How changes in the Arab world affect Israel
On Sunday Feb 19 we had a talk at AACI Netanya by Dr. Jonathan Spyer, the well-known commentator and analyst of the MIddle East from the IDC in Herzliya, on "the effect of the current changes in the Arab world on Israel." As usual he spoke coherently for 45 mins without notes and was most interesting and authoritative. This is my recollected summary
Two main points that came out of his talk were that Pres. Assad of Syria is not finished yet and continues to have staying power with the loyalty of the Alawites as well as the majority of the Army. Also, that the Palestinians are so split and Pres. Abbas so ineffectual that the likelihood of any "peace process" having any chance of success is minimal.
He suggested that instead of viewing Egypt and the other Arab States as powerful enemies of Israel, we regard them as "failed states." Egypt is in a bind, it cannot feed its people without foreign aid, particularly the b$1.3 that it receives annually from the USA, and yet its predominant political tendency is Islamist, as the outcome of the elections show, with about 60% of the votes going to the Moslem Brotherhood and another 20% to the even more extremist al Noor Salafist Party. These parties are anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel, and it will be a stretch for them to continue to accept US aid and to continue to adhere to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, that was negotiated by Anwar Sadat and continued by his successor Hosni Mubarak. The current trial of NGO activists including some US citizens, 9 of whom have taken refuge in the US Embassy, is a harbinger of things to come. Egypt is in such a hole economically and the Egyptian Army is still so powerful, that they are more likely to have internal clashes than to be a threat to Israel. Similarly with Syria, there is no chance of an early resolution, particularly since the opposition Free Syrian Army has no heavy weapons and there is such bitterness between the Sunni majority and the ruling Alawis, who are pro-Iranian, that there can be no peaceful resolution. In effect, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians are failed "states," torn by internal strife and with no effective governments and hence no direct threat to Israel. However, one might expect an increase in terrorism in the long run. In the Arab world only Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are functional, and they fear Iran more than they fear Israel. They are the countries now talking about arming the Syrian opposition. In fact, with Turkey, they are in effect fighting a proxy war against Iran in Syria.
With regard to the Iranian nuclear threat, there is a saying, that those who intend to do something don't boast about it, those who don't boast about it are the ones to worry about. In other words, because both PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Edud Barak are constantly harping on the need to keep the military option "on the table," they should not be taken at their word. This is largely a bluff to keep the Iranian threat in the headlines. Also, in Iran there is a competition for power and Pres. Ahmedinejad uses the threat of a nuclear weapon and the Palestinian cause to score points against his rivals for power. Israel cannot take risks and does have the capability to inflict heavy damage on the Iranian nuclear facilties, and maybe set them back for ten years. But, there could be unanticpated consequences of such a major strike. The problem is that the US is in an election campaign, and Pres. Obama, having withdrawn the US from Iraq and reduced the commitment in Afghanistan, will be strongly against any foreign "adventure" regarding Iran during his term. The US will strongly try to restrain Israel, and so Israel is talking big, but actually for the past 1.5 years has done little, and is unlikely to do anything major until after the US election results and the inauguration of the next President in January 2013.
Two main points that came out of his talk were that Pres. Assad of Syria is not finished yet and continues to have staying power with the loyalty of the Alawites as well as the majority of the Army. Also, that the Palestinians are so split and Pres. Abbas so ineffectual that the likelihood of any "peace process" having any chance of success is minimal.
He suggested that instead of viewing Egypt and the other Arab States as powerful enemies of Israel, we regard them as "failed states." Egypt is in a bind, it cannot feed its people without foreign aid, particularly the b$1.3 that it receives annually from the USA, and yet its predominant political tendency is Islamist, as the outcome of the elections show, with about 60% of the votes going to the Moslem Brotherhood and another 20% to the even more extremist al Noor Salafist Party. These parties are anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel, and it will be a stretch for them to continue to accept US aid and to continue to adhere to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, that was negotiated by Anwar Sadat and continued by his successor Hosni Mubarak. The current trial of NGO activists including some US citizens, 9 of whom have taken refuge in the US Embassy, is a harbinger of things to come. Egypt is in such a hole economically and the Egyptian Army is still so powerful, that they are more likely to have internal clashes than to be a threat to Israel. Similarly with Syria, there is no chance of an early resolution, particularly since the opposition Free Syrian Army has no heavy weapons and there is such bitterness between the Sunni majority and the ruling Alawis, who are pro-Iranian, that there can be no peaceful resolution. In effect, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians are failed "states," torn by internal strife and with no effective governments and hence no direct threat to Israel. However, one might expect an increase in terrorism in the long run. In the Arab world only Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are functional, and they fear Iran more than they fear Israel. They are the countries now talking about arming the Syrian opposition. In fact, with Turkey, they are in effect fighting a proxy war against Iran in Syria.
With regard to the Iranian nuclear threat, there is a saying, that those who intend to do something don't boast about it, those who don't boast about it are the ones to worry about. In other words, because both PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Edud Barak are constantly harping on the need to keep the military option "on the table," they should not be taken at their word. This is largely a bluff to keep the Iranian threat in the headlines. Also, in Iran there is a competition for power and Pres. Ahmedinejad uses the threat of a nuclear weapon and the Palestinian cause to score points against his rivals for power. Israel cannot take risks and does have the capability to inflict heavy damage on the Iranian nuclear facilties, and maybe set them back for ten years. But, there could be unanticpated consequences of such a major strike. The problem is that the US is in an election campaign, and Pres. Obama, having withdrawn the US from Iraq and reduced the commitment in Afghanistan, will be strongly against any foreign "adventure" regarding Iran during his term. The US will strongly try to restrain Israel, and so Israel is talking big, but actually for the past 1.5 years has done little, and is unlikely to do anything major until after the US election results and the inauguration of the next President in January 2013.
posted by Jack Cohen at 6:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home