IHT/DSE: Analyzing the Arab response to the escalating Mideast conflict

By Erika Solomon and Pakinam Amer
First Published: July 18, 2006

Egypt’s role in the Israeli-Lebanese war remains shallow, say analysts, who remain split over support of Hezbollah

CAIRO: After an Arab split surfaced over support for Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Egypt’s analysts said they mourn Arab unity, with Egypt joining Jordan and Saudi Arabia in denouncing Hezbollah. The analysts themselves did not form a consensus; they alternately criticized and justified Egypt’s “shallow” role in the Israeli-Lebanese war.
Al-Masri Al-Youm political columnists are strongly condemning the Arab stance on the war, with columnist Sahar El-Mougy saying that the Arab nations, whose strength has diminished and who once had “dignity, honor and pride,” have forgotten that they had an enemy. Al-Mougy denounced the “silence” that met the excessive attacks from the Israeli side, while Arab nations, with Egypt topping the list, have chosen to take the path of negotiations.
Diaa Rashwan, an expert on Islamic groups, said in his column that Arab nations have joined the Zionist rhetoric in blaming Hezbollah and in calling its initial attack “a terrorist attack,” denouncing what he described as “Arabs embracing the Israeli logic.”
Even following continuous air strikes on the country, whose infrastructure has now been practically destroyed and whose main highways and central airport are blocked to civilians and foreign aid, Egypt’s response has been mild and even apologetic.
Although President Hosni Mubarak demanded a cease-fire on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip in a press conference Sunday, his speech carried subtle blame for what has been called Hezbollah’s “uncalculated moves,” saying that “any group inside Lebanon should make discussions with the state first before involving the country [in anything].” The president insisted that negotiations and a truce would resolve the situation, and that Egypt supported the idea of an emergency Arab summit.
Egypt’s involvement in the conflict between Lebanon and Israel is not likely to grow, says Mohamed Wahby, a former diplomat and member of the Egyptian Council on Foreign Affairs, despite the fact that the situation has escalated to a point which he would venture to call war between Israel and Lebanon. “It is a war by sea, air, land; in every sense but an actual military invasion.”
Wahby, who is also a political columnist, tells The Daily Star Egypt that even with the strong disapproval of the Arab world toward Israeli attacks, this is a war that he guarantees Egypt will not get involved in under the current dynamic. However, he could not completely rule out this possibility if the conflict grew more widespread.
Wahby suggested that Egypt might at least put greater pressure on Israel if the crisis escalates in Gaza, at which point “the Palestinian situation might spill into Egypt.”
Already, three Egyptian soldiers sent to patrol the Egyptian-Israeli border have been killed due to Palestinian bombings there, says Wahby. Further actions such as these will lead Egypt to “come out more strongly.” Just as Egypt should not risk damage to its relationship with Israel, Wahby does not think Israel wants to risk its ties with Egypt at a time when it has further alienated itself from the Arab world.
Considering the possibility of a more widespread conflict being provoked, Wahby says, “I definitely see the potential for full out war if all parties do not show restraint, and if the United States doesn’t take the proper action to restrain Israel.” He believes the only way to deescalate the conflict is to allow both sides of the conflict to “save face” through U.S. pressure on both sides. “It is in the interest of all parties,” he explains, “to avoid a situation which they perhaps cannot control.”
As for Egypt’s role in a more widespread conflict, Wahby says that the situation could change if Syria becomes involved. Egyptian military and political ties with Syria have historical roots, he explains. “It would be a very different situation for Egypt to manage if there was Israeli aggression against Syria. The pressures on Egypt would be much greater than now, in this war with Lebanon.”
Wahby continues, saying “I don’t know how much Egypt would be able to withstand the military and popular pressure,” under such circumstances, but was confident that Egypt would try every diplomatic angle possible before pursuing military action.
Wahby’s main concern at this potential scenario was not for the Arab nations, however, but for Israel. “Israel is vulnerable now, in terms of the future. And this is why I don’t understand what they’re doing. I am worried that the Arab mind will keep this [Israeli] aggression in its memory, and this is not good for Israel.”
Wahby adds that Iranian President Ahmedinejad has the military capabilities to badly damage Israel, and “they won’t let Syria go down.”
Currently, however, Wahby explains that not only is Egypt reluctant to pursue a military venture against Israel, it has built a network of diplomatic and economic relations with the state that would hurt the country in the event of increased involvement.
“States have an international obligation,” says Wahby, referring to the official Egyptian government’s response, which denounced Hezbollah’s actions against Israel. “But on the other hand, I would have been surprised had there been no reaction on the popular level. I cannot help being an Arab. I am happy such a reaction came.”
If no popular response had decried Israeli actions, Wahby says, “It would have shown the Arab nation is dead, instead of saying ‘we are here, we’re not yet dead in the Arab world.’”

Link: http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2308