Mark Jurkevich redux: Israel & U.S. boned it in the Middle East
AP Photo
Note from Dan: Mark Jurkevich had to unexpectedly fly to Istanbul Sunday to tend to some affairs. While he’s gone, here’s a post of his from Feb. 2, 2011 (merely just an email to me) regarding the U.S., Israel and its 2010 invasion of Gaza, and the latter’s effect upon Egypt. Nine days later, President Hosni Mubarak was deposed. Civil unrest in Egypt continues.
By Mark Jurkevich (Feb. 2, 2011)
Assuming President Hosni Mubarak falls, this will pretty much wipe out the U.S./Israel long standing regional strategy, in my opinion
I believe the likely scenario to unfold would have a lot of parallels to the 1979 Iranian revolution (and for that matter the 1917 Russian revolution); first a transitional moderate government will flounder around for a few months and then a more ideological group will grab power on a long term basis. That latter group in this case will be controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
In my opinion, what irreversibly set in motion the undoing of Mubarak is the Israeli invasion of Gaza two years ago.
With that, the U.S. and Israel did not leave Mubarak, their “partner,” any good choices. In that sense, the Gaza invasion will likely prove to be a catastrophic strategic mistake for Israel and the U.S.
Ahhh, it seems that more and more frequently Israeli’s testosterone fueled decisions are turning into costly mishaps: the aggression on Lebanon, the war-crime filled invasion of Gaza, giant murder squads operating in United Arab Emirates.
I would welcome your thoughts on the subject.
December 5, 2012 - 6:00 AM
Israel didn’t invade Gaza because they wanted the prime real estate. Gaza was attacking Israel and Israel defended itself.
If Israel did what Gaza does(e.g. haphazardly launch rockets into Gaza without a specific target), Mark would freak out. But if Gaza does it, Mark is silent as a lamb. History repeats itself.
How long must we back the wrong horse for religious purposes?
What a surprise to see my private email from almost to years ago posted on the blog today. This time, I am OK with that. Thanks for filling in, Dan.
John#2, I would not say that the U.S. is backing this horse for religious purposes. For a detailed explanation of why USA is backing this horse I suggest reading “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, by John Mearsheimer and Stehen Walt. The former is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the latter is a Professor of International Affairs at the Knnedy School of Government, at Harvard University.
A word of warning to all – previous readers of the book often claim that once they start reading it, they can not stop until they finish, regardless of other responsibilities, committments and family obligations.
Mark says (about losing Mubarek): “…this will pretty much wipe out the U.S./Israel long standing regional strategy.” Nope. Mark has succumbed to government propaganda on this topic, since we no longer want peace in the Middle East. And Israel never did… The official Israeli policy (and now the U.S.) is to convulse the Middle East over and over. Listen to the evidence from General Wesley Clark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8
I realize that Mark wrote this in 2011, but even then, the Israeli decisions that Mark called “testosterone fueled” had been shaped by internal Israeli politics as much or more than by its’ foreign partners, with the excessive testosterone coming from conservatives. Yet Mark only mentioned its’ U.S. partnership, and gave no indication he had weighed those domestic Israeli factors at all. With an election coming up there early next year, perhaps Mark could give his thoughts on who he supports, and why. For the record, I’d prefer to see Ehud Olmert run and reclaim the leadership, but my opinion, like Mark’s, means nothing.
I think the highly informed Thomas Friedman’s recent NYT column on the ramifications of Netanyahu’s public support for loser Mitt Romney in the US election was right. Friedman said that no, Israel won’t suffer any penalty, because, as he told his worried Israeli friends, “you should be so lucky”. His point being that Israel has put itself out on a limb more than ever at the very time when U.S. priorities are on domestic issues and other areas of the world, so Israel cannot expect to benefit from America’s attention as much as it might be accustomed.
I would also note that nearly two years later, Mark’s predictions about Egypt, which he timed in months, have yet to occur. The picture is still evolving, as all politics always does, but in the first elections the Muslim Brotherhood only ended up with a portion of the governing coalition. Morsi already is “clarifying” (i.e. backing off) some of the declarations he recently tried to do like suspension of judicial review, and he did play a key role in forging the Israeli/Hamas truce two weeks ago.
There are in fact strong incentives from within for any Egyptian government to want stability in Gaza, to shun jihadists groups, and to try to move Hamas towards some form of working arrangement with the PA and ultimately Israel.
(And BTW, Mark, in light of your having previously characterized it as unfortunate that more opinion columnists can’t make a living at it, you might want to ask prospective agents about the significance of the phrase “regular column”.)
Mark,
I enjoy reading your comments.
I am not qualified to comment on the reasons for the fall of Mubarak; however your prophecy of the result, at this point seems spot on.
I suppose our best hope is that “new leadership” will eventually figure out that “leading” is much more different and more difficult (and in this case dangerous) than sitting on the sidelines pushing an extreme agenda.
As an aside, we seem to have the same issues with our “leadership” here.
Warren seems to find it hard to resist taking shots at Mark. What’s up with that, Warren?
Dan:
“Warren seems to find it hard to resist taking shots at Mark. What’s up with that, Warren?”
Because he gets tired of taking shots at me all the time.
MarkJ:
“John#2, I would not say that the U.S. is backing this horse for religious purposes.”
Israel’s support with the public seems to be all faith-based. I know many people who sincerely say the US must support “God’s chosen people” or else bad things will happen to our counrty.
I think Warren has a low tolerance for pomposity.
#9 I agree John W. It doesn’t matter what Israel does, there are Christians who will support them solely for being “God’s chosen people”. They will decry any word against Israel.
#7: It’s what Sandi said. Given my own struggles with pomposity, when a telecom businessman deigns to lecture others about “the global media stage”, and presents rewrites of conventional wisdom using what I find to be quite ordinary and unpersuasive writing, pomposity is among the adjectives I’d apply.
And Mark never seems to display his wit or sense of humor in either his submissions or his replies. What’s up with that?
I don’t know how many times we can rehash the middle east. Have we been perfect? No probably not, but to be fair we’ve been given very little quality material to work with. It would be a luxury to disengage entirely,but I’m sure somewhere there’s a reason we can’t. Trying to foster peace in the middle east is like trying to keep Africa fed…all the diplomacy and food drops in the world aren’t going to do it.