The US should suspend foreign aid to Egypt.

Pro asks for sources to back up Con's characterization of U.S. Aid to Egypt as bribeCharacterizing U.S. Aid as a bribe is a perspective, a correlation used to explain American motives. Nevertheless, this is hardly an unusual point of view. One can find hundreds of editorials online that call U.S. aid a bribe, both for and against."In essence, the current level of U.S. aid to Egypt and Israel is a bribe dating back to the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. Israel demanded a long-term aid commitment in exchange for withdrawing from the Sinai, which it had occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War. Egypt got the money as a reward for making peace and realigning with the West. "[1]"Foreign aid is often little more than a bribe for a foreign regime to behave in ways that please the U.S. government."[2]Pro argues that U.S. Aid is should not be seen as a bribe paid to Egypt in exchange for peace because peace was only part of the Camp David AccordsYou say this as if Peace weren't the ultimate requirement. Do you really think Israel would continue to purchase oil from Egypt if they were at war? Peace between these two states is the foundation of all other agreements, obviously.Pro argues that providing military aid to a potential enemy would be like bribing al-Qaeda with bombsYesterday, the CIA started shipping small arms to the Syrian Opposition, which has a strong Al-Qaeda faction.[3] This includes anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft, rocket propelled grenades and mortars. So, yes, we are currently providing al-Quaeda with bombs. As the world's largest arms exporter, the U.S. often ends up arming the enemy. The Taliban fights in Afghanistan with weapons provided to it by the CIA. Iraq fought the U.S. with weapons purchased from the United States. Reagan secretly sold arms to Iran even as they were sponsoring American hostage-taking in Beirut. The U.S. State Dept. names Pakistan as the #1 state sponsor of terrorism world wide and also gives Pakistan roughly $1.5 billion each year is military aid. Whether you agree with the policy or not, there's no denying the U.S. does arm her enemies in the pursuit of policy.Pro argues that Egypt has no desire for war with IsraelThe Egyptian military has no desire for war with Israel. The Egyptian people are less decided. Remember that in September 2011, thousands of Egyptian protesters overran the Israeli embassy in Cairo. There is a strong, radical minority that wants war with Israel. The majority of the Egyptian street might not want war, but consider Israel an enemy and are sympathetic with the radicals.Pro argues that the U.S. and Egypt could conduct discussions even without the umbrella of aidPerhaps, but its not as easy a you think. Before the coup, while Morsi was essentially not taking calls from Washington, the U.S. aid based relationship between Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Abdel Fatah el-Sissi was the Obama administration's only viable channel of communication to senior Egyptian officials. [4] Without U.S. talks as an excuse even this single thread might have been unavailable. Without U.S. Aid as a foundation, Egypt might talk to the U.S. anyway, but maybe they wouldn't. When you think of all the wars started because leaders did not correctly understand the other guy's intentions, is it really worth the risk of severing established ties?Pro argues that he does not think the Egyptians would run back to Russia for aidAs cited before, talks between Egypt and Russia are already underway. Here's' another article about China and Russia already rushing to fill the void left by the U.S.'s hesitation to embrace the post-coup govt.[5] Saudi Arabia is also getting in line. As the most influential country in terms of Muslim opinion and the most powerful nation in Africa, there are many powers who are jealous of the U.S. alliance with Egypt and would be more than happy to replace U.S. patronage with their own. Pro argues he can't think of many better reasons to use U.S. one-shot vote (cutting off aid) than over the issue of civilian deathsI can think of plenty of reasons to reserve U.S.'s one shot. Here's a few:*the lives of U.S. citizens*the protection of U.S. corporate and NGO resources in Egypt*provocative actions against Israel*threats against the Suez CanalPro requests an in depth explanation of why, if Egyptians really want US aid, the polls all report that they don'tThe Egyptian military's role is essentially the same as the Roman Praetorian Guard- they do not wish power for themselves, but they are the final arbiter of who has power. The 2011 revolution was successful because the military refused to attack the protesters. Morsi won power, in part, because he refused to oppose military control during the 2011-2012 transition. Morsi lost power because he alarmed the military after seizing dictatorial power in November 2012. The Egyptian military generally likes the idea of a democratic, secular inclusive government so long as that govt. does not infringe on the military's interests. The Egyptian military likes U.S. aid. That money represents a third of the Egyptian military budget and ensures that the military is well paid. The Egyptian people resent the West in general dating back to Greek and Roman and French and English rule. The Egyptian people resent the U.S. specifically because of support for Israel and many violations of sovereignty in the Middle-East. So, the polls show the Egyptian people hate U.S. aid accurately, but the guarantors of democracy like U.S. Aid The majority of the Egyptian people want a democratic nation above all else, so U.S. Aid supports their primary interest, even if they resent it.RE-REBUTTALSLook, it is a cold-blooded thing to say, but the death of Muslim Brotherhood protesters should not be a priority for the U.S. Although the U.S. tries hard to remain neutral about Egypt's political parties, the MB is the worst on a list of bad choices. The MB was the most anti-secular, anti-western, anti-women, anti-Christian party on the ticket, and the U.S. is not sorry to see them out of power. While their protests after the coup were generally unarmed, this was because the MB had no chance against the military, not because the MB are committed to peace Even while the political protests were suppressed, MB thugs were violently scapegoating Christians and Shiites in reprisal. [6] Obama has already condemned the actions of the military, so I guess he's met your definition of just and noble.[7] Condemnation is simply talk. Con asked Pro to define which principle we're supposed to be standing for, demonstrating that freedom and democracy are not priorities in American foreign policy, whatever the rhetoric. *******Let's boil this down. Con argues against the suspension of aid because it is contrary to U.S. interests in the region. Pro argues that killing people is bad and we should employ a disused and hypocritical law in order to make a moral point. Pro fails to argue how this might promote U.S. interest, because it doesn't. U.S. interest must guide U.S. Foreign Policy. Pretending at moral superiority is hypocritical and unproductive.[1]http://walt.foreignpolicy.com...[2]http://antiwar.com...[3]http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4]http://www.washingtonpost.com...[5]http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...[6]http://articles.washingtonpost.com...[7]http://www.foxnews.com...