Egypt and the Boat JINSA Report January 9, 2002 Number 234 Everybody knows the US government knew the boat was destined for "Palestine." [Once again, while the State Department dithered, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "They clearly had very good intelligence that those weapons were going to be used against them and they intercepted the ship by pre-empting that ship from landing and unloading and then providing those weapons to be used against Israel." In case it wasn't clear enough, he added, "The United States has done a similar thing with respect to various ship interceptions...and it is something I think that is not unusual or not uncalled-for when one thinks of the magnitude of the weapons stash that was on that ship."] But why were they reluctant to admit it? Not, in our opinion, to protect Yasser. More likely it was to protect Egypt. Regular readers know about Egypt. [See JINSA Reports #225-227 for details.] Nevertheless, in November the administration announced it would notify Congress formally of its intention to sell advanced land attack capable Harpoon Block II missiles to Egypt, significantly increasing the ability of Egypt to threaten Israel. And the day the boat was captured, the administration announced accelerated payment of nearly $1 billion in foreign aid to Egypt, saying the U.S. owed economic help to a "key partner" in the war. What does that have to do with the boat? The captain's description of his mission included overt assistance from Egypt. The U.S. Congress, already highly irritated with Egyptian behavior before and after 11 September, wouldn't have tolerated that. The administration could have kissed the Harpoon sale and this year's foreign aid to Egypt goodbye. The U.S. was tracking the boat along with Israel and knew when the IDF was going to capture it, so the timing of the accelerated aid to Egypt may have been no coincidence. Furthermore, if they pretended the cargo was bound for Lebanon and would not have been offloaded in Egyptian territory, they could also pretend Egypt was ignorant of the cargo, perhaps saving the Harpoon deal. But which is worse? For Egypt to help the PA smuggle weapons into Gaza, or for Egypt to allow ships to pass through the Canal without knowing what is on them? The first threatens what remains of the "peace process." The second threatens American and other shipping for the long term (The USS Cole sailed around the Horn of Africa because there was no guarantee of its safety in the Canal). The Harpoon won't fix that. Either way, Egypt has shown once again that it is NOT a "key ally." We frankly don't understand the obsession of the Administration with Palestinian-Israeli negotiations in the middle of a war in which the Palestinians are part of the problem. And we don't understand the administration's desire to protect Egypt. But we do understand that whatever the role of the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Iranians and others in the saga of that boat, none of them were planning to advance America's goals in the war or in the region. And all should have to pay for their choices.