Egyptian Uprising Shows Need for Palestinian Peace Agreement

NEW YORK—As protests increase in several countries in the Middle East, it is becoming more obvious that a final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is one of the most critical issues facing policy makers in the region. For the United States, which is steadily losing control of events, it is also the time to help Israel define its real strategic interests in the area.

One lesson that can be learned from the tumultuous events in Egypt is that people cannot be held submissive forever while denying them their most basic rights. Dismissal of this lesson can bring harsh consequences, something that former President Hosni Mubarak refused to admit.

Until now, the Mubarak regime had played a stabilizing role in the region, and had been a key player in mediating negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). It is yet not clear what role Egypt will have now in this process, particularly after the September elections the military junta promised to hold.

The events in Cairo have thrown the Israeli leadership into turmoil. The greatest fear is that Egypt’s new government could terminate the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel signed in 1979.

“The Israeli government is freaking out,” remarked Shmuel Bachar, of the Israel Institute for Policy and Strategy. That same fear is echoed by many in the United States. “Things are about to go from bad to worse in the Middle East,” warned Richard Cohen in the Washington Post.

Those responses are obviously based on the concern that if the Islamic Brotherhood would take power it would develop a more confrontational attitude toward Israel. Those concerns ignore that the Islamic Brotherhood is a mosaic of different ideas and trends, whose positions have changed over time. Although nobody can predict how the movement will evolve, many among its members remain committed to a position of gradual reform.

There is a gap between the older, more radical generation and the younger one, more open to the world and eager to follow the Turkish example of democratic participation in their country’s political life. In addition, the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had decided to support Mr. ElBaradei’s position in the recent upheaval shows a new, more flexible leadership in the movement.

Israel’s fear about Egypt’s adopting an aggressive attitude ignores the fact that Egypt, particularly after recent events, will need more than ever billions of dollars from the United States and the international community. In this situation, violating the peace agreement with Israel would work against its most basic interests.

Although Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel will probably not be abolished, it is possible to think of a scenario where new authorities in Egypt become more assertive in demanding respect for Palestinians’ rights. Continual denial of those rights will do more to stimulate the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood than the political situation in Egypt itself. Unless an agreement is reached in the near future, Israel runs the risk of losing the peace.

Speaking recently at the Herzliya Conference in Israel, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO secretary-general said, “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict may no longer be perceived as the only problem in the region, but it still constitutes a major impediment in addressing other issues that threaten regional stability. The lack of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to undermine the stability of the region.”

And Uri Avnery, the Israeli leader of the peace movement Gush Shalom recently stated, “Peace with the Palestinians is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Peace now, peace quickly. Peace with the Palestinians, and then peace with the democratic masses all over the Arab world, peace with the reasonable Islamic forces (like Hamas and the Muslim Brothers, who are quite different from al-Qaeda), peace with the leaders who are about to emerge in Egypt and everywhere.”

Dr. César Chelala is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award.