One of the most important diplomatic developments of last week was Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s official visit to Moscow.
He used the opportunity to conclude a number of agreements with Russia, including one aiming at establishing a free trade zone between Egypt and Russia. Some commentators have said that Russia has thus “returned” to Egypt.
Egypt’s strategic importance hasn’t changed throughout history no matter who has ruled over the country. Now Gen. Sisi is in charge. As you may recall, the United States backed Gen. Sisi’s military coup overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood in July 2013. The US and its Western allies supported the coup because they were persuaded that the Muslim Brotherhood would not be able to maintain a balanced relationship with the West. Besides, they hoped a strong government in Cairo would manage to fight against radical currents and bring political stability to the country.
Egypt, however, has another serious problem: Without a stable economy, Sisi will not be able to pursue his regime, no matter how “strong” he is.
It seems that Sisi doesn’t believe he has been supported enough economically by his Western allies. He has even been one of the most eager supporters of Israel’s Gaza operation, but he still has not received the financial assistance he had hoped for. That may explain why he decided to fly to Moscow. Nevertheless, we don’t know if the US is really disturbed by the agreements he has made with Russia because Egypt has always been a country at equal distance vis-à-vis the US and Russia.
Maybe Sisi is just trying to re-establish this old balance policy, the status quo of before the Arab Spring.
Egypt, of course, cannot be analyzed without looking at what is going on in Syria or Israel. The US has shown to the world that it will not allow third parties to change the game in Iraq, and it has bombarded the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) positions in northern Iraq.
This radical group will probably retreat to Syria now and we’ll start hearing more about the Syrian civil war in the coming days. In other words, the US has refused to negotiate the future of Syria through the Iraqi chessboard.
By the way, during the Gaza operation, the Israeli government used every opportunity possible to hint that it might get closer to Russia if the US administration criticizes Israel too loudly. Similarly, it was interesting to observe that despite what is going on in Gaza, Iran pursued rapprochement with the US.
It is obvious that the priority of Russia and the US in the Middle East is not to allow third parties to join in the game. Only after having assured this, they will start to negotiate seriously. As a confidence-building measure, Russia has allowed Iran to get closer to the US, and the latter has allowed Egypt to do the same with Russia. Egypt may receive financial assistance from Russia, but this does not mean Cairo will stop helping the US strategically.
One may ask about the US’s sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. These sanctions will not damage Russia’s economy too much; they will hurt European economies more. In other words, these sanctions are punishing the EU more than Russia.
The problem is that no one is sure whether Egypt will be able to preserve the balance between Russia and the US. Egypt’s recent history reminds us that the country faces many risks. If Sisi gets the wrong idea — that he will be able to use Russia against the US, or Israel against Turkey or Iran against Saudi Arabia — that will be a fatal mistake. He must not forget that those powers that spend time trying to “convince” Israel, Turkey or Iran have never had such patience for Egypt.
Maybe we’ll learn much more about this balancing game if a high-level Russian visit to Egypt happens. We’ll have to carefully watch who will make this visit and what kind of agreements will be concluded then.







LIMASSOL, Cyprus | Cyprus is a beautiful island, but it has never recovered from the Turkish invasion of 1974. Turkish troops still control nearly 40 percent of the island — the most fertile and formerly the richest portion.
Some 200,000 Greek refugees never returned home after being expelled from their homes and farms in Northern Cyprus.
The capital of Nicosia remains divided. A 112-mile demilitarized “green line” runs right through the city across the entire island.
Thousands of settlers from Anatolia were shipped in by the Turkish government to occupy former Greek villages and to change Cypriot demography — in the same manner the occupying Ottoman Empire once did in the 16th century. Not a single nation recognizes the legitimacy of the Turkish Cypriot state. In contrast, Greek Cyprus is a member of the European Union.
Why, then, is the world not outraged at an occupied Cyprus the way it is at, say, Israel?
Nicosia is certainly more divided than is Jerusalem. Thousands of Greek refugees lost their homes more recently, in 1974, than did the Palestinians in 1947.
Turkey has far more troops in Northern Cyprus than Israel has in the West Bank. Greek Cypriots, unlike Palestinians, vastly outnumbered their adversaries. Indeed, a minority making up about a quarter of the island’s population controls close to 40 percent of the landmass. Whereas Israel is a member of the United Nations, Turkish Cyprus is an unrecognized outlaw nation.
Any Greek Cypriot attempt to reunify the island would be crushed by the formidable Turkish army, in the brutal manner of the brief war of 1974. Turkish generals would most likely not phone Greek homeowners warning them to evacuate their homes ahead of incoming Turkish artillery shells.
The island remains conquered not because the Greeks have given up, but because their resistance is futile against a NATO power of some 70 million people. Greeks know that Turkey worries little about what the world thinks of its occupation.
Greeks in Cyprus and mainland Greece together number less than 13 million people. That is far less than the roughly 300 million Arabic speakers, many from homelands that export oil, who support the Palestinians.
No European journalist fears that Greek terrorists will track him down should he write something critical of the Greek Cypriot cause. Greek Cypriots would not bully a journalist in their midst for broadcasting a critical report the way Hamas surely would to any candid reporter in Gaza.
In other words, there is not much practical advantage or interest in promoting the Greek Cypriot cause.
Unlike Israel, Turkey is in NATO — and is currently becoming more Islamic and anti-Western under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. If it is easy for the United States to jawbone tiny Israel, it is geostrategically unwise to do so to Turkey over the island of Cyprus.
Turkey is also less emblematic of the West than is Israel. In the racist habit of assuming low expectations for non-Westerners, European elites do not hold Turkey to the same standards that they do Israel.
We see such hypocrisy when the West stays silent while Muslims butcher each other by the thousands in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Syria. Only when a Westernized country like Israel inflicts far less injury to Muslims does the West become irate. The same paradox seems to hold true for victims. Apparently, Western Christian Greeks are not the romantic victims that Palestinian Muslims are.
In the 40 years since they lost their land, Greek Cypriots have turned the once impoverished south into a far more prosperous land than the once-affluent but now stagnant Turkish-occupied north — unlike the Palestinians, who have not used their know-how to turn Gaza or Ramallah into a city like Limassol.
Resurgent anti-Semitism both in the Middle East and in Europe translates into inordinate criticism of Israel. Few connect Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus with some larger racist commentary about the supposed brutal past of the Turks.
The next time anti-Israeli demonstrators shout about divided cities, refugees, walls, settlers and occupied land, let us understand that those are not necessarily the issues in the Middle East. If they were, the Cyprus tragedy would also be center stage. Likewise, crowds would be condemning China for occupying Tibet, or still sympathizing with millions of Germans who fled a now-nonexistent Prussia, or deploring religious castes in India, or harboring anger over the tough Russian responses to Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine, or deploring beheadings in northern Iraq.
Instead, accept that the Middle East is not just about a dispute over land. Israel is inordinately condemned for what it supposedly does because its friends are few, its population is tiny, and its adversaries beyond Gaza numerous, dangerous and often powerful.
And, of course, because it is Jewish.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.