One Partisan Nation, Divisible

Democrats and Republicans will always have plenty to fight over (or better, "respectfully disagree"). In the quest for votes, and especially in our increasingly static political landscape dominated by safe districts, politicians from both sides find it pays off to find new issues to label as "ours" or "theirs". This is too bad, because these are issues that deserve responsible treatment by our political leaders, issues that could determine our physical survival and moral worth, issues that do not intrinsically belong to one side or the other.

GUNS. Many Democrats as well as Republicans support gun rights, and the National Rifle Association gives generously on both sides of the aisle. Sensible gun control was not always a partisan issue, and it just makes sense. Members of Congress are now being advised to surround themselves with police protection and metal detectors, which would be less necessary if high-volume ammunition clips weren't freely available. The rate of gun deaths in America is staggering on its own, even without comparison to the low numbers in other industrialized countries. And yet, "gun rights" are still seen as a Republican cause.

ENVIRONMENT. PCBs, arsenic, lead and other toxins pervade our ecosystem, and global warming is an objective fact -- the aggregate temperature of our planet is increasing at an alarming and consistent rate, and it's impacting our climate and raising sea levels toward an eventual showdown with hundreds of millions of unlucky coastal dwellers. Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist, so this should have been easy.

CIVIL RIGHTS. Republicans extol the virtues of individualism, they're "the Party of Lincoln," and yet the last 60 years have been a partisan showdown over African-American voting rights, the right to abortion, the right of gays to serve in the military. What happened to "all men are created equal" and government not interfering in people's lives? Perhaps the combination of racist southern "Dixie-crats" dumping the Democratic Party for the GOP, and the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson pushing so hard on voting rights and Great Society programs, was too polarizing and too beneficial to Republican candidates to resist (and Democrats locked in the African-American vote for two generations).

Whose "Twitter revolution" is this?

There are limits to advertising. Timothy Hutton should have known better than trivializing the sacrifice, aspirations and beauty of Tibetans just to promote "Groupon.com" (which itself sounds like a cause of mad cow disease) during the Superbowl. Last week's outrage was Kenneth Cole trumpeting its disregard for democratic struggle and suffering in Egypt. #TwitterFail. Hopefully, Hutton will be subject to suitable opprobrium from the Hollywood set. There's nothing illegal about either ad campaign, but don't expect me to be a customer in this century.

Has our TV-addicted/Facebook-captive/hashtag-based multi-tasking lifestyle so removed us from reality, that it's reasonable for marketing experts to treat us all like star-struck adolescents? Are politicians also reading us correctly? Perhaps the past week's pair of offensive ads will provoke us to evolve beyond the superficial, point-and-click infancy of our cyber-topia.

Also clear from the past few weeks, is that Tunisia and Egypt have not fit the model of "Twitter revolution", or Facebook, or any "social media" other than word of mouth and spontaneous outrage. However, these new media have allowed millions worldwide to follow and support the emergence of democracy on the ground. It is helping to sensitize us and break through our WiFi- and BlueTooth-inspired haze. What we read on our feed can have a deeper meaning, and help us match names to faces, and real people with real consequences.

We've been slapped twice across the face, once by Kenneth Cole and once by Timothy Hutton. Thanks, guys, we needed that.

Iran, Israel (and the U.S.) face up to Egypt

Is Egypt all about the rest of us, or isn't it? Iran has high hopes for the Egyptian revolution, but they may be running out of revolutions (Stuxnet pun, sorry). Israel is more in damage-control mode, while also figuring out how to remain low-key. The United States has stakes and responsibilities in Egypt, plus a score to settle with Iran and deep bonds with Israel.

How dangerous is the potential for Islamist influence in a future Egyptian government? The Iranian regime is now scrambling to protect against the possibility of a new round of protests inspired by the Egyptian uprising. The chances of the Islamic Republic taking over the Egyptian revolution while also defending its own are... remote.

Israelis do have good reason to be concerned about the willingness or ability of the next Egyptian government to enforce all terms of the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, as well as stopping weapons from reaching the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. It is unlikely that any Egyptian leader would abrogate the treaty and risk the wrath of Israel's military -- and Egypt's military will probably maintain control over national security regardless of who's running the country (see under: Turkey). But Israel is in no position to dismiss any contingency.

There have been specific warnings about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which could end up joining a transitional coalition. It is on record opposing the peace with Israel, and one of its leaders recently reaffirmed this position. But those so concerned about what leaders of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood say might take comfort from the experience of Avigdor Lieberman, who notoriously said Mubarak could "go to hell" if he didn't want to pay an official visit to Israel. This wasn't just some fringe member of Knesset, and no religious fanatic, and subsequently -- and currently -- Israel's foreign minister. (He has also been known to stress Israel's capability to bomb the Aswan Dam, should the need arise.)

Egypt's Greatest Generation

A big lesson from my childhood experiences behind the Iron Curtain has been a deep gratitude for the freedom and relative prosperity we enjoy in the United States. I actually get "warm and fuzzy" when I see the American flag flying over one of our embassies overseas, or when I hit passport control upon my return. 

I have watched people risk prison just to stand outside a U.S. Embassy, let alone to enter and use the library. And if they really could swim here, many would. Regardless of any developments or negative propaganda, the United States of America remains a beacon of hope to billions worldwide.

This week, watching the courage and anguish of ordinary Egyptians -- amid systemic poverty -- I am reminded again of what sacrifices came before me, here in America and among my forbears in the Jewish dispersion. And again, this reinforces the tremendous gratitude to live in 21st century post-industrial liberty, security, and comfort.

Waiting on the station platform for my express train to arrive, I look across to Battle Hill -- today just another middle-class neighborhood, but 225 years ago the scene of a pivotal battle between American and British forces. Even World War II is a pensioner's memory. We have it pretty good over here.

Battle Hill, 1776-2011

Clearly, the United States has a duty to its own principles and an obligation to its recent past to play a constructive role in Egypt's evolution as a pillar of Middle East civilization. And obviously we face momentous decisions and policy challenges here at home, and an eternal struggle to defend our own rights. But we should never lose sight of the unprecedented and unparalleled benefits of living here and now.


As President Obama affirmed last week in his State of the Union address, "I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth." A benefit, and a responsibility.

Mubarak can stay, but only in disgrace

For many years, Hosni Mubarak has sold himself to the West and the Israelis -- and the Egyptian people -- as a force of stability and moderation.Since Tuesday, he can no longer make this claim with even a veneer of credibility, nor present himself as a hero to his fellow Egyptians. His violent crackdown against peaceful and overwhelmingly anti-Mubarak protesters moves him from tolerable autocrat to embarrasing pariah.

This may sound heartless, but many countries find themselves allied with dictators, especially in regions with few if any democratic governments. It's a Devil's deal -- keep your repressive enforcement tactics below the radar, make some pretense of representative government, and we'll focus on your positive attributes. 

A line is crossed when a leader openly overstays even his own pretext for power. In Tunisia, the revolt happened too quickly for most nations to renounce then-President Ben Ali. In the case of countries like Cote d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe and Belarus, we don't need their friendship enough to keep looking the other way when that line is crossed. Because of Mubarak's role in sustaining bilateral peace with Israel and promoting broader Mideast efforts -- and the inextricable billions in U.S. assistance -- it will not be so easy to break with Egypt and our leverage over him is limited. But neither can we keep looking the other way. The genie is out of the bottle.

Mubarak has lost the confidence of his own people, and he is willing to attack and impoverish them. He is willing to sack the Egyptian Museum's 5,000 years' worth of Egyptian cultural heritage. He is willing to take Egypt down with him. Unless he loses the support of his own military sponsors or gives up on his own, Mubarak will probably get to stay in power, but without the aura of domestic legitimacy and international respectability.

On Egypt, Obama is being presidential

A few hours ago, President Obama made a brief and eloquent speech about the situation in Egypt [VIDEO link]. He is making the best of an uncertain situation, and one in which the United States necessarily is not in control. When Hosni Mubarak steps down, it will be due to a combination of popular uprising, military disenchantment, and White House resolve.

There has already been a good deal of finger-pointing over who "lost Egypt", alternating with lists of those who "saw it coming". On some level, everyone saw this coming. But no one in a position of influence had come up with any good option for managing the inevitable departure of the ailing, aged, autocratic leader of an impoverished and indispensable nation.

Should a new U.S. President facing a catastrophic global recession and collapsed Mideast peace process have forced Mubarak to liberalize and open up to opposition voices? How? Should the United States have cut off over $1 billion in assistance that is predicated upon Egypt's strategic partnership and lasting peace with Israel?

And what would some experts and scholars have Obama do right now: Keep Mubarak in power to avoid the possibility of an Islamist takeover? Most actually agree he is making the best of an uncertain situation by publicly reaffirming democratic principles, privately telling Mubarak to quit, and not trying to belatedly stage-manage the transition.

On the bright side, Egypt 2011 is not Iran 1979. Egyptians are revolting against Mubarak, not some corrupt "American Satan". The animosity toward the United States and Israel is not driving the popular uprising. It will not define future Egyptian grand strategy. Egypt has plenty of its own economic and political challenges. Also, Egypt's military is playing a different role than Iran's did, and that will prove decisive -- note President Obama's praise for their "professionalism and patriotism". However weakened or conflicted its emerging order may be, we will not be "losing" Egypt anytime soon.

Even a smart, successful American President can face difficult situations not entirely under his control (see under: Israeli settlements). His speech Tuesday evening was brief and eloquent, and masterful. It reflected a President being... presidential.

Egypt, Tunisia, and shifting options for Israel

Unlike Iran, Egypt's revolution is not primarily a revolt against foreign domination. The next Egyptian government will have no reason to pick a real fight with Israel. The United States will not cut off vital cash assistance to Egypt, since most of the funds constitute a perpetual offset for Egypt sticking its neck out in the Arab world to make peace with Israel. Israel will not violate the terms of the peace treaty.

One lasting lesson of Camp David may be that Israelis could never get such an agreement with whatever government replaces Mubarak, but the treaty they have will be honored by Egypt and guaranteed by outside powers -- so lock in your terms now, while you still can.

Whether from a sense of necessity or opportunity, the Israeli Government may see this as the right moment to reassess its approach to negotiations with the Palestinians. Until this week, the assumption of the right-leaning coalition and its right-leaning voters has been that time is on their side. However unrealistic that may have been in the long run, now the short run is rapidly catching up with them.