Are security concerns important for the Israeli-Palestinian relationship?

Is the Israeli policy toward the Palestinians in the West Bank driven by security concerns or are there mostly other reasons for why Israel maintains the territorial status quo with respect to the 1967 borders?  What has Netanyahu done to improve Israeli-Palestinian relations and what is his new government expected to do in the near future? Given their obvious negative impact on Israel’s security, why does the Israeli government continue to allow civilian settlements in those areas?

While the recent Israeli elections showed that Netanyahu’s political support has begun to slip, there is also evidence that most Israelis are happy with his foreign policy decisions and share his skepticism regarding the seriousness of the Palestinian partners.  But Israel is deeply divided between “hawks” and “doves” and the division regarding what to do with the territories acquired in 1967 stems from ideological and religious factors rather than security. These issues and others are addressed in a piece published today with the International Security Network, in Zurich, Switzerland.

Filed under: International Relations and Security, Israel, Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Benyamin Netanyahu, Israeli elections, Israeli Knesset, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli-Palestinian relations, Peace process

Peace Not Likely a Priority for Israel’s new Coalition

Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with President Peres to announce that he has put together a government

As Netanyahu presented his coalition for the 33^rd government to President Shimon Peres on March 16th, he also included the customary declaration hoping for an improvement in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship:

“The coalition’s basic guidelines state that “Israel will pursue a peace agreement with the Palestinians with the goal of reaching a diplomatic accord that would end the conflict; if such a resolution is reached, the government would be asked to approve it and should the need arise, it would be subject to a referendum.”

For those of us who are hoping for the resumption of peace talks if for no other reason than for the fact that talking is better than not talking, this seems like good news. However, it only takes a quick glance at the outlines of the new government coalition to see that any advancement in the dialogue with the Palestinians is guaranteed to come with a spill-proof “no territorial concessions” guard.

That guarantee comes from the handing of major government ministries with influence over key government decisions regarding settlements directly into the hands of Naftali Bennet’s HaBayit HaYehudi, a party that is directly apposed to the peace process and supports the expansion of settlements. While it may seem expected that the prime minister himself would set policy towards the West Bank, most important routine decisions regarding construction of housing and infrastructure is under the control of the Ministry of Housing, a ministerial position that has been filled with HaBayit HaYehudi’s number two, Uri Ariel.

Haaretz: Israel’s new ministers

Ariel, a former secretary general of both the settler organization Amana and the Yesha Council, was ranked as the most effective right-wing member of the Knesset in 2011. The ranking was based on a number of nationalist achievements in the areas of “nationalist achievements” and “sovereignty and construction.” Ariel’s achievements listed in the study were laws passed on settlement building, making Jerusalem a “national priority zone” and legislation towards improving cell phone service in the West Bank.

Naftali Bennet himself will be in charge of the Economy and Trade Ministry, (formerly the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Labor), a cabinet position that will most likely give him substantial control over the promotion of economic growth and regional economic development in Israel.  According to its website, the ministry is “engaged in the encouragement and support of export and international commerce, in order to assist Israeli businesses in enhancing their exports and entering new markets abroad.” While this may not seem like an important post for someone whose primary concern is the promotion and expansion of settlements, it is in fact one of the major quiet battlegrounds where the ideological struggle over resource allocation to settlements is played out. This ministry determines whether how economic and industrial support is allocated, including whether or not economic growth is allowed and encouraged in the West Bank. Being in charge of the export market also gives him certain powers over how West Bank products are marketed and sold in the rest of the world, something that is becoming increasingly important as the international divestment campaign against settlement products is gaining ground.

As defense minister, Netanyahu picked former General and deputy prime minister, Moshe Ya’alon, explaining that at this decisive time when “region all around us is stormy” Israel needs an experienced man on this post. Ya’alon, who came in fifth place in the 2011 ranking of the most right-wing MKs, is well know for his hard-line views towards the Palestinians and his hawkish views towards Iran. However, Ya’alon should not be dismissed as a one-dimensional character. His roots are in Labor Zionism, and he originally supported negotiating with the Palestinians and the signing of the Oslo accords, but like many Israelis, became disenchanted when the results were unsuccessful. Instead, Ya’alon argues for a “bottom up” rather than top-down approach to peace, where Palestinians first must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, then prove themselves economically and politically, before gaining the right to statehood.

Finally, and if he is exonerated from the corruption charges against him, the foreign ministry will remain in the hands of Yisrael Beiytenu’s Avigdor Lieberman, who does not miss an opportunity to point out that he is adamantly opposed to any freeze in settlement construction anywhere at all for the purpose of restarting the peace effort.

Thus, whether Tzipi Livni, charged with the Ministry of Justice and Israeli-Palestinian affairs, will have any chance to make concessions that can be acceptable to the minimum Palestinian demands, seems highly unlikely. As “chief negotiator” Netanyahu has promised not to side-step her, but any concession that she makes would be subject to a vote both in the coalition and in the full Knesset, and possibly also to a referendum. Palestinians, it was reported, are underwhelmed by her appointment.

Related articles

• The annexationist who now heads the Foreign Ministry (timesofisrael.com)
• Israelis, Palestinians Spar Over Controversial Settlement (npr.org)
• Obama, Netanyahu and an alarming absence of trust (timesofisrael.com)
• Kerry expected to revive 2002 Saudi peace initiative (timesofisrael.com)

Filed under: Israel, Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel, Knesset, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, Uri Ariel, West Bank

Bennet defies prediction and allies himself with Lapid

HaBayit HaYehudi’s leader
Naftali Bennet (Photo:Haaretz)

I said I never try to predict anything and for good reason. The news this morning shows that my prediction yesterday that Bennet would accept the offer by Likud-Beytenu could not have been more wrong. Instead, Bennet has decided to ally himself with Yair Lapid in order to prevent the haredi parties from entering the government. That story is detailed this morning in Israel Hayom. What Bennet’s strategic calculations will gain or cost him remains to be seen. Most news sources in Israel at the moment are focused on the story about the jailed Australian Mossad agent who committed suicide his prison cell.

The rest of the prediction–the one about Netanyahu bargaining about his own political survival–actually seems even more likely now that both Bennet and Lapid are pushing for a seat at the table.

Filed under: Israel, Middle East, Bennet, Israel, Israel's government, Israeli elections, Jewish Home, Yair Lapid

Bibi’s Double Bargain

Prime Minister Netanyahu may find that the outcome of the bargaining process to determine the coalition for the 33rd government will have repercussions for his future political survival.

I try not to predict things very often, especially in Israeli politics, but the news coming out of the latest coalition talks between Netanyahu and Naftali Bennet make “predictioneering” very tempting.  So here we go: if Naftali Bennet takes Netanyahu up on his very specific offer to join the government—an offer that would only be on the table for 48 hours—the next Israeli government will lead a tumultuous life and is unlikely to survive until the next elections.

Most likely, Naftali Bennet will accept the offer. With its 12 Knesset seats, Bennet’s HaBayt haYehuda party is a contending force in Israeli politics, representing more hawkish views than the Likud party, and is a heavily favored political choice in the modern orthodox and national religious settler communities. However, it is not concern for the party’s relative numerical strength that will compel Bennet to join the coalition. Neither is it his own personal political ambitions (of which I am an unqualified judge). Rather, the nature of the party itself and the issues that it promotes makes a role in the opposition unthinkable and utterly meaningless.

This is because Bennet’s party is essentially a one-issue party; its only true concern being the prevention of any developments in the process to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace that could lead to the creation of a Palestinian state and the surrender of Israeli-held territory. Because of its singular focus, a seat around the coalition table is crucial, as it would only take one political “misstep” for the next Israeli administration to destroy the party’s raison d’etre

The lessons of the Olso Agreement and the Gaza evacuation taught the national religious that “peace” can “strike” at any moment and that even the most staunch settler allies (read Ariel Sharon) can have what seams like a sudden change of heart. This is sometimes referred to as the “peace disease” or “peace fever” and can be described as the realization by Israeli politicians—once they assume a leadership role—that territorial sacrifices are necessary in order to prevent further deterioration of Israeli democracy as a result of the impending Palestinian demographic “bomb.” In other words, they come to understand that it is imperative to separate Israel from territories that are heavily populated by Palestinian Arabs in order to retain a Jewish majority inside of Israel’s borders. How HaBayt haYehudi intends to deal with the impending demographic inevitability is the topic for another day (and one that resembles the debate between evolutionists and creationists). More important, however, is what awaits Israel and the world if Bennet accepts to be part of the coalition.

According to recent reports, the party was offered a number of important ministerial posts to sweeten the deal, including the education portfolio and a top-level economic portfolio. Apparently, the party would also get the portfolio of deputy of defense, which would mean that it would have broad authority over the expansion of settlements and construction in Judea and Samaria. If it’s true that Likud-Beytenu is also willing to grant Bennett’s party the chairmanship of the Knesset Finance Committee their victory over those who promote a settlement freeze would be complete. In other words, should Yair Lapid also decide to join the coalition, he will be in for a battle.

For the rest of this article, please read my blog post in the Times of Israel.

Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid and Jewish Home (HaBayt HaYehudi) leader Naftali Bennet

Related articles

• Bennett: No Palestine in ‘God-given’ Land of Israel (timesofisrael.com)
• Lapid calls for peace talks, but says Olmert went too far (timesofisrael.com)
• Is Peace Still on the Agenda? The Israeli Election Results and the Peace Process (eastwestmiddle.wordpress.com)
• How Netanyahu’s Coalition Talks Will determine the Chance for Peace (eastwestmiddle.wordpress.com)

Filed under: Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Religion and Politics, Israeli elections, Israeli Knesset

How Netanyahu’s Coalition Talks Will determine the Chance for Peace

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Shas’ spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. (Photo: Ilia Yefimovich/Flash90)

Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent electoral success has been described by some observers as “pyrrhic”. As the Israeli Prime Minister begins the process of forming a coalition government, Tova Norlen considers what the election results mean for the country’s domestic politics and the future of the Israel-Palestine peace process.

Not surprisingly, Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud-Beiteynu coalition won a plurality of seats for the 19^th Knesset in last week’s Israeli election. However, while his victory may have seemed certain, his post-election position is much weaker than some of the pre-election opinion polls had predicted and his struggle to form a government of his choice may have only just begun. A quick glance at the new electoral map shows that even with their projected 12-seat lead over the next largest party, forming a government with only right-wing parties (without the religious Orthodox) would leave Likud-Beiteynu short of the 60 seats needed for a Knesset majority. Representing the right-wing political establishment, Netanyahu has to reach out to one of the remaining three traditional Israeli political blocks; the ultra-Orthodox, the center-left and the Israeli Arab. Since no Israeli government is considered “legitimate” unless it has a Jewish majority, only the ultra-Orthodox and the center-left blocks are likely to be considered. (For various coalition scenarios click here)

Netanyahu’s choices all mean different things in terms of the direction the prime minister could take Israel in the coming years. On the one hand, only the prime minister can tell us which issues he deems to be national priorities.

Potential coalition partner, Yair Lapid, head of the center-left party, Yesh Atid (Photo: Ariel Schalit/AP).

Although we have a vague idea about Netanyahu’s Iran policies and his pro-settlement sentiments, it will really be his choice of coalition partners that will determine which national and international issues will make it to the top of the next Israeli government’s agenda. While the Iranian nuclear issue will surely continue to be a priority regardless of what shape the coalition takes, other issues—including the question of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks—may not be considered a priority at all.

———

Read the rest of this article, titled “The Israeli Elections and the Future of the Peace Process” on the webpage of the International Relations and Security Network (ISN), Zurich, Switzerland.

Filed under: Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Benjamin Netanyahu, binyamin netanyahu, Israel, israel palestine peace, Israel-Palestine, Israeli elections, Israeli Knesset, Knesset, Likud, Middle East, politics, prime minister netanyahu

Is Peace Still on the Agenda? The Israeli Election Results and the Peace Process

Election poster for Prime Minister Netanyahu (Photo: Washington Post)

This is a longer and re-worked version of a piece that appeared on the RAND blog on Jan 24. For that version, click here.

As expected, prime minster Netanyahu and the combined Likud-Beiteynu list won a plurality of seats for the 19^th Israeli Knesset (See the results below). However, despite his victory, Mr. Netanyahu is not done, and he is likely to face some tough bargaining choices in the next few weeks. A quick glance at the electoral map shows that even with their projected 12-seat lead over the next largest party, forming the government with only right-wing parties (without the religious orthodox) would leave Likud-Beiteynu short of the 60 seats needed for a Knesset majority.

2013 Israeli Election Results (Haaretz)

Despite the fact that both Israelis and Palestinians are calling the two-state solution dead, important voices both regionally and internationally continue to trumpet the need to seize the last fledging opportunity to make it happen.  As the first projections of the Israeli elections came in on Tuesday, Britain’s foreign minister is said to have warned Israel that the next Israeli government has the last chance for a two-state deal. Earlier in the week Jeff Goldberg reported in Bloomberg that President Obama had lamented that Netanyahu is not acting in Israel’s best interests. Obama’s complaint came after the Israeli Prime Minister had announced the Israel planned to build 3,000 additional housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, including in an empty area that connects Jerusalem with the Jordan valley, essentially making a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Obama’s complaint and Britain’s warnings are reminders that Netanyahu has done very little during his time in office to prove to Western leaders that he is serious about peace.While Netanyahu officially declared his support for a two-state solution in a speech at Bar-Ilan University in 2009, recent policies and actions have made his continued adherence to that commitment questionable. In the weeks before the elections, several hardline Likud officials were heard reassuring voters that Netanyahu was not really serious in his earlier statements and that Likud had never officially changed its staunch opposition to a Palestinian state. Hardline Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely even added that the Bar-Ilan speech was a tactical maneuver meant to placate the world. Even if Netanyahu, in a little-advertised rejoinder to his hawkish colleagues, did reaffirm his belief that he believed in “two free peoples living side by side in this small land,” the real test will come when he chooses his government.

Netanyahu thus has a number of alternatives with respect to forming a coalition, the choice of partners influencing the direction of Israeli policy over the next few years. His pick of partners will be influenced by his calculated priorities with regard to the most prominent issues that Israelis care about and his ability to tackle vs. ignore them. This includes the issue of the future of the peace process with the Palestinians.

While public opinion had projected that the Israeli electorate would shift the Knesset further to the right (shrinking the chances for a negotiated deal with the Palestinians), the preliminary election results did not entirely support those predictions. Even if the Likud party certainly lost seats to the right-wing national religious party, HaBayt HaYehudi (Jewish home), its chairman Naftali Bennet certainly did not garner as strong a support as he expected, making his pro-annexationist policies far from unchallenged in a future coalition. It is only in the unlikely scenario that Netanyahu decides to govern from a minority right-wing coalition that Bennet’s pro-settlement policies would be absolutely safe. What is perhaps more likely is that Netanyahu forms a center-haredi government or a right-center government, where he includes one of the larger parties from the center, such as Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid, or Tzipi Livni’s HaTnua. (See the possible scenarios here)

In fact, the most surprising outcome of the elections was the resurgence of the center left, this time with the new party of Yesh Atid. Under the leadership of former television host Yair Lapid, the new party managed to garner 19 seats, putting it in second place after Likud. Thus, the leftist-centrist block, which includes, Tzipi Livni’s HaTnua party and Shelly Yacimovich’s Labor, is in fact the strongest of the four traditional electoral blocks in Israel (right-wing, ultra-Orthodox, center-left and Israeli Arab). Should Netanyahu decide to form a government with any of the parties in this bloc, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will not be dropped from the government’s agenda.

Scenes from the Israeli elections (Photo: Bloomberg)

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s ability to form a government of his choice will also depend on the ability of the resolve of the center-left to “hold out” against him. In 2009, Netanyahu was “passed the torch” to form a government although Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party received a majority of the votes, after she failed to gather a majority left-center coalition. Although such a scenario is probably unlikely for Likud this time, the Labor leader, Shelly Yacimovich, has high hopes. In response to the preliminary results she announced that she would do everything in her power to create a coalition of parties with a “shared social and economic agenda, which will also kick-start the peace process.” However, Yair Lapid put such rumors partly to rest on Wednesday when he pledged not to obstruct Netanyahu’s efforts to form an effective government.

This brings us back to the point that was raised in the beginning of this piece—what are the chances that the next Israeli government will indeed make a renewed effort for peace with the Palestinians? While it is probably safe to say that a renewed effort is highly likely, given the way that the political ducks have lined up with Obama just having entered his final term, whether such an effort is successful depends on the shape and the content of such an effort, rather than whether an initiative takes place. The Middle East is used to seeing second-term US presidents launch half-hearted efforts to make history in the Middle East while not paying much attention to the formula or content of their proposals. The complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and the seriousness by which both sides view their own demands deserves a serious look at previous proposals and a re-crafting of some of the basic assumptions that have served as the foundation for the two-state formula. Thus, while the two-state solution may be dead, the new government will have the unique opportunity and the responsibility to craft a new formula that can better meet the complexities of the current Israeli-Palestinian impasse.

Graphics: BBC/Pat Carr

Related articles

• You: Binyamin Netanyahu rejects calls for Palestinian state within 1967 lines (guardian.co.uk)
• For Israeli voters, missile fire, money main issues in election (cnn.com)
• Israeli Election Primer – What You Should Know (pbs.org)
• Netanyahu wins reelection, Israeli media says (washingtontimes.com)
• Britain says Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution almost dead (uk.reuters.com)
• Israeli election for dummies: How votes become seats – Haaretz (haaretz.com)

Filed under: Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Israeli elections, Knesset, Likud, Peace process, Tzipi Livni, Yair Lapid

Warning: An Angry Post About Gaza

A rocket launched from Gaza heads towards Sderot, Israel. Photo: Jack Guez/AFP

I mostly feel hopeless right now…and a bit numb. My facebook page is exploding with hatred, ignorance, and even bigotry from people on both sides of the widening chasm. I just want to scream and swear and say “how the &$!#! can you be so unbelievably stupid to actually believe the old slogans that EVERY (with a big emphasis on every) Muslim wants to push Israel into the Sea,” or the opposite, that “Israel deliberately targets civilian areas in order to kill Palestinian children?”

The fact is that the Gazans live in a hellhole. Although Hamas is certainly partly to blame the truth is that they have lived in a hellhole long before Hamas took over the government. Yes, it’s true; Hamas is also responsible for this escalation, as they were for the escalation that led to Operation Cast Led. It’s also true that giving up Gaza in 2005 did not help Israel, but in many ways only made it worse. It emboldened Hamas and obviously made it more difficult for the IDF to keep track of weapons, bomb making, rocket labs, and tunnel smuggling. But it’s also true that except for a few years of economic upswing in anticipation of the Oslo agreement (a time during which support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad was at an all-time low), Gaza is a living hell and the only country that has the power to instigate a change is Israel.

Don’t tell me that the Gaza Palestinians can choose to go to any Arab state; you know that’s not true. Don’t tell me they were recent immigrants to Palestine anyways before 1948 so they are not really refugees anyways; it just shows you are bigoted and ignorant. Many of the refugees from Haifa and Jaffa had lived there for generations and probably even have Jewish genealogy. Somebody should check their DNA just for the heck of it. Could be funny – it would set off a firestorm on both sides.

Don’t tell me I am being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian – seriously, what do you think happens if a million people are locked up in a big prison for over 60 years lacking even the most basic supplies and amenities, including access to adequate education? They may get a bit restless, and angry, and then somebody comes along and brainwashes them. At that point, deterrence does not work because they really have nothing to loose, especially if someone guarantees them 77 virgins in heaven. Most of them can’t double-check the facts anyways, as they have no computers.

I have no passion for Hamas or Islamic terrorists and I agree that they still have no right to shoot rockets into Israel and that something has to be done to stop it quickly – no country can live under a constant barrage of random missiles that are hitting civilians in apartment buildings, schools, and nurseries. I also agree that there is very little coverage in the international press about this constant barrage. But I am also a political scientist who studies world events and analyses the cause and effect. And, as Washington Post Jerusalem bureau chief Janine Zacharia asks in Slate: What is Israel’s long-term strategy for Gaza to try to change this situation?

An Israeli child seen through a window of a building in the Southern Israeli town of Netivot that was hit by a Gaza rocket. southern town of Netivot. REUTERS/Amir Cohen

Haaretz: A breakdown of the Fighting between Israel and Gaza

In fact, except for “cutting the grass” – in other words, “bomb them back to the Middle Ages” every ten years, the current government has NO STRATEGY. Why? Because “they are never going to stop hating us,” so why bother to make their lives better?

I do agree with Zacharia’s assessment when she says: “It’s time to declare Israel’s policy toward Gaza and Hamas a failure. This is not an anti-Israel statement. Rather, it is an honest acknowledgment of the facts, which are simply too numerous to avoid.”

Regardless of who was there first, who shot first, who hates whom, and who’s God is right, if Israel really wants to stop this from recurring it has to figure out a way to get rid of the problem. If the preferred outcome is to move the Gaza Palestinians to Arab states, then negotiate with those Arab states to allow them to emigrate. Bribe them, do whatever it takes! I am sure that at least 50% of Gazans would happily leave. If the preferred outcome involves leaving them where they are ask what can be done to educate the next generation of Gazans in order to prevent the indoctrination they are currently getting.

But most importantly, for Israel’s sake, look around the region. “Cutting the grass” and “bombing them back to the middle Ages” with impunity may leave them with a smaller stockpile of weapons for the next few years but it is not going to work for that much longer as Israel’s neighborhood is drastically changing. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta noted last year: “The question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you’re isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to protect your military strength.’’

Instead, Israel assassinates the guy who apparently was just about to put his signature on a cease-fire agreement. True, he had a lot of blood on his hands, but are his followers going to be more accommodating? And how about the kids and the grand kids?

Some sources for latest information and opinion:

The rocket count on IDF’s blog

LA Times: Israel attack on Gaza: Familiar tension, new circumstances

Live blog from Haaretz

Slate: Why Israel’s Gaza Campaign is Doomed, by Janine Zacharia

BBC blog/tweet page

NY Times, Nov 16th: As Battlefield Changes, Israel Takes Tougher Approach

The Daily Beast, Daniel Levy, Nov 16^th: “Living By the Sword”

Related articles

• Israel Broadens Its Bombing in Gaza to Include Government Sites (nytimes.com)
• Israeli Minister: “The Goal…Is to Send Gaza Back to the Middle Ages” (alternet.org)
• Smart people write about Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Hamas, and Operation Pillar of Defense. (emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com)

Filed under: Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Religion and Politics, Gaza, Gaza refugees, Gaza-Israel escalation, Gazans, Hamas, Israel, Israel Defense Force, Operation Pillar of Defense, Rocket attack on Israel

Confused About Where the Middle East is Heading? I don’t blame you!

I don’t blame regular hardworking citizens in the US and Europe for being confused and frustrated about what is going on in the Middle East. In preparation for a small talk about the Middle East this week in Switzerland, I sat down and searched the news for a pattern, or some kind of red thread that could provide me with that Zen-like power to explain what is really going on in the Middle East and why Europeans should care. Not surprisingly, my quest was unsuccessful. For the long list of seemingly random and contradictory events that took place over the weekend in various parts of the Middle East, please go to my blog on the Times of Israel.

This picture called the “Middle East confusion map,”  is a very good rendition of current events that I came up with (I am sorry I cannot find the name of the artist):

Artist unknown

To say that we understand what is going on in the Middle East is one thing. But to claim that we alone have the power to discern right from wrong, good from evil, or perhaps more accurately, evil from evil, is quite another. Anyone who does so without pragmatism is, in my opinion, 100% wrong. But then again, can you really blame people who grow up in an environment where you are either right or dead?

However, looking at this list of findings, it needs to be pointed out that most of the news items describe stories that involve human lives and reflect the yearning of individuals to live free from oppression and tyranny.  They are about the human desire to live in peace without rockets or sectarian violence, without dictators or foreign occupiers, and without the fear of religious persecution. What is missing in the Middle East is the realization that these desires cannot be mutually exclusive, or else the violence will surely continue.

Filed under: Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Religion and Politics, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Syrian conflict, Warfare and Conflict

ISRAELI PERSPECTIVES ON THE ARAB UPRISINGS

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak during visit to Iron Dome defense system launch site in August 2012/REUTERS/Mark Wilson/Pool

The reaction to the Arab revolts that began in 2011 was more skeptical in Israel than in other countries. This is because most Jewish Israelis agree that the net effect of the fundamental changes in the Arab world will be negative for Israel’s security. What Israelis do not agree about, however, is how the country should best respond to these changes. While there are those who argue that Israel should engage with its neighborhood in order to lessen its toxic image in the Arab world, many Israelis take the more hawkish view that the country should retreat and focus on enhancing its military capacity to counter future threats.

Although equipped with one of the most sophisticated intelligence gathering appa­ratuses in the world, Israel was just as sur­prised as the rest of the world when the Arab Spring erupted in February 2011. How­ever, while most countries reacted with guarded hope and anticipation, Israel’s re­action was one of deep skepticism, laced with a certain fear and trepidation.

In one of his first public announcements in response to the Egyptian revolution, Is­raeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned that the Arab revolutions may turn out to mirror that of Iran in 1979, in other words, the end result would most likely be Islamic, radical, anti-Western, and, most importantly, anti-Israel. In a major attempt to spread understanding about Israel’s dilemma, Netanyahu called to­gether his ambassadors to Western coun­tries and instructed them to emphasize the importance of the stability of the existing Arab regimes. In November 2011, in a “told-you-so” manner, he reminded the Israeli Knesset and the world that his warnings and predictions had indeed been fulfilled. The Arab transitions were neither democratic nor peaceful, and increasingly hostile to the West in general and Israel in particular. The Arab Spring, he said, had be­come an Arab Winter.

While it is clear that Netanyahu represents a side of Israeli politics that has been es­pecially skeptical towards the changes in the Middle East, early public opinion polls showed that a majority of Jewish Israelis shared this perspective. And indeed, it is hard to deny that Israel is now less secure in its neighborhood than before. How­ever, while most Israelis agree that the upheaval in the Middle East has had real negative security consequences for Israel, the understanding of those consequences and what should be done about them var­ies between two approaches that can be described as two schools of thought: the threat-dominated perspective and the op­portunities perspective.

Although most Israelis agree that the Arab revolts have far-reaching consequences for Israel’s security, the understanding of those consequences and what should be done about them vary roughly along the Israeli left-right political spectrum. Those on the right, heavily represented in the current political establishment, focus al­most exclusively on the “threat” coming from the rise in uncertainty in the region, and prescribe increased Israeli isolation and preparedness as a response. Those on the left, more commonly found in academ­ic and intellectual circles, acknowledge the threats, but focus more on the opportuni­ties that are brought by the change, and thus recommend engagement with the emerging regimes in order to increase Isra­el’s chances that the new Middle East will be a friendlier place.

The main areas of concern described in the full analysis are outlined on the map below:

Major Israeli neighbourhood concerns

For the full analysis of these two approaches and their policy implications, the full document can be downloaded from the website of the Center for Security Studies in Zurich, by clicking the thumbnail:

Filed under: Concepts and theories applied, International Relations and Security, Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Arab Spring, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Middle East, Netanyahu

It’s the Balance of Power Stupid!

Israel may be afraid that Iran is acquiring a nuclear bomb, but what its leadership is even more afraid of is the changing Balance of Power in the Middle East.

When the Middle East erupted into chaos in the Spring of 2011, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu warned the world to curb its enthusiasm, predicting that the Arab revolutions would most likely turn out to mirror the one in Iran in 1979, in other words, the end result would be Islamic, anti-Western and most importantly, anti-Israel. Since that time, Netanyahu continues to remind the world that he was right and that his warnings have been fulfilled. The Arab transitions, he claims, are neither democratic nor peaceful and the Arab spring has turned into an “Arab winter.” While the recent anti-Western violence across the Arab and Muslim world may have partially confirmed Netanyahu’s gravest predictions, it is far from clear what kind of long-run impact the possible failure of Arab democracies would have on the region in general, and on Israel in particular.

I would like to argue that neither the rogue violence coming from the Arab world, nor Iran’s possible acquiring of nuclear weapons present much of a threat to Israel’s ability to defend itself.  Even if Israel has a lot to lose if Islamic regimes that are openly hostile to Israel continue replace the “stable” dictators, what really threatens Israel’s long-term security is the changing balance of power in the region and the possible decline of U.S. power. Such a decline and subsequent retreat would reduce Israel’s maneuverability and hurt its ability to project a credible deterrence capacity in its neighborhood. Much of Israel’s foreign policy at the moment could in fact be explained by a desperate attempt to halt or even reverse such a U.S.  decline.

To read the entire article please go to the Times of Israel

U.S. interests in the Middle East (Map by Laura Canali/Eurasian Review of Geopolitics)

Related articles

• Gates: No blank check from US to Israel on Iran - (jpost.com)
• Iran’s president slams ‘Bibi’s bomb’ (nzherald.co.nz)
• Jordan’s King Dissolved Parliament (NYTimes)
• Wiping Palestinians Off the Agenda (Open Zion/The Daily Beast)
• Netanyahu Aligns With Obama on Iran (The Middle East Channel/Foreign Policy Magazine)
• Israel versus America versus Iran (Shlomo Ben Ami/Al-Jazeera)

Filed under: Concepts and theories applied, International Relations and Security, Middle East, Peace and Conflict, Uncategorized, Arab Spring, Balance of Power, Israel, Israel's Image, Israel's Iran policy, Israel's security dilemma, Israel-Iran, Israel-US relations, Middle East, Middle East Violence, US Middle East policy