Even as the European and U.S. economies slid over the past few years, Israel’s financial footing remained fairly stable. In fact, last year protests erupted to lower housing prices in the Gush Dan area, even though prices reflected demand for Tel Aviv residencies.

Today’s paper includes two more items that reflect positive growth in the Israeli economy:

• Israeli-made chocolate bars are more affordable in the United States than in Israel; and
• A new report indicates that the Israeli market “‘produced better risk-adjusted returns than all other developed stock markets in the past decade”

Those two items — on the micro and macro levels — suggest the thriving economy continues and has no indications for an about face.

Does all this positive financial news and historical resilience and ingenuity really make Israel a safe economic bet, though?

Absolutely not, for two major reasons.

On the political level, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has faced mounting criticism for his handling of the economy, with many Israelis desiring a more populist leader that can increase wages and decrease the costs of consumer goods.

A large portion of the Israeli population has not benefited from the upswing in the Israeli economy, leaving them saddled by higher out-of-pocket costs but little increased revenues.

Further, the improved economy might reflect increased foreign investment in Israel, which contributes to the paradigm of local Israelis lacking spending power in the country’s main metropolises of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Similarly, frustration from local Israelis has mounted over the years, as foreign investors purchase apartments in these hubs for use during holidays, creating miniature ghost towns within certain neighborhoods for most of the year.

This external investment has inflated prices outside the comfortable spending limit of average Israelis and leading to the protests on housing costs and  other commodities, thus creating volatility.

Secondly, the security situation in Israel could change overnight, sending the economy into the gutters.

The, for now, rhetoric-war between Israel and Iran has not impacted the Israeli economy, but actual hostilities would assuredly drop housing costs in the major hubs, spike oil prices, and potentially increase costs for goods purchased from others in the region — notably Turkey.

Even increased utilization of Iran proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to launch assaults could devastate the Israeli economy in the north and south, not to mention drastically reduce tourism.

The detrimental impact of hostilities on the Israeli economy has been demonstrated within the last decade, such as during the intifada and the Second Lebanon War. Even after Operation Cast Lead, tensions with Turkey increased and threatened the trade partnership between the two countries.

All that said, though, the Israeli economy has faced tough economic, security and political times in the past and has always been resurrected to shine even brighter.

The tenacity, ingenuity and intellect of Israelis is sure to keep the country’s economy strong long into the future, but recent short-term economic gains could be easily wiped by the exceptionally volatile nature of the country and its predicaments.

As we mourn Anthony’s loss, we hope his legacy will remain a great source of inspiration for all those who aspire to write and report on that complex place called Middle East. We invite you all to visit Anthony’s personal website to explore more about his great works and fabulous journey in journalism: http://anthonyshadid.com

God bless Anthony’s soul.

Reza Akhlaghi

In this episode of Understanding Israel, Israeli Major (res.) and political and military analyst Elliot Chodoff joins me for a conversation about what one can expect from the most recent unity government attempt and what it means to Israel.

Over the last month and a half Israel has found itself in an emerging cyber war with individuals from its neighboring countries.  In this video, I speak with Jerusalem Post reporter Yaakov Lappin about the cyber war’s ramifications, how it might develop in the future, and how Israel is dealing with this increasingly prevalent threat.

If you have any questions or feel you have something to contribute to this conversation either post on the site or email me directly at rob.s.lattin@gmail.com.

Credit: Newsweek/The Daily Beast

There is currently a bill before the Knesset that seeks to offer financial assistance to Haredi youth leaving the ultra-Orthodox world. The proposed law would offer them the same sort of assistance that is currently offered to new immigrants. These benefits can cover everything from tax breaks on homes and cars to tuition remission for University and even a monthly living stipend.

While the bill has not yet passed, it is an interesting commentary on just how far removed Israel has allowed the Haredi community to get from its mainstream community. A star pupil in the Haredi community, should he choose to leave the fold and attempt to study in the secular world, is guaranteed hardships that most mediocre student from the secular world will not face. Primarily amongst these is that the Haredi education, which applies a high importance to studying Torah and Talmud, does not prepare its students for a secular Israeli University.

Haaretz reports that one such student, who has abandoned the Haredi world and is now striving to attend Tel Aviv University’s Law School, first has to qualify for a high school diploma. Their story is not about a lazy boy who could not be bothered to attend classes in the religious world and found an easier way in the secular world. Before leaving his religious community, he was studying at a “prestigious” Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.

There is much talk about how removed the ultra-Orthodox in Israel have become from mainstream Israeli society. Many do not work, very few serve in the military. They are subsidized by the state, both for their studies and their way of life (remember those segregated busses 222 everyone was talking about a few months ago? Those are heavily subsidized by the government). But how far has Israel allowed this community to deviate that to graduate with a religious secondary school education does not make one eligible to even apply to an Israeli University?

At one point in my life, I lived in a small desert town in Southern Israel. While there, I volunteered at a Democratic School. The notion is a strange one, but it is akin to a Montessori School. The students have an equal say to the teachers, and the teachers an equal say to the principal. There were no daily, or semesterly, requirements. If students wanted to spend all day in the sandbox, the art room, or the fully equipped music room, that was their decision to make. They chose when they were ready to learn to read, to do basic math, to learn a foreign language and so on. Needless to say, it was an interesting place to spend some time.

Despite very impressive test results that seem to imply that this outside-the-box education was working more than okay, the school had many problems with the state. The state was uncomfortable with their model. Coming up with issues that the state might have had with such a model would not be difficult. But it is suffice to say that this educational experiment was always under a watchful eye.

This was a school of maybe a hundred children. So the question is, how is Israel not keeping a watchful eye on the schooling the children of a population that makes up such a large number of Israelis? Estimates put the Haredi population in Israel as low one-in-ten and as high as one-in-six. And it must be remembered that this number is their population as a whole. Due to their high birth rates, when broken down by age group, the Haredi make up an even larger sizable proportion to secular children currently studying in an Israeli primary or secondary school. It is reported that as few as 40% of these Haredi schools are even teaching English or math. Israel is currently a leader in the world of hi-tech and innovation. But what kind of society will Israel be in 20 years, if such a large proportion of its population cannot even demand correct change at the market, much less learn how to work a computer?

Israel has a say in the education of the small Democratic School in the south of Israel. They have a say in the education of the Russian and Ethiopian communities of Israel. They have a say in the education of the Israeli Arab community in Israel. For the sake of the ultra-Orthodox, Israel must also have a say in the education of their community. Anything less is a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of children currently trusting their parents, their community and their state, to prepare them for life in the 21st century.

Follow me on twitter @jlemonsk

By comparison, this sounds very similar to what was transpiring with Golda Meir and her policy towards the Arab states in the lead up to the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  Golda felt very empowered and believed that her Arab counterparts wouldn’t dare strike against Israel given the outcome of the 1967 War.  She made comments about wanting to make peace but found reasons to evade it.   Like Bibi, she used Israeli security and strength as an excuse to not engage her enemies.  Like Bibi, she downplayed American pressures to make peace.  So what happened in the end?  She ignored the signs of an impending war and over 2,000 Israeli’s lost their lives.

For the sake of Israel, Bibi (left) needs to have more foresight than the late Golda Meir (right). If not, than Israeli society should vote him out of office in the next election.

It is also worth noting that like Bibi, Meir continually turned a blind eye and found meandering excuses for settlement construction, legal and illegal.

To return to the topic at hand, some believe peace with Egypt would not have been possible without the Yom Kippur War.  However, that suggests that it took a war to get Israeli leadership out of the clouds.  Had Golda and her advisors been more balanced and flexible, they may have accomplished the peace accord without the bloodshed.

There is of course no one definitive answer on how to make peace with the Palestinians; and not everything is within Israel’s, or Bibi’s, control (Hamas).  That does not change the fact, though, that he has proven unwilling to make the tough decisions needed to make progress with the Palestinians.  Bibi, and Israeli society, should reflect on the 1973 Yom Kippur War and take heed in the words of Spanish born poet and philosopher George Santayana, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

In U.S. politics, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich gave a stunning rebuke to CNN anchor John King during the South Carolina Republican debate last night, drawing applause and a standing ovation from the largely conservative crowd.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu might have done the Israeli equivalent, as news reports suggest that he pegged the New York Times and left-leaning Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz  as Israel’s two greatest threats. (While Netanyahu’s alleged comments have been denied, the anti-media rhetoric is most certainly real, as has been demonstrated by a letter from the Prime Minister’s Office declining an invitation to submit an op-ed to the New York Times last year.)

That’s right. Israel, a country surrounded by enemies that want nothing more than to push its citizens into the sea, is scared of “left-wing” journalists. Israel, a nation who’s only regional friends — such as Egypt and Turkey — are quickly turning their backs on it, is terrified of editorial writers. Israelis, a people who have overcome adversity and built a thriving, democratic and Western country in less than a hundred years, is trembling at the thought of a mustached columnist.

The contention that the press and the influence of the media over populations are Israel’s biggest threats is patronizing to Israelis, diminishes the country’s successes, and understates the very real challenge of ensuring bombs don’t rattle Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the Galil and the Negev at any second.

The New York Times is clearly the “paper of record,” but it has a challenge to overcome its alleged left-wing bias to garner credibility. While Ha’aretz  only captures approximately 6 percent of the Israeli audience, it has a far wider international reach and credibility. The paper is distributed along with the International Herald Tribune, which is, effectively, the international New York Times. Further, Ha’aretz visually looks similar to many credible U.S. papers — like the Washington Post and New York Times – and unlike it’s main competitors Yediot Achronot and Ma’ariv, which both have extensive pictures, graphics and more New York Daily News-type feels.

Ha’aretz and the New York Times clearly have in-roads with the U.S. and international communities and influence public policy, which can impact aid to Israel, pressure on the Arab world, and the prospects of interventions preventing the development of an Iranian nuclear warhead. Therefore, the true threat of these publications are their impact on public officials, which could lead to major changes in Israel-related policies.

However, the allegiance between Israel and its closest friend, the United States, is still rock-solid, where U.S. policymakers have overwhelmingly expressed their support for a safe and secure Israel. Both the New York Times and Ha’aretz have been in business for quite some time and been unable to derail that relationship.

Israelis for decades have been forging that strong bond, which is based on shared values and mutual interests. To suggest that all that hard work can be unraveled by editorial bias discounts the long-standing relationship and mutual concerns, effectively characterizing the two countries’ bond as superficial — which it most certainly is not.

Further, Israelis transformed what was once largely swamp and desert into a thriving economic and military powerhouse that has maintained freedoms and democracy. That achievement, forged from the sweat of the first kibbutz worker to the blood of today’s most recent army draftee, will not be decimated by a few choice journalistic words or the influence of a snarky columnist. Israelis’ perseverance will continue defeating all odds, even if so-called liberal publications sway opinion.

Lastly, the perception of fear from these publications largely undercuts arguments that Iran, terrorists, and Muslim extremists are very tangible threats that could cause the deaths of hundred or thousands of Israelis. From extremists in Egypt transforming a former Israeli ally into a threat to the prospects of a nuclear Middle East to rockets from terrorists on Israel’s borders, the country faces substantial security challenges. Solutions to those problems, whether military or economic, would benefit from policymakers’ accurate understanding of these threats, which are far more dangerous than a bad pun or a critical headline.

The declaration of the “liberal” media being more threatening merely diminishes the correct assertions that these very real dangers could jeopardize Israel’s security at any minute.

Elected officials’ obsession with attacking the so-called liberal media merely skirts the real issues of today, and threatens to downplay the most serious threats facing their country.  Netanyahu has thus far been a champion building international understanding of the true threat Iran and Muslim extremists face to Israel and the world at-large.  He should maintain that path and not let political kowtowing unravel his year’s of effective advocacy on behalf of Israel.

Hamas is gaining popularity in Gaza and the West Bank, at the expense of Fatah and the Peace Process. (Image: vkb.isvg.org)

While neither party may be part of the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian solution, a Hamas victory in the West Bank would put an end to the peace formula altogether.  Fatah is the only reasonable political party that Israel can negotiate a peace treaty with.  As a result, Israel must do all it can to restore the reputation of Fatah and help it win back the hearts and minds of its constituency.  Dennis Ross, a known supporter of Israel and the former special assistant to President Obama, provides some valuable and constructive insight on how Israel can do this in his most recent piece for the Washington Post:

The following was written on January 6, 2012 by Dennis Ross, the former special assistant to President Barak Obama, for the Washington Post:

Dan Meridor, one of Israel’s four deputy prime ministers, said to me years ago that “the peace process is like riding a bicycle: When you stop pedaling, you fall off.” And currently, the Israelis and Palestinians have stopped pedaling.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is convinced that this Israeli government cannot make a peace deal — or at least one he can live with — so he imposes conditions on negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees these conditions as harsh and unprecedented, and doesn’t want to pay a steep political price just to enter talks.

The Obama administration and the other members of the Quartet — the Middle East mediating group that also includes envoys from the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — want to resume direct talks and this past week held a preparatory meeting with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Amman, Jordan. There may be more such meetings, and that is good, because ultimately there will be no peace without negotiations.

But there should also be no illusions about the prospects of a breakthrough any time soon. The psychological gaps between the parties make it hard to resolve their differences and have bedeviled all the work for peace talks over the past few years.

I have been intimately involved in peacemaking efforts over the past 20 years under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama, and I know that Abbas and Netanyahu carry the weight of their peoples’ history and mythology, and face enormous political constraints. But those difficulties cannot be a reason to despair and accept a stalemate, particularly when those who reject peace will exploit any impasse to challenge the very idea of a two-state outcome.

While there may be no early breakthrough on holding negotiations, it is possible to overcome the stalemate. One way to do so — and to validate those Palestinian leaders, such as Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who believe in nonviolence and coexistence — is for the Israelis to change the realities on the ground. After all, these Palestinian leaders need to be able to show that their approach is producing a process that will, in time, end the occupation.

What could demonstrate to the Palestinians that the occupation is receding? Examples are not hard to come by. Since the interim agreement of the Oslo process was finalized in 1995, the West Bank has been divided into non-contiguous areas known as A, B and C — with the Palestinians having putative control in Area A and Israel retaining overall responsibility in the two other areas. From the fall of 1995 to the spring of 2002, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) largely stayed out of Area A, which constitutes about 18 percent of the territory and includes all the major cities in the West Bank. According to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians are to have civil and security responsibility in this area.

But in 2002, at the height of the second intifada and the horrendous suicide bombings that Palestinians were executing in Israel, the IDF began operating in Area A again to try to stop the attacks. Though the intifada ended in 2005 and Palestinian security forces have been generally effective in preventing terror attacks, the IDF still carries out periodic incursions into Palestinian cities to reinforce local security efforts. This grates on Palestinians, reminding them who remains in control.

So, one meaningful step would be either to stop all such incursions in Area A or, if there are continuing security concerns, to phase them out based on the security situation. Gabi Ashkenazi, former chief of staff of the IDF, has consistently said that “as the Palestinians do more on security, we will do less.” A gradual ending of incursions in Area A would certainly be consistent with that axiom.

In Area B, about 22 percent of the West Bank, Palestinian police maintain law and order but are not permitted to deal with terrorist threats. Israel could allow their presence to grow. From my discussions with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, I know that he is open to increasing the number of Palestinian police stations and broadening the areas where Palestinian security personnel operate. Now would be a good time to take these steps, as any such expansion would certainly be noticed, and welcomed, by the Palestinian public.

Finally, in Area C, which is about 60 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians’ security and police forces have no access, their economic activity is extremely limited, and Israel retains civil and security responsibilities. There is no practical reason that the Palestinians cannot be permitted dramatically more economic access and activity in this area.

To give one example, there are Palestinian stone masonry factories in Area A, but Palestinians have limited access to the rock quarries in the West Bank, which are in Area C. In a case brought against Israeli ownership of the rock quarries, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled late last month that no additional quarries should be Israeli-owned. That ruling creates an opening for private Palestinian ownership, should any new quarries be established — and there clearly is room for more.

Expanding the Palestinians’ economic opportunities in Area C would do wonders for job creation and the overall Palestinian economy. (In the West Bank, unemployment has come down in recent years but remains at about 16 percent.)

These steps should be feasible from an Israeli standpoint. First, these or similar changes could be implemented without altering the territory’ s political status and could be done in a way that would not put Israeli security at risk, particularly if coordinated closely with the IDF.

Second, Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he does not want to rule over Palestinians and that the stronger their economic base, the better the prospects for peace. These steps would certainly demonstrate that the prime minister means what he says. At the same time, they would signal to Palestinians that independence is possible and that the approach from Abbas and Fayyad — not Hamas resistance or violence — can produce it.

I’m not suggesting to forgo negotiations and their focus on a two-state solution. Talks need to be pursued, and the Obama administration is rightly doing so. The administration is also continuing to assist with institution-building by providing material support for the security, judicial and other sectors of Palestinian society — steps that fit neatly with the kind of actions I am proposing to validate leaders such as Fayyad. At this point, validation of nonviolence will come less from words and more from demonstrations that the occupation is shrinking and will, eventually, end.

The rest of the Middle East is churning, with dictators being toppled and protesters still in the streets a year into the Arab Awakening. Since the demand for free and fair elections has become a symbol of credibility in the uprisings, the pressure on both Fatah and Hamas to hold elections this year is likely to become irresistible. For the past few years, Abbas has said that he would not be a candidate in new elections, but now he is saying he would like those elections to take place in May and plans to depart the political scene afterward. Even if it will not be simple to reach an agreement with Hamas on the terms of elections, Abbas will feel the need to hold them sometime in 2012.

These elections are likely to shape the Palestinians’ identity and whether they continue to accept nonviolence, peaceful coexistence with Israelis and a two-state solution. If there are clear signs that the occupation is diminishing, the positions of Palestinians such as Abbas, Fayyad and their followers who believe in nonviolence will be validated before the elections. This is essential because the alternative is Hamas, which rejects nonviolence and peace with Israel.

In the recent deal with the Israeli government to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, which gained the release of more than 1,000 prisoners, Hamas was seen as delivering political gain through an act of violence. By comparison, Abbas and Fayyad are not seen as delivering on the issues that matter to the Palestinian public, such as prisoner releases, Israeli withdrawal or a reduction of Israeli control.

For Palestinians, at least, this validation would also shrink the psychological gap between them and the Israelis, inspiring hope that negotiations could actually lead somewhere. It might, thus, also offer the best way to unstick the negotiating track. Even more important, with the changes sweeping the region and a political transition looming for the Palestinians, such a validation may be the only way to preserve support among the Palestinian and Arab publics for a two-state solution.

Dennis Ross, counselor at the Washington Institute, served as a special assistant to President Obama and a senior director on the National Security Council staff from July 2009 to December 2011.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Credit: Reuters

In his NYT op-ed today entitled ‘Don’t Do It, Bibi,’ Roger Cohen issued another stern warning to his favorite target, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In his piece, he warns about the grave repercussions if Israel were to attack Iran without political support from the United States.

This article is the latest installment in Cohen’s crusade against Netanyahu and the Likud-led governing coalition in Israel. Cohen solemnly recites all the ways in which Netanyahu has mistreated President Obama before he settles down and proceeds with his analysis of Iran’s nuclear threat.

Cohen argues that Netanyahu has stalled in his negotiations with the Palestinians because he foresees a rabidly pro-Israel Republican nominee beating Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. Yet in the next paragraph Cohen contends that Netanyahu is sorely tempted to bomb Iran before the elections because he and his advisors increasingly believe Obama can win in November.

Now, almost everybody following the Middle East understands that Netanyahu is a savvy politician who is not oblivious to American election cycles. Perhaps even more than most politicians, Netanyahu may be better characterized as “cynical” than “shrewd” in formulating his political agenda. And it may be true that Netanyahu indeed forecasts a Republican victory in 2012, but wants to hedge his bets by bombing Iran’s nuclear reactors while Obama courts the Jewish vote in the swing state of Florida.

However, Cohen makes the same mistakes in this article that he has consistently made throughout his analysis of the Iranian threat.

First, he implies that any attack by Israel would be a massive bombing campaign that would instantly and irreversibly unite all of Iran’s people under their oppressive regime and against the West. For starters, any aerial attack would be limited to the nuclear reactor sites and would probably result in few civilian casualties. With the possible tacit support of the US, in the last few years Israel has already attacked Iran’s nuclear program with a computer virus, assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, and sabotaged missile bases in Iran that resulted in dozens of Iranian deaths. Meanwhile, less than three years ago Iran’s regime was strongly challenged by its populace. While the theocratic government may have suppressed the mass protests in 2009, there is still a strong anti-regime sentiment among Iranians. Moreover, the “regime” itself is an uneasy coalition between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that is showing highly visible signs of strain. I’m not sure how Cohen can absorb these facts and compute that an attack by Israel “locks in the Iranian Republic for a generation.”

Second (and he is not alone in this truly bizarre line of argumentation), he reckons that Israel’s security is threatened more by the status of the occupied territories than by Iran. I fully agree that Israel must keep striving to find a way to ensure that Palestinians have a fully functioning state. While the on and off again courtship between Hamas and Fatah certainly complicates matters, it is also reasonable to argue that the Netanyahu administration has shown a distinct lack of urgency in its approach toward negotiations with the Palestinians. I am also gravely aware of the risks that any aerial attack by Israel on Iranian reactor sites would entail (although per above I disagree with Cohen about their nature.) However, I struggle to comprehend how the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire, which is grinding toward its 45th year of existence, can be compared to the existential threat posed by the nuclear program of a country whose stated intention is to destroy Israel.

The following piece was originally published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The author, Jonathan D. Halevi, is a senior researcher of the Middle East and Radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs headed by former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Dr. Dore Gold. Mr. Halevi is also director of research for the Orient Research Group Ltd., a strategic and private information services company. 

The prevailing optimism in media reports concerning the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist party’s readiness to adhere to the peace treaty with Israel is based on general statements made by senior officials in both parties. These statements maintain that Egypt must honor the international treaties that it signed.

Yet a more rigorous examination of the two parties’ stances identifies a markedly different tendency. Both seek a way to cast off the Camp David agreement in a manner that will incur minimal diplomatic and economic damage to Egypt, and restore Egypt to its leading role in the circle of states confronting Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has set a number of criteria for examining international agreements, including the Camp David agreement: the considerations of Islamic canon law (Sharia), the position of the Egyptian people, and the degree of Israel’s compliance with the agreement from Egypt’s perspective.
The strategic objective of the Egyptian Islamic movements is to transform Egypt into a prime regional force that will lead the diplomatic and military battle against Israel. This means re-examining the Camp David agreement and submitting it to the decision of the new parliament that will be controlled by the Islamic parties or to a referendum – thereby alleviating the responsibility of any future Egyptian government for cancelling the peace treaty. These developments can be averted if the U.S. and its allies take a firm position against any initiative to undermine the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt, and all echelons of the Egyptian establishment are made to understand the implications of any such action.

The revolution in Egypt, followed by elections to the parliament, has elevated the Islamic parties to a position of power as they enjoy an absolute parliamentary majority after the two initial stages of the parliamentary elections. The Muslim Brotherhood movement’s Freedom and Justice party won 49 percent of the total seats that it contested (73 out of 150) in the first stage of the elections and the Salafist al-Nur party won about 20 percent of the seats (30 seats). In the second stage of the elections the Muslim Brotherhood won about 40 percent of the votes and al-Nur about 35 percent. The final stage of the elections will take place in January 2012. However, we can already form the distinct impression that the Egyptian parliament will be controlled by the absolute majority retained by these two extreme Islamic parties.

In recent journalistic reports we repeatedly hear the claim that the Freedom and Justice party and the al-Nur party will continue to honor the Camp David peace agreement with Israel after the new regime has been consolidated under their leadership. These reports are essentially based on general statements made by senior officials in both parties to the effect that Egypt must honor the international agreements that it signed. However, a rigorous examination of the two parties’ stances indicates a totally different tendency: namely, the two parties seek to cast off the Camp David accords in a manner that will cause Egypt the minimal possible diplomatic and economic damage.

The issue of Egyptian adherence to the Camp David agreement was brought up during discussions that Senator John Kerry conducted together with the American Ambassador to Cairo, Anne Patterson, with leaders of the Freedom and Justice party on December 10, 2011. Dr. Mohammed Morsi, the party chairman, referred to the issue in general terms. A report on the meeting by the official website of the Muslim Brotherhood stated:

Morsi noted that Egypt is a large country with a deep-rooted history that fulfills an important role in the Arab, Islamic and international arenas and therefore it honors the agreements and contracts which it has signed. He demanded that the American administration listen directly to the people rather than listen to what is said about them, while emphasizing that the United States could play a role in facilitating economic stability and prosperity for all peoples should it choose to do so.1

New Egyptian Conditions

The Muslim Brotherhood set a number of criteria for examining international agreements, including the Camp David agreement. First, there is Islamic canon law (Sharia); second, one must take into account the Egyptian people’s position which Morsi mentioned in his talk with Senator Kerry; and third, one must weigh the degree of compliance by the other party to any agreement that was signed with Egypt.

The platform of the Freedom and Justice party determines that it will honor international human rights agreements, provided that they do not contradict the Islamic Sharia. Regarding the peace agreement with Israel, the platform states that agreements between countries must be acceptable to the people and conform to the principles of justice and the interests of the parties. Respect for these agreements is conditional upon an obligation by the parties to fulfill them in full, as is the norm in international relations. “Therefore, the party considers it obligatory to reappraise many of the agreements that were signed in various fields by the old regime.”2

Calls to Re-examine the Treaty with Israel

Senior leaders of the Freedom and Justice party have on numerous occasions in recent months favored amending or abrogating the Camp David accords and severing diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. On August 25, 2011, party chairman Dr. Mohammed Morsi demanded a re-examination of the Camp David agreement, and contended that Israel’s “attack” on an Egyptian army border position (that was in response to terrorist fire at the IDF from this position) exemplified Israel’s systematic violation of the agreement.3

Dr. Ahmed Abu Baraka, the Freedom and Justice party’s legal advisor and a senior leader of the party, said on August 28 that it was necessary to re-examine all the clauses of the Camp David agreement to see whether its abrogation was mandated. He emphasized the importance of deploying Egyptian army forces in the Sinai, equipped with heavy and advanced weaponry, in order to deter Israel.4

Dr. Mohammed Gamal Hismat, a senior leader of the Freedom and Justice party and a former parliament member, proposed on August 24 to establish a legal committee that would examine the Camp David agreement in light of Israel’s “continued violation” of the agreement.5

Dr. Essam El-Arian, the deputy leader of the Freedom and Justice party, on August 23 minimized the importance of American threats to terminate assistance to Egypt if it were to disown the Camp David agreement, and contended that Israel was violating the agreement “in a blatant fashion.”6

Dr. Hamdy Ismail, the party secretary in the Ismailiya district, explained on October 31 that the issue of the Camp David agreement directly affected the Egyptian citizenry, and therefore raised a proposal within the party to submit the decision on the issue to a referendum.7

Dr. Ahmed Rami, a senior Freedom and Justice party leader in the Qalyubiya district, called on August 27 for a re-examination of the Camp David agreement, noting that the revolution in Egypt marked the outset of a journey to liberate Jerusalem in view of the fact that the “Zionist entity is near collapse.”8

These positions received additional validation from the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr. Mohammed Badie, who in his weekly letters to movement activists elaborates his doctrine and positions with regard to the United States and Israel following the revolutions in Egypt and the Arab world. Badie terms the Camp David accord “a surrender” agreement and he presents a list of demands on this issue. In his letter of May 5, 2011, Badie wrote:

We vociferously call for the termination of normalization, that provided our enemy [Israel] with stability, putting an end to securing the Zionist borders and the killing of infiltrators into the enemy’s [territory], the abrogation of the issues of economic interests such as the QIZ,9 a [halt] to gas exports that wrought damage to our national security, urgent action to complete the opening of the Rafah crossing on a permanent basis and a re-examination of the Camp David agreement so it can be presented to the National Assembly elected in free elections, thus allowing it to have its say after it was denied this for years.10

Badie defines Israel and the United States as Egypt’s principal adversaries. In his weekly letter of October 6, 2011, he reaches the clear conclusion that “our main enemy is the Zionist-American plan, which aspires to take over the entire region in order to establish Greater Israel and the New Middle East.”11

Badie does not mention any option for cooperation with Israel or the United States, but, on the contrary, in his evaluation these two countries, that represent the most dangerous threat to Egypt, are currently in a state of historic decline:

The global forces, the Zionists and Americans, are absorbing a succession of debacles and defeats, commencing with Israel’s isolation and loss of its regional supporters, and the American failures in the military realm (in Iraq and Afghanistan), and in the economic arena that threaten the collapse of the capitalist regime as a result of failed policy and the huge expenses and wars prosecuted under the pretext of liquidating what they call terror. They’ve forfeited their credibility among peoples and now they’ve lost their financial sources, and we do not rule out the possibility that their fate will approximate the Soviet Union’s fate….At the same time the blessed revolutions of the Arab Spring presage a total change in the Arab national map.12

The irrelevance of the Camp David agreement finds expression in the Muslim Brotherhood movement’s overt aspiration to bring about the “liberation” of the entire territory of “Palestine,” a concept that dovetails with its Islamic ideological platform, and which finds expression in the current optimistic assessment by the Muslim Brotherhood leader on the prospects for realizing this vision in practice. In his weekly letter of June 9, 2011, Badie writes:

Victory is near with the help of Allah, it is definite and there can be no doubt about it. The restoration of Palestine, al Quds [Jerusalem], the Golan, and all the lands that Israel conquered is no longer feverish imagination, but a hope that will soon be realized after the [Arab] nations have revolted….The era of “Israeli” superiority has ended and “Israel” has begun to doubt its continuity and survival.13

The official position of the Salafist al-Nur party resembles that of the Muslim Brotherhood. Dr. Emad Abdel Ghafour, the party leader, says:

It is obligatory to honor the agreements to which Egypt is affiliated, and we demand that they be met. There are many passages in the peace agreement that were not implemented [by Israel], such as a solution to the Palestinian problem, the right of self-determination [for the Palestinian people], and the autonomy of a Palestinian state on Palestinian soil. There are many issues that must be implemented so that the Palestinian people will sense that it has benefited from the peace process….The peace agreement of Camp David requires a re-examination.14

Dr. Yousry Hamad, the spokesperson for the al-Nur party, explained that the party’s position on the Camp David agreement would be adopted on the basis of Sharia,15 and vigorously denied journalistic reports that the party was ostensibly prepared to maintain contacts with the Israeli ambassador in Cairo.16

Unfounded Optimism

The optimism regarding a radical change in the positions of these extreme Egyptian Islamic movements regarding Israel grasps at the straws of general statements that do not attest to an ideological reversal, but convey the tactics for obtaining the strategic objective: casting off the Camp David agreement and transforming Egypt into a prime regional force that will lead the diplomatic and military battle against Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the al-Nur party, is seeking a convenient exit point from the Camp David agreement, due to an awareness of the implications of violating a binding diplomatic treaty under international law and the immediate damage that the Egyptian economy is likely to absorb as a direct result of an initiated abrogation of the Camp David accords.

Egypt receives $1.3 billion annually in U.S. military assistance, while in 2010 American economic assistance totaled $250 million. The Egyptian army’s main strength is predicated on American weapons systems including F-16 and F 14 aircraft, Apache helicopters, M1A1 and M60A3 tanks, surface-to-air missiles, spy planes, and more. In the framework of bilateral military cooperation, the armies of the two countries customarily conduct joint training and maneuvers.

How to Nullify the Peace Treaty

Yet the die has been cast and the strategic choice has already been made. The only question on the agenda is how to implement this decision at a minimal diplomatic and economic cost. We can infer from comments by senior Muslim Brotherhood members that they are interested in playing the “democratic game” to the hilt on this issue as well. This means re-examining the Camp David agreement and submitting it to the decision of the new parliament that will be controlled by the Islamic parties or to a referendum – thereby alleviating the responsibility of any future Egyptian government for cancelling the peace treaty. The immediate pretext will be Israel’s noncompliance with clauses in the agreement, in order to attribute to Israel the blame for the treaty’s abrogation.

It would appear that the Muslim Brotherhood’s appraisal is that following their seizure of power and additional achievements of the Arab Spring, the U.S. will be compelled to accept the new reality, just as it has made peace with the situation up to now. American leaders have even reiterated their praise for the democratic process, although this process has elevated the radical Islamic forces to new positions of power. These forces aspire to drain democracy of content and gradually (the Muslim Brotherhood strategy) or immediately (the al-Nur party approach) implement Islamic religious law.

From Israel’s standpoint, the revolution in Egypt and its translation at the ballot box into the Islamic Revolution carries the serious potential for transforming Egypt in the foreseeable future into an enemy and restoring it to the circle of confrontation states. Israel is doing its utmost to preserve the Camp David agreement even for appearances sake. However, developments in Egypt will inevitably lead to the creation of a serious security challenge on Israel’s southern border. The new Egypt will try to exercise its full sovereignty in Sinai and deploy regular forces there, employing various pretexts, beginning with Israeli “violations” of the Camp David agreement, proceeding with the need to defend itself against an Israeli attack, and concluding with Egypt’s obligation to protect its Palestinian brothers in Gaza.

Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt, the parent movement of Hamas, provides ongoing assistance to Hamas and furnishes it with strategic backing that is growing more potent due to the Brotherhood’s increased strength in the recent elections. A high proportion of Izzedine al Qassam Brigade activists who were killed in recent years in Gaza were simultaneously Muslim Brotherhood activists and Hamas members. The plausible assumption is that one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s first objectives after it assumes the reins of power will be to guarantee an open border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, and to provide comprehensive economic and military assistance to Hamas that will pose new security risks for Israel.

Furthermore, the strategic alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas may constrain Israel’s freedom of military action in Gaza (as well as in the West Bank) because this could provoke an Egyptian military response, including the transfer of aid, weapons, and intelligence to Hamas, the deployment of Egyptian forces in Sinai and/or in Gaza, stationing Egyptian antiaircraft systems on the border of Gaza, and threats of direct military action.

These developments can be averted if the U.S. and its allies take a firm position against any initiative to undermine the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt, and all echelons of the Egyptian establishment are made to understand the implications of any such action.

* * *

Notes:

1. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=96953&SecID=0

2. http://www.hurryh.com/Party_Program.aspx

3. http://www.hurryh.com/Provinces/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1933&ID=23

4. http://www.hurryh.com/Provinces/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=2000

5. http://www.hurryh.com/Party_Article_Details.aspx?News_ID=1872

6. http://www.hurryh.com/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1850

7. http://www.hurryh.com/ar_print.aspx?print_ID=4579

8. http://www.hurryh.com/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1954

9. The QIZ Agreement (QIZ-Qualified Industrial Zones) was signed in 2005 between the governments of the United States, Israel and Egypt. The agreement defined industrial zones whose factories would receive a customs exemption on their exports to the United States if a certain percentage of the raw materials originated in Israel.

10. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=83759&SecID=0

11. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?SecID=213&ArtID=92523

12. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?SecID=213&ArtID=92523

13. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=85754&SecID=0

14. http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/ar-LB/salafi-egypte-pb-5363323219.htm

15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tCfUs6upxQ&feature=youtu.be

16. http://www.facebook.com/AlnourParty/posts/211082628974957

Altalena on fire near Tel-Aviv

Just weeks after Israel declared Independence in May of 1948, and the ensuing war broke out, the IDF sunk a ship armed with fighters and weapons making its way to Israel. The ship was the Altalena and the fighters and weapons were working their way into Jewish hands, not Arab.

The situation was complicated and to dissect the Altalena Affair properly, one would have to go into the difficult and contentious relationship between the Hagannah and the Irgun. That is outside of the scope of the post at hand. Suffice to say that the two militias were working towards the same goal of Jewish independence, but with very different methods and philosophies which were often incompatible with each other.

Menachem Begin, head of the Irgun, had received permission from David Ben Gurion, head of the IDF (only recently formed out of the now defunct Hagannah) to bring the Altalena, packed with upwards of 1,000 Jewish volunteers and a massive amount of arms, to Israel’s shores. While there are differing opinions over the exact agreement, it is widely understood that Begin had agreed to hand a majority of the weapons over to the IDF, and to keep only a small fraction for the Irgun. In the end, Ben Gurion ordered the ship sunk and while those who had abandoned ship swam to sea, they were shot at by IDF forces. Begin himself was on board at the time and while he survived, 16 members of the Irgun did not.

Ben Gurion’s reasoning for this controversial act was simple. He believed that a state must have a monopoly over the use of force. There could be no true Jewish state so long as armed militias were fighting with their own methods and philosophies.

Now we move forward to the current day and see that Israel and the IDF are giving away that monopoly. There have been reports since the summer – when the Palestinians requested statehood recognition from the UN – of Israel training, arming and preparing Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank to fight off attacks by Palestinians on their own accord.

And now yesterday, Haaretz has reported that teenagers, aged 16-18, are being trained and utilized by the Border Police to find and detain illegal Palestinian workers. With only several days of training, these teenagers are issued M-16s and put to work. They patrol construction sites, check buses and help at checkpoints. Currently there are 36 youth participating in the program. Another 30 are set to be trained next month.

If Israel needs more manpower to patrol their borders, they need to allocate funds, hire more police and then adequately train and prepare them for the job. Instead Israel is creating “interns,” giving them several days of training, and then handing out automatic weapons to kids who are not old enough to drive in some US states.

David Ben Gurion was willing to kill Jews to keep the monopoly of force within the hands of Israel. And now, just a few decades later, Israel is handing out guns to anyone with a permission slip from their parent and a note from their doctor (two requirements to sign up for the course).
With confrontations breaking out between the state and the religious, the state and the settlers, the state and their Arab population, it seems to me that Israel should be consolidating their monopoly, not fragmenting it.

Follow me on twitter @jlemonsk

Israel has recently been awash in controversy over nothing new in the country’s history — the intersection of policy, society, and religion.

The most recent tussle has centered around whether segregating buses based on gender should be permissible. Some in the ultra orthodox community argue that separate seating spaces for men and women would be more appropriate — keeping in mind that many synagogues separate men and women during prayers to help the focus to remain on scripture.

Opponents of this segregation argue that it’s undemocratic discrimination by treating men and women differently. They also contend that an orthodox man’s calling of a woman refusing to move to the back of the bus a “slut” is harassment.

The Israeli transportation system is already governed in part by religious laws. The buses and trains do not operate on Friday night and Saturday before sundown in compliance with the Sabbath laws.

However, segregation on gender would starkly differ from that type of religious governance, as buses not operating affects all Israelis equally, while bus segregation would treat one group of people — namely women — differently.

While Israel does not have an explicit Constitution, the country does have basic laws which combined amount to a legal structure that at least somewhat governs the complex religious and traditional “First Amendment” freedoms deemed paramount in democracies.

Israel is clearly the most — and only — democratic state in the Middle East. Minorities have tremendous influence and Israel has been progressive on many fronts — often more so than the untied States. For example, Israel has had a female prime minister and has allowed homosexual citizens to serve as soldiers for decades.

The bus incident touches on the fundamental tension between religion and democracy. At what point do religious considerations allow segregation, or does any policy that specifically targets one group run counter to democracy? Similarly, is an expression of disapproval based on religious beliefs protected in a democracy, or does the inherently demeaning and threatening rhetoric surpass acceptable limits?

As religion continues to play a major role in Israeli society, policymakers will continue to grapple with the intersection of faith and policy. However, paramount to any new policies and decisions should be the retention of Israel as a democratic state. Policies that undermine that characteristic would fundamentally change Israel as it was intended and undercut Jewish values, which are the pillars upon which democracy stands.

Most Unexpected Event: The Return of Gilad Schalit

Gilad Schalit (center) was welcomed home by Defense Minister Ehud Barak (far left), Prime Minister Netanyahu (left) and Head of IDF Lt. General Benny Gantz (right). (Photo: SFGate.com)

There was no bigger surprise inIsrael this year than the return of five-year captive, Corporal Gilad Schalit.  On June 26, 2006, Corporal Schalit was captured on the Israeli-Gaza border by Hamas militants.  Several proofs of life were provided throughout the duration of his captivity, but in the back of most Israeli’s minds there was the likelihood that Schalit was dead.  The odds were against him, as most Israeli soldiers who have been captured by enemy states and non-state actors have either returned in coffins, or not at all.  Corporal Gilad Schalit defied the odds.  The Israeli population, who intensely lobbied the Israeli government and international community to secure his release, was overwhelmingly satisfied, proud, and inspired by his return.  They could be seen on television weeping and praying.

While a joyous occasion, Schalit’s release was surrounded by controversy.  There was significant debate about the price Israel had to pay for Schalit, more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.  Several of the prisoners were directly responsible for the murder of Israelis. A handful of Knesset Ministers and community leaders felt that the prisoners being released would return to terrorism, and would lead future attacks on Israelis.  There was also the issue of how Egypt handled Schalit’s return to Israel.  Before being allowed to speak with or see his family, Egyptian authorities forced Schalit to do a shameful, and mistranslated, interview on Egyptian national television.

Regardless, the return of Gilad Schalit was a full display of Israel’s value on life, and was a welcomed jolt of optimism to a country that has been experiencing increased international isolation.

Person of the Year: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

Though he is not an Israeli, I could not pass up making Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas my 2011 “Person of the Year.”

2011 saw the most recent attempt by the Palestinian Authority to gain full-fledged membership in the United Nations.  Given its timing in relation to current peace-talks and failed Palestinian unity discussions, it is arguable whether this was in fact in the best interest of the Palestinians.  President Abbas did, however, do an admirable job of bringing it global attention.  What makes him man of the year is how little he did with that attention.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addressing the United Nations. (Photo: TheCommentator.com)

In the lead up to the UN General Assembly, there was much speculation about whether membership would actually be granted to the Palestinians.  Most understood that for political reasons it would not be. Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barak Obama were noticeably nervous and dismayed.  They made significant attempts to change President Abbas’ mind and lure him back to the negotiating table for direct talks with Israel.  President Abbas found himself in a unique, and rare, position of power and control.  It would have been more than possible to make reasonable demands of Israel and the US in order to get peace talks back on track.  It could have been a turning point in discussions, bringing some long lost muscle and credibility back to Palestinian leadership.  Instead, President Abbas chose to pursue full-membership to the UN.  As expected, his application was rejected and his reputation spoiled.

Since his failure at the UN, President Abbas has been mostly stagnant and the Palestinian resolve has further eroded.  In the last two-weeks he has openly stated that he is considering Hamas membership in to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.  This would likely halt all discussions of peace and lead to a Hamasization of the West Bank.

Forecast for 2012

Given the events of 2011, the upcoming year will likely be a pivotal one for the Jewish state.  There are lots of unanswered questions: what is the future of Israeli-Turkish relations? Will the social protests actually lead to change? What is the future of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank?  What will the elections in Egypt mean for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty? And of course, what is going to happen with Iran?

It would be nice if one could be optimistic about the answers to the above questions, but it is unfortunately difficult.  Israeli-Turkish relations are likely to break off completely barring a change of heart in Turkish regional ambition.  Given the gridlock system of the Israeli government it is unlikely any kind of social change will happen in the near future.  If Hamas is allowed in the Palestinian Liberation Organization the West Bank will likely turn in to Gaza 2, with peace-talks hitting an all-time low.  The Muslim Brotherhood, the likely future ruling party of Egypt, is preaching moderation and peace with Israel, but political pundits believe otherwise.  It will not be the first time politicians have lied about alliances in order to gain international support.  The only place one can find any remote sense of optimism/neutrality in predicting Israel’s 2012 is that it will certainly keep up its covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program.

The truth is that Israel is one of the most dynamic and unpredictable countries in the world.  On any given day, anything can happen.  The only thing that is certain is that Israel will continue its economic development and that its people will do their best to live happy and normal lives.

The sudden changes in the region have been reflective of an immense buildup of frustration, distrust, and cynicism among an increasingly connected and well-educated Arab youth, who have lost faith in political and economic management systems they see fraught with corruption. Their continuous rage against Middle East’s incumbent dictators brings a key question: Will the new emerging governments become democratic or will they be aligned mainly with religious extremists whose political movements and participation in public life have been suppressed under decades-old Western-back military and monarchical dictatorships?

What started as hopeful developments in North Africa against lifetime presidential dictatorships and leaderships of Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Gadaffi, is slowly and clearly shaping as a great victory for Islamist parties with chances of success for secularism on the wane. Whether or not the domination of Islamist groups and parties over Middle Eastern politics will be a long-term trend is clearly questionable, but their successful emergence as key power brokers in a new Middle East appears to be assured.

In Tunisia, where the first post-uprising and free elections were held in late October, the Ennahda, believed to be a moderate Islamist party, won over 40% of the vote, securing over 90 seats in the country’s 217-seat parliament. Since then Ennahda has formed a coalition government with two other secular parties.

In Egypt, where the post-Mubarak political jolt has been followed by continuous aftershocks against the ruling military elite, the December 15 elections have resulted in a landslide victory for Islamists, securing over 72% of seats in the parliament. The two key winning parties are the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the Al-Nour (“The Light”) Party, Egypts largest Salafist party that was born out of Al-Daawa Movement in Alexandria. The Salafists are believed to enjoy great financial and logistical support from the House of Saud. The Saudis are also active in Egypt’s publishing industry, sponsoring and subsidizing publications that promote their extremist version of Islam (Vahabism).

In Libya, where the revolution became possible with significant support from NATO’s military muscle, the post-Gadaffi political power structure under the National Transitional Council (NTC), is still being shaped with elections set for June or July 2012 and presidential elections slated for 2013. Libya’s Islamist groups, including Al-Qaeda sympathizers, were heavily involved in the armed resurrection against Gadaffi, so their presence, and subsequent success, in the elections is expected to be heavy given their brutal suppression and treatment under Gadaffi’s rule.

And as to Syria, the country seems drifting toward full-blown civil war with significant logistical support to dissidents first and foremost by Turkey and the Saudis. More on Syria in a bit.

Emerging New Rivalries

In 2011 the Middle East became witness–vis-à-vis the Arab Spring–to a brewing rivalry that seeks to claim the leadership torch in the region. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are two key power brokers active in cementing new relationships with newly established governments born out of Arab Spring. Qatar is another emerging player, bent on raising its regional and international profile.  Qatar has used its financial muscle to pressure dictators like Gadaffi and Assad into succumbing into demands of their people while silently condoning the repression of pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain. Qatar, however, is part of what could be a slowly emerging new bloc of Sunni governments in the region with potential to become a counter balancing act against Iran.

Turkey, whose “zero problem” foreign policy doctrine was debunked by the Arab Spring, spent much of 2011 repositioning itself in the new Middle East as the region’s incumbent dictators with whom Ankara enjoyed increasingly close ties were removed from power one after another. Turkey is currently the chief power broker behind efforts to topple the Assad regime. The Syrian National Council was announced in Istanbul in early October and senior defectors from the Syrian army conduct military planning and operations from the Turkish border city of Hakkari against the Assad regime. Turkey has been also sending trade delegations to Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, promoting trade ties with the new leaderships of these countries. While Turkish efforts and diplomacy, particularly with regard to Syria, have raised eyebrows in Tehran, Tehran needs Turkey. Iran is becoming increasingly reliant on Turkish trade routes as international sanctions against Tehran become more forceful and biting.

For Iran 2011 was a year marked with economic and diplomatic failures as well as intensification of economic sanctions that are set to get hardened over the next few months, raising further tensions between Iran and the West. The intensification of sanctions against Iran could have two outcomes. The first outcome could be continued intransigence on the part of Iran and the West as Iran views tough sanctions as bullying by the West and the West, for its part, views Iran uninterested in diplomacy even under economic pressure. This outcome, unfortunately, could set the ground for an inevitable military confrontation.

The second outcome that the West could be seeking from sanctions is intensified factional infighting and internal strife as Iranians feel the heat of economic sanctions and find the government’s foreign policy responsible for their economic woes, leading to the emergence of a new political force in Iran, in the form of a coup d’état, by a specific faction within the ruling elite say the Revolutionary Guards. If the latter were to take place, it is expected that chances of military confrontation with the West will be dimmed significantly.

Israel and Regional Uncertainties

With Islamist parties on ascendancy and religious sentiments expressed without the fear of repression, Israel’s security becomes a pressing question for policy makers in Israel. One question remains whether the prevailing anti-Israeli sentiment in Arab societies will translate into official policy by the newly established Islamist governments with potential for confrontation with the Jewish state.

Israelis have lost one of their key regional allies (Turkey) and been involved in efforts to contain and slow Iran’s nuclear program and its impact on the security and geopolitical standing of the Jewish state. In this environment, Israeli policy makers would find the emergence of an Arab bloc primarily made of Islamists particularly worrisome. For Israel accommodating Middle East’s new Islamists could be a challenge that requires astute diplomatic maneuvering on multiple fronts.

Best Books on Middle East & Person(s) of the Year

I was asked by the Foreign Policy Association to name some of the best books on the Middle East and name the region’s person(s) of the year. Some of the best books on the Middle East that I had a chance to read and would highly recommend are as follows:

The Shah, by Abbas Milani,
Palgrave Macmillan: 488 pp.

A detailed biography of the last Persian emperor who was toppled in the Iranian revolution of 1979. The book is written in a captivating prose by Dr. Abbas Milani of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. It offers a portrait of the Shah and his life and policies and the implications they had for the Shah, the Peacock Throne of Persia, and the region. I think it should be a required reading for anyone who wants to develop an in-depth understanding of today’s Middle East. The book is free from personal and ideological biases, making it all more interesting a read.

Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World by Robin Wright,
Simon & Schuster: 320 pp.

Written by the preeminent Middle East reporter, who is presently a fellow at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the U.S. Institute of Peace, Robin Wright offers a different side of the new Middle East in which extremism is being rejected and women have decided to demand for their rightful place in Muslim societies. Wright makes the voice of those Muslims heard that we hardly get a chance to hear.

Assassins of the Turquoise Palace by Roya Hakakian,
Grove Press 322 pp.

A book by Roya Hakakian, Iranian-American poet/journalist, that puts on display the Mykonos restaurant affair, a true story about the assassination of four members of an Iranian opposition group in Berlin. The Mykonos affair led to the subsequent arrest of suspects and their prosecution by German prosecutors, whose tireless and fearless efforts culminated in the indictment of Iran’s top leadership in the assassination. The book reads like a riveting international thriller that keeps the reader glued to its pages irrespective of the reader’s knowledge of Iranian affairs.

I think the persons of the year are undoubtedly the incredibly brave protestors in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, and Bahrain who fearlessly opposed truly brutal dictators and overcame fear as an impediment to their fight for freedom. As Islamist parties come to the fore of Arab politics, a key question in the mind of many in the region and beyond begs for answer: Once in power, will the Islamist parties respect the democratic process and value human dignity and women’s rights?

As the 2012 election nears, Democrats and Republicans are both courting the American Jewish community, although the process is inherently an antithesis to one of their key talking points.

Earlier this week, six GOP presidential candidates attended a forum by the Republican Jewish Coalition, condemning President Obama for what they say is a lackluster response to the Iranian nuclear threat and an alienation of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and one of our closest allies. That criticism is coupled with contentions that calling for the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, likely leading to the rise of an Islamic fundamentalist Egypt, and tepid opposition to Syrian dictator Basher al-Assad are also main talking points to paint President Obama as anti-Israel, thereby attempting to entice many members of the traditionally pro-Israel Jewish community to help oust President Obama from the White House.

Meanwhile, President Obama has also embarked on his own courting ritual, regularly celebrating Jewish holidays with staff throughout his tenure in office and previously on the campaign. His annual Passover Seder’s began on the campaign and continued in the White House, becoming a highly written about event. Today, Obama also decided to celebrate Hanukkah … although the Festival of Lights doesn’t begin for another 12 days.

It’s unclear whether the White House’s Hanukkah celebration has been on the schedule for months or weeks. But one thing is clear — holding the celebration this week helps to tie President Obama with the Jewish community at a time when Republicans are trying to drive a wedge into that relationship and, as some reports indicate, Jewish support for Obama dwindles.

The fight over American Jewish support in some, but not all, respects hinges on a candidates stance on Israel. Comments at the Republican Jewish Coalition reflect that fact, as do remarks from President Obama at the Hanukkah candle lighting ceremony, where he mentioned the United States’ commitment to the security of Israel.

I’ll take the GOP candidates and President Obama for their word, that they actually do have Israel’s best interests at heart and are only focusing on their alleged differences to create the perception of being stronger allies to the only democracy in the Middle East, even though the true difference is minimal.

Support for Israel has historically been bipartisan, with many Democrats and Republicans touting their backing of Israel as main tenets of their foreign policy goals. Some presidents — such as George H. W. Bush — did not focus as much on this relationship, but our most recent presidents have made their support very clear.

The utilization of Israel, though, as a political pinball to score votes come November is antithetical to the parties’ supposed true desires — a safe, secure and prosperous Israel that remains one of the United States’ closest allies.

Israel’s interests, which are shared with the United States, hinge on the Jewish state obtaining support from both parties on Capitol Hill and the administration. That support can come in appropriations, U.S. stances at the historically anti-Israel United Nations, diplomatic leverage over some countries in the Arab world, and defense against Israel’s enemies. Generating political tension over any one of those issues could lead either party to take a stance that is not in Israel’s best interest for fear of appearing to cave to the other party, a distinct possibility in an election year when candidates attempt to distinguish themselves on as many issues as possible. However, jeopardizing any one of those avenues of support would undermine the claimed goals of both Republicans and Democrats to foster a safe and secure Israel.

Support for Israel should continue to be bipartisan, and Jewish American organizations courted by presidential candidates and Israeli officials should make it crystal clear that the political polarization of Israel must be ceased immediately.

Instead, while Democrats and Republicans haven’t agreed on much in the past few years, they should prove to Americans that Washington can work by cooperating to promulgate pro-Israel policies. That kind of bipartisan effort would foster the United States’ interest in the Middle East and keep Israel out of political cross-hairs. Both parties would benefit by proving to constituents that they can govern, while the United States and Israel would have their shared interests safe from election-year politics.