Charles Krauthammer has finally put his finger on something.
In reality, it is not the whole of the thing but only a part of it. He did so
in a column that is titled: “Why We Give Foreign Aid” and subtitled: “Aid to Egypt should be
used to leverage a reversal of Morsi's repressive measures.” It was published
on March 7, 2013 in National Review Online.
The first thing that a reader should do is disregard the
subtitle because to rant that America
should pressure Egypt on
something is the obligatory ingredient that will get an article on Egypt published
in an American publication these days. It is meaningless as well as comical,
but this is not the comedy to which our esteemed author has referred.
Here is the passage (in condensed form) in which Krauthammer
mentions the comedy he has detected: “John Kerry's objective was getting Morsi
to apply for a loan from the IMF … there's a certain comic circularity to this
demand. What kind of concession is it when a foreign government is coerced into
taking yet more of our money?” He is correct in saying that there is a comical
element here, but he fails to see the story line or the plot that moves it
because he is missing something.
To get a sense of what is unfolding in that ongoing drama,
we flashback two years to a time just after the fall of the Mubarak regime.
Some of the ministers, among them a woman called Abul Naga, stayed for a while.
She revealed that the American Ambassador in Egypt used to demand that the
Egyptians accept the money offered to them under the guise of “aid” when in
fact, it was a dirty slush fund set up by the Congress to buy potential
traitors who could be called on to disrupt the country.
Well, John Kerry may not have been harboring a similar
intent when he visited Egypt
this time, but that old history is the reason why the opposition parties in Egypt , as well
as the people who demonstrate in the streets – including the secularists and
the Christians – would have nothing to do with a Hillary Clinton or a John
Kerry. They told them off because at this time, the Egyptians would take a
Trojan horse but not an American check, or even talk to a representative of the
American government.
Had Krauthammer understood this plot line at the start, he
would not have spent some 500 words regurgitating the useless points that
everyone who is writing about the subject has been echoing. But there is
something new in his column, and he begins to discuss it like this: “We have no
particular stake in Egypt 's
economy.”
He goes on to make two more points about the economy: “Yes,
we would like to see a strong economy … Why should we want a vibrant economy
that maintains the Brotherhood in power?”
What that “Hegelian Dialectic” says is that Krauthammer has
finally applied his intellect to research and to learn something about the
Egyptian economy. He knows now that the engine of that economy (established, by
the way during the Nasser era by a minster of
finance called Dr. Qaissouny) is one of the soundest economic engines in the
world today. It has served Egypt
well in good times and in bad times.
As a result of his newly acquired education, Dr. Krauthammer
now knows that it is futile to sit back or to lie down, and daydream about an Egypt that will
disintegrate economically. Therefore, in keeping with the old saying: if you
can't beat them, join them – he has developed an alternative.
But that is where he makes a mistake. Look what he says:
“Our concern is Egypt 's
policies, foreign and domestic … If we're going to give foreign aid, it should
be for political concessions … We give foreign aid … to extract … concessions.”
The man may no longer be dreaming about the Egyptian economy
floundering but he is dreaming about controlling it. Unfortunately, however,
this is too Jewish an idea to be viable.
Try the principle of forging friendly relations with the
world, Charles. It may work better for Israel and for the Jews everywhere.