“We have contacted the Muslim Brotherhood and invited them, but they are still hesitant about the dialogue. I think that their interest is to attend the dialogue.” Three things about this pithy statement must be noted. One, this is the first time that the word ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ has been uttered publicly by a top Egyptian official. The MB is proscribed and is traditionally referred to in innuendos or coded language! Two, the official who said these words is none other than intelligence chief and VP, Omar Suleiman. Three, Suleiman already passes judgment that MB is interested in talks.
Quite obviously, MB has moved to the centre stage.
The political limelight is increasingly on the MB. WaPo gives a good view of the churning going on in Washington about engaging MB.
The Jewish circles in the US have sought assurances from the Barack Obama administration. However, the Israeli fundamentalist view need not necessarily be the last word. Haaretz carried some interesting columns by Israeli commentators roundly questioning Tel Aviv’s opposition to reform in Egypt. A curious fault line is also that the pro-Israeli US officials and the neo-conservatives in the US (such as Robert Kagan) also do not agree with Israel’s obdurate stance that the ‘regime change’ in the Middle East threatens regional stability. Former US ambassador to israel and a staunch supporter of Israel, Martin Indyk has said that US’ options for dealing with MB are limited and given its strong presence on the Egyptian political scene, its participation in any new government in some capacity has become inevitable. “It’s a very risky proposition, but that’s the world that we live in, in which the MB is a powerful organisation, and it will be extremely difficult to exclude it from the political process.”
The Jewish circles in the US have sought assurances from the Barack Obama administration. However, the Israeli fundamentalist view need not necessarily be the last word. Haaretz carried some interesting columns by Israeli commentators roundly questioning Tel Aviv’s opposition to reform in Egypt. A curious fault line is also that the pro-Israeli US officials and the neo-conservatives in the US (such as Robert Kagan) also do not agree with Israel’s obdurate stance that the ‘regime change’ in the Middle East threatens regional stability. Former US ambassador to israel and a staunch supporter of Israel, Martin Indyk has said that US’ options for dealing with MB are limited and given its strong presence on the Egyptian political scene, its participation in any new government in some capacity has become inevitable. “It’s a very risky proposition, but that’s the world that we live in, in which the MB is a powerful organisation, and it will be extremely difficult to exclude it from the political process.”
In all likelihood, the US effort will be to seek reasonable assurances from MB that it won’t jettison Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel, which is the core issue for Washington. MB’s stance is that Egypt’s ties with Israel need to be determined on the basis of a national referendum. What is going to be important is that both MB and israel are famous for their pragmatism. No doubt, Israel will closely asses the MB’s prospects of an actual takeover in Cairo and if it estimates that MB is by no means the predominant voice of reform, it may well rethink its stance, goaded by the compelling political reality that the US is in any case going ahead with engaging the MB, and israel may switch tracks to ensure that the US’ engagement of MB takes place within agreeable parameters. Meanwhile, Israel’s existential worry continues. Read the Jerusalem Post editorial…
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.