As Egypt hits critical mass, what is Israel thinking? Or not.

It is ironic that a Jewish State cannot bear to see the writing on the wall. Amid U.S. concern that 40 years of support for the Sadat and Mubarak regimes may compromise Washington’s influence in the new Egypt, reports that Israel is CURRENTLY lobbying Western powers to keep Hosni Mubarak in power are astounding. 

In the final hours (or months) of the Mubarak regime, and with a good chance that the army and/or a broad coalition government will emerge, it seems unwise for Israel to draw further negative attention to itself. Worse, after selling itself as “the only democracy in the Middle East” since forever, Israel chooses THIS MOMENT to rebrand itself to the world as realpolitik over democracy? 

Is there anything to be gained by this awkward approach? Will France and Britain suddenly bolster Mubarak out of concern for Israel's sensibilities? One might almost think Israel's career diplomats were still on strike...

Israelis may be worried about an Islamist takeover in Egypt, having just gained one Islamist government to their north, in Lebanon. What happened in Beirut earlier this month -- a Hezbollah-controlled government has taken power -- was the result of a long-running and long-expected political transformation, not a sudden surge of popular support.

There are no ultimate guarantees in any peace process. Some scholars, like Daniel Pipes, have insisted that Israel should not make agreements with Arab states until they become democratic. Only a democracy, presumably, can be relied upon to honor a treaty of peace, because a dictatorship is liable to be overthrown. Essentially, this is an argument against Israel ever making peace with its neighbors, even if it's the state of war that helps those dictators hold on to absolute power (see under: Syria).

Egypt's last-minute democracy

There are limits to what the United States or any outsider can really impact in a country like Egypt. Egypt has been the indispensable Arab nation (pre-Arab, in fact) in war and peace, and in economics, for thousands of years.

President Hosni Mubarak has long played a double game with his Western sponsors. On the one hand, he pleads for more support because the stakes are so high and his regime is threatened. But when admonished to increase political participation, he says there's no need for drastic measures...

Mubarak has had 30 years to incorporate organic forces of change and reform, but he has remained static, like the temples of Luxor, channeling the flow of the Nile and the arc of the sun. He has manipulated Egyptians and Westerners by freezing out all non-extremist opponents, leaving only the Muslim Brotherhood as the unpalatable alternative to his continued despotism.

So now, in the absence of meaningful institutions of civil society and  are we faced with the possibility of a popular overthrow and turbulent aftermath, and/or a genuine military takeover with even greater repression than before. Or life will return to normal. Predicting the future is still so challenging.

Why Jews should champion full funding for global U.S. assistance

The Jewish community has long believed that a large overall U.S. foreign assistance budget helps guarantee the significant piece of the pie going to the State of Israel. As it threatens drastic cuts to overseas spending, a deficit-weary Congress has reassured Israel's supporters that funds for Israel will remain the same, no matter what.

So why should Jews push now for full funding of the Administration's foreign assistance request, and risk angering the new Republican majority in the House?

For most Jews, and for the broader pro-Israel community, protecting Israel at the expense of other accounts (all of which are smaller) raises the specter of bad publicity -- literally, an embarrassment of riches. Although Israel remains an embattled outpost of democracy in the Middle East, are we ready to see urgent humanitarian crises be shortchanged while prosperous Israel continues to receive billions? One need not come at the expense of the other.

Aid to Israel is truly a bargain, as we tell our fellow Americans and Members of Congress. But so is assistance to depressed economies and trouble spots around the world. We advance democracy and trade opportunities, public health and strategic stability in dozens of countries for less than one percent of the federal budget and a fraction of what we had to spend after the fact in Iraq and Afghanistan. And trade means economic growth, and jobs here in the States.

Aside from the "PR" and pragmatic arguments, there is a broader case to be made. U.S. global leadership has been instrumental in securing the Jewish state, protecting Jews in communities abroad, and making the world a better place. As Jews, we have a special responsibility based in our history -- from Sinai all the way to the Holocaust -- to make the world a better place. 

There have always been Republicans and Democrats who questioned whether the rest of the world is America's responsibility, and there have always been leaders on both sides who said, "Yes, it is." And the same holds true today.

At least on this issue, we as Jews should stand on the side of global engagement and leadership.

This week it's Tunisia, but remember Zimbabwe?

Tunisia is in the middle of a stunning, popular revolution, and democracy advocates are pushing for Egypt to be next. The leader of Cote d'Ivoire refuses to cede power following his electoral defeat. South Sudan is on the verge of independence and possibly further violence.

One man has special reason to be pleased with this turn of events: Robert Mugabe, the onetime revolutionary turned corrupt despot, who has overstayed his tenure as President of Zimbabwe. Remember him? I had almost forgotten about him. Last autumn, all eyes were on Zimbabwe, where Mugabe was violating the terms of his power-sharing arrangement with the winners of the last election. He is no longer the Most Despised African Leader, and Zimbabwe is not even in the news.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted this week that he was caught off guard by the democratic fervor in Tunisia, a former French colony. So were we all. Every now and then, there are mass demonstrations throughout Africa and the Middle East, and Western leaders cannot afford to risk security and economic stability on the chance that one freedom movement might succeed. But we do love to celebrate their success, after the fact.

Will nations commit more funds to developing civil society internationally, as a result of Tunisia's early success, the challenges of Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe, or the near-totalitarian stasis in Egypt? Will they make democracy and human freedom true priorities of their foreign policy? What put Tunisia over the top was its own population and its own civil society, not some organized strategy of the international community.

Provocative settlements, provocative UN resolutions, and no peace

The Palestinian delegates to the United Nations are within their rights to push a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank (or any resolution at all), and the United States is within its rights to veto such a resolution.

The United States may no longer be the indispensable nation in every corner of the globe, but in the Middle East it still is. If there is one nation that can influence Israel more effectively through direct engagement, it is the United States. This has been a major consideration behind countless U.S. vetoes against Security Council resolutions that were one-sided and/or politically motivated. What will be gained by changing course at this sensitive juncture?

The United States and Israel are strategic allies, and the UN is certainly no stranger to friends standing up for friends... and far worse. Violators of international law -- even outright genocide -- are routinely exempted from UN condemnation, despite often strong efforts by the United States and others. If the UN were known for acting on principle in every instance and nations voted on the basis of international law rather than specific relationships and strategies, the world would be a safer and better place. But that's just not the case.

Obama and Bibi - the way we weren't

Ben Smith writes today about President Obama and his administration effectively giving up on their effort to convince Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to extend himself further in the politics and diplomacy of peace with the Palestinians. There is nothing punitive in the U.S. determination, since there's no longer a hope of it making any impact going forward. Those who were most invested in an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal have left the White House, and President Obama has bigger fish to fry, at home and abroad.

With Ben's analysis (which reflects a broadly shared view), Israelis can breathe a sigh of relief. But soon, the novelty of Washington looking the other way will wear off and Israelis will remember that Israel's single greatest asset has been -- and remains -- U.S. interest and engagement. They might even lapse back into despair about the lack of any realistic, long-term grand strategy for normalizing their national politics and security.

One additional point, which one of my colleagues had noted (anonymously, for now), regards Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. By overselling himself to both Netanyahu and Obama as the key liaison between Jerusalem and Washington, without any disclaimers, Barak distracted the American side from the very real challenges and pitfalls of their efforts -- and from the fact that any substantive prospects are confined to the Prime Minister's Office. In the end, as his political metamorphosis last week underscored, Ehud Barak currently has no base of support among Israeli voters and no constructive influence within the Netanyahu government. His presence in the otherwise right-wing coalition is useful in confusing, distracting and frustrating the Prime Minister's cabinet of rivals.

In the short run, Israelis cheer their leaders when they stand up to American "arrogance" and "naivete". But over time, the erosion of Israel's place on America's top priorities may come back to haunt Netanyahu and -- more importantly -- all Israelis. So, enjoy this moment, while it is still relevant.

Israel's foreign minister can't get a break

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is learning that having lots of seats in the Knesset does not guarantee power within the coalition government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to keep Ehud Barak in the desirable post of Defense Minister, even though Barak's new party, Atzmaut, only has five seats -- and they've even gained a second portfolio. What's more, the ruins of the Labor Party -- which Barak had led into the coalition nearly two years ago and cast aside this week -- can no longer claim a seat at the government table, nor can it mount any credible opposition to Netanyahu.

Lieberman's management style and blunt diplomacy have drawn criticisms from the career foreign service. A snowballing labor dispute over the Foreign Ministry's embarrassingly low wages has compounded the equally low staff morale. The resulting paralysis of Israel's diplomatic machinery hurts Lieberman, especially given his personal stake in the Russian President's visit that had to be canceled due to the strike.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu is able to deal directly with foreign leaders, using his own loyal staff -- even if the strike is resolved, the Prime Minister's Office will end up with increased control over foreign policy (one of Netanyahu's perennial objectives).

Since the foreign minister has been conspicuously absent from most Palestinian-related diplomacy and U.S.-Israel relations, he made extensive visits to Africa and Latin America. Recent weeks have seen a snowballing of Latin American governments lining up to recognize Palestinian statehood, so by default Lieberman will be blamed for one of Israel's biggest diplomatic catastrophes (certainly as understood by right-wing Israelis) in years. Because of his lack of popularity with the Ministry staff, he will also be blamed for the strike, which has put Israeli diplomats out of commission just when they are needed most.

Lieberman and his right-wing party, Yisrael Beiteinu, will most likely remain in the Netanyahu government, and Netanyahu certainly needs those votes in Knesset. And whether one agrees with Avigdor Lieberman or not, he may be the most ideologically principled member of that government. But his influence and effectiveness will continue to be limited by circumstance and the political ambitions of others.