(From a friend.) Today the Times piece on the Obama administration planning to give military aid to Egypt — despite its poor rights record — has this second paragraph:
To restart the aid, which has been a cornerstone of American relations with Egypt for more than three decades, the administration plans on sidestepping a new Congressional requirement that for the first time directly links military assistance to the protection of basic freedoms.
Hmmm. What happened three decades ago with Egypt that cause America to lavish it with funds? Well it recognized Israel and made a peace treaty with its neighbor. But the Times article never says so…
This is the fiscal and strategic cost of the U.S. special relationship with Israel, and one that runs against the convergence of values and interests in having a rights-respecting ally in Egypt. Egypt is not protecting human rights, but we are overriding our own laws so as to ignore its rights abuses. As we did with Mubarak for decades.
This is the strategic cost to the U.S. that is not repaid in kind by the Israelis. They refuse to make peace with their other neighbors, the Palestinians. Which was a core requirement of the “cornerstone” treaty of 1978.
RE: “the Times piece on the Obama administration planning to give military aid to Egypt — despite its poor rights record” ~ Weiss
ALSO SEE: Halt Ships of Shame from the USA Carrying Weapons to Egypt ~ by Amnesty International, commondreams.org, 3/15/12
ENTIRE PRESS RELEASE – http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/03/15-0
If Egypt gets more democratic, they are likely to respect human rights even less. Think with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge that Christians are going to be more or less persecuted?
Amnesty International has a petition to stop this aid. I found it farcical at first, as if military aid and weapons are used for anything besides abuse
When was supporting human rights ever a “strategic asset” or a real desire of the US? I guess that’s my question. Maybe we’re being a little too, I don’t know, naive/sentimental?
The military regime does not have a good record in respect to Coptic Christians. If anything, religious parties can be better in that respect. Seculars … Prophet (PBUH) did not say anything how to treat seculars, so this is an open question.
There was big condemnation in the Parliament that the government succumbed to American pressure and released from custory 49 NGO workers, 16 of them American accused of something that could be illegal foreign donations to political parties (presumably, secular). The Parliament also demands to stop accepting American military aid, expel Israeli envoy (or the envoy from Zionist entity), and somewhere I have seen a postulate to upgrade relationship with Iran. That was during the flareup over Gaza.
Entitians and seculars have some reasons to worry.