic process and political system that built and supports the treaty.
“The government has been criticized by Arabs and so on during the Gaza attack but it stood its ground and did not waver because of these attacks against the peace treaty,” said Abdel Raouf El Reedy, chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs and a former ambassador to the United States. “When it comes to the government and the establishment there is a very strong commitment to the peace treaty.”
The government’s supporters often respond to the call for abrogating the treaty with one question: What then? Not only would Egypt lose about $1.4 billion a year in aid, but, they argue, it would have less leverage, less credibility with the West and a greater likelihood of being dragged into a war, once again.
But Mr. Mubarak finds himself stuck in a recurring loop of history, playing the same defensive arguments over and over, struggling to convince his citizens and his neighbors that the treaty is essential to stability and peace...
Read entire article at NYT
In the past week, Egypt marked the historic 30-year anniversary of its peace treaty with Israel without any public celebration and only the barest public mention.
It is not surprising, really, that there was no cheering here. The timing could hardly have been worse, with memories still fresh of the Israeli offensive in Gaza.
But mention of the anniversary also served as a reminder of promises unfulfilled. Egyptians were told that the treaty would lead to a comprehensive peace, and it did not. They were told that it would allow the government to focus on political, social and economic development, instead of war. But they still live in an authoritarian state, defined for many by poverty.
Egyptians were told that the treaty would give them a voice to advocate for the Palestinians. But few see it as having turned out that way.
“Today Egypt is not influential in anything,” said Osama Anwar Okasha, a leading Egyptian television writer. “It is a third-class country in this region. Egypt was the leading country and it gave up this leading role. Now it is like a postman, delivering messages.”
The public mood is dark all around right now, and the sentiment points to the treaty as the start of Egypt’s decline and diplomatic impotence.
“Of course the treaty is not the cause of all of this, but it was the initial seed,” said Fahmy Howeidy, a writer and political analyst in Cairo.
The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is a bedrock of the Middle East peace process, positioning Egypt as a key player in every international diplomatic effort to resolve the Palestinian conflict. It is a pillar of Egypt’s foreign policy, as well, and an institutional given among Egypt’s governing class. President Hosni Mubarak has demonstrated that he is committed to the treaty, and to the diplomatic process and political system that built and supports the treaty.
“The government has been criticized by Arabs and so on during the Gaza attack but it stood its ground and did not waver because of these attacks against the peace treaty,” said Abdel Raouf El Reedy, chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs and a former ambassador to the United States. “When it comes to the government and the establishment there is a very strong commitment to the peace treaty.”
The government’s supporters often respond to the call for abrogating the treaty with one question: What then? Not only would Egypt lose about $1.4 billion a year in aid, but, they argue, it would have less leverage, less credibility with the West and a greater likelihood of being dragged into a war, once again.
But Mr. Mubarak finds himself stuck in a recurring loop of history, playing the same defensive arguments over and over, struggling to convince his citizens and his neighbors that the treaty is essential to stability and peace...