Obama's hesitancy in demanding Mubarak leave office now may be partly influenced by Israel's fear of losing the 1979 security treaty with Egypt. But peace pacts with dictators are not the steady rock that Israel needs.
But the pact was based on a weak reed – the assumption that a friendly autocrat like Hosni Mubarak would always rule in Cairo.
By not siding with the protesters’ demands that Mr. Mubarak leave office now, Israel – as well as the United States – runs the risk of alienating Egyptians who will likely be leading a democratic government.
Israel has even instructed its envoys to Western capitals like Washington to ask that they go easy on Mubarak, warning of a “second Iran” if the Muslim Brotherhood should dominate any free elections in Egypt.
President Obama seems to be complying with Israel’s request, asking only for an “orderly transition” to begin now in Egypt while also backing Mubarak’s longtime intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as lead negotiator with a few opposition leaders. Most top leaders in Congress have backed the president’s soft approach.
But such a hesitant stance by the US and Israel plays to fear, not hope. The long-term interests of Israel lie in democracy coming to Arab lands, no matter how messy or long in the making. A free people with a freely elected government is more of a solid basis for a peace agreement than the signature of a dictator.