Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Admin. Engages Brotherhood in Egypt

Or: tomorrow’s Republican talking point, today

Print Email

The United States has begun to do something it has never really done before: talk directly to the Muslim Brotherhood, the original modern Islamist movement, which is set to win a plurality or even majority of Egypt’s parliamentary seats and now prepares for a face-off with the country’s military rulers over who gets to run things. The U.S. decision reflects the Brotherhood’s promises to actually be democratic and to maintain the peace with Israel (which there are broader, structural reasons to believe it will do). The risk is that, well, the Brotherhood is Islamist, in a more hardcore way than, say, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s AKP party; there is also the likelihood that more Islamist parties, which also enjoyed recent electoral successes, will force the Brotherhood to its right. Either way, I’ll hazard one prediction: the Obama administration’s decision to engage with the Brotherhood will—in a presidential election year that has seen issues in the Middle East like Iran and Israel take on outsize importance as ostensible reflections of President Obama’s values—become a GOP talking point.

It’s worth remembering, if and when the attacks on Obama for engaging with our enemies begins, that it was (Republican) neoconservatives, such as Elliott Abrams, who most fervently welcomed the Arab Spring, the toppling of dictator Hosni Mubarak, and the democracy that would presumably follow. And also that it was President Bush’s second-term Freedom Agenda that first made it U.S. policy to support democracy in the Middle East no matter the consequences—as when that administration pushed for Palestinian elections and watched as the Brotherhood’s cousin, Hamas, won. (The administration’s refusal to negotiate with Hamas wasn’t exactly a success—it led to Palestinian civil war and President Abbas’s lack of credibility. It wasn’t, however, definitively wrong or worse than negotiating would have been.)

The administration is casting its decision simply as the least bad option. “There doesn’t seem to me to be any other way to do it, except to engage with the party that won the election,” a senior administration official told the New York Times. Added Sen. John Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and a potential future Democratic secretary of state: “You’re certainly going to have to figure out how to deal with democratic governments that don’t espouse every policy or value you have.” (He compared it to President Reagan’s negotiating with the Soviets.) And how long until supporting secular nationalism in the Palestinian territories will seem similarly impractical as Hamas and other Islamist parties gain popularity?

What’s going to become increasingly clear is that even Sunni Islamists in the Levant and Egypt are, much like the Islamists of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and Iran and Pakistan, neither homogenous nor ideologically in sync. When Mubarak first went and people spoke of Turkey as a good-case scenario for Egypt, that meant some kind of Islamist government. You can wish for a world in which free and fair Egyptian elections put secular liberals in power, but right now that world doesn’t exist, and so if somebody were to argue that the administration is wrong to talk to the Brotherhood—offering them the blandishments of legitimacy in exchange for the moderation that responsibility and accountability inherently bring—then the appropriate response is: what would you do differently?

Overtures to Egypt’s Islamists Reverse Longtime U.S. Policy [NYT]
As Israelis and Palestinians Talk, the Rise of a Political Islam Alters the Equation [NYT]
Earlier: Perry’s Ascent Heralds Israel’s Rise as Issue

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

If we’re “offering blandishments” in return for “moderation and responsibility” then I suppose that one can’t really do any more against the MB. But, How likely is it that we’ll insist on the “moderation” once they’re in power? Remember the German establishment thought they were offering the same “blandishments” to the Nazis in return for the same “moderation and responsibility” and that didn’t work out so well. This blandishment-offering is a very slippery slope.

So, I suppose that I’d have to offer the same blandishments that Obama is. What I’d do differently is to prepare for war while I’m blandishing because that’s where it’s going to end up.

Our refusal to talk to Hamas did not lead to civil war, etc etc. That happened because of Hamas’s policies. Why should we be responsible? That’s just absurd.

There’s no comparison between Reagan negotiating with the USSR and our “blandishments” of the MB. Everyone seems to want to pull Reagan out the the hat to justify whatever. For one, Reagan never negotiated until the Soviets had begun to open up on their own. For another, the negotiating and blandishments had begun long before Reagan. They came to a head under Ford, ie, the Helsinki accords, but they began in the 1920s. In retrospect, Churchill’s response of “killing the Bolshevik bacillus” in the early stage was the right policy.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Admin. Engages Brotherhood in Egypt

Or: tomorrow’s Republican talking point, today

More on Tablet:

11 Non-Jewish Celebrities—and 2 Jewish Ones—Show Off Their Hebrew Tattoos

By Marjorie Ingall — You don’t have to be Jewish to sport Hebrew ink. But some of these stars should have thought twice before going under the needle.