Doc's Talk: Israel's Strategic Concerns over Upheaval in Egypt

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Israel's Strategic Concerns over Upheaval in Egypt

Michael Herzog
February 23, 2011

The popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt caught Israel by surprise. Awe-inspiring as they are to Israel's government and people, these revolutions and the ongoing troubles in Bahrain and Libya are also of immense concern to Israel because of their potential strategic ramifications. Going forward, developments in Egypt will be particularly important given Cairo's traditional role in the region and the special nature of its diplomatic, security, and economic relations with Israel. High Stakes
The Israeli government has always viewed the peace treaty with Egypt and subsequent relations between the two countries as a cornerstone of national security. Historically a regional heavyweight, Egypt wields the strongest Arab military force and shares a 150-mile border with Israel. It has also been the leader of the moderate Arab camp and an important ally of the United States. Accordingly, Israelis have regarded Egypt as the lynchpin of Arab war or peace with Israel.

Notwithstanding the cold nature of the three-decade peace and conflicting policies on some issues (e.g., the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the peace process), the two countries developed close coordination over the years in order to counter radical Islamism and terrorism in their various expressions: Hamas, Hizballah, al-Qaeda, and other groups. Hosni Mubarak's Egypt also supported the international drive to counter Iran and its proxies.

Egyptian-Israeli relations intensified when Hamas commandeered the Gaza Strip in June 2007. The specter of an Islamist entity next door projecting radicalism into Egypt haunted the Mubarak government. Subsequent developments -- such as the spawning of Gaza jihadist groups (which Cairo blamed for the January 2011 suicide bombing of a Coptic church in Alexandria), jihadist cooperation with Bedouins in the Sinai, the smuggling of weapons and extremists from Gaza into Egypt, and the tearing down of the border fence by Palestinians -- only sharpened Cairo's concerns and contributed to increased security coordination with Israel.

As a result, Cairo also gave quiet consent when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in December 2008, in a bid to quell ongoing rocket fire from Gaza. Subsequently, Egypt played a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining a relatively stable ceasefire along the border. In addition, Israel quietly coordinated the closure of Gaza's borders with Cairo, which implemented similar policies at the Egyptian-controlled Rafah crossing.

Egypt also played an important role in the failed efforts to relaunch direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and to release Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier abducted by Hamas in 2006. And on a personal level, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu developed a close dialogue with President Mubarak.

Israeli Concerns
In the seeming debate between democracy and stability in the Middle East, Israelis mostly lean toward stability. This is not because they are antidemocratic; Israel has always believed that a democratic Middle East would be more stable and peaceful. What worries Israelis is the transition period between the two, given the risk of radical Islamist forces exploiting the turmoil to hijack the domestic political process away from democracy and peace. If this happens in Egypt, Israel could be directly impacted.

When Israelis discuss the events in Egypt, the historical references they tend to cite are not Eastern Europe in 1989 or Indonesia in 1998, but rather the 1979 revolution in Iran or the 2006 Hamas victory in democratic Palestinian elections, which led to the establishment of a vehemently anti-Israeli, antipeace, and antidemocracy regime in Gaza. While publicly recognizing that "the stronger the foundations of democracy, the stronger the foundations of peace," Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that Egypt could "go in the direction of Iran" and "threaten all those surrounding it."

Initial Israeli apprehension focused on the fate of the bilateral peace treaty. In various statements and communications -- including a recent phone conversation between the two countries' defense ministers -- Israel has emphasized that any future Egyptian government must be pressed to honor the treaty. Signed in 1979, the document closed a chapter in Israel's history of four comprehensive wars in less than three decades. The agreement demilitarized the Sinai, significantly widened Israel's margin of security, and enabled the government to decrease defense expenditures and redirect them to other fronts and threats.

Although Israel has generally kept a low profile during the unfolding events in Egypt, some official reactions were clearly blown out of proportion. An Iran-like takeover or abrogation of the peace treaty is not the most likely outcome. The Egyptian picture is much more nuanced for a variety of reasons, not least the critical role played by the military. The higher echelon of Egypt's armed forces favors close relations with the United States and has publicly called for upholding the treaty with Israel.

Nevertheless, Israel has other reasons for concern over the nature and depth of its future relations with Egypt. Because the longstanding bilateral peace is between governments, not people, the wide anti-Israeli sentiment among Egyptians -- which was fostered by Mubarak's regime -- could negatively impact relations on Gaza and other issues, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood becomes part of a ruling coalition. The Egyptian government already announced in recent days the opening of the Rafah crossing.

Meanwhile, the power vacuum in Cairo has allowed security to deteriorate in the Sinai. For example, an armed group from Gaza was reportedly arrested there after seeking to attack Israeli targets. And the barrier between Egyptian and Palestinian Rafah was partly torn open, leading to intensified smuggling. In response to these security threats, Israel consented to requests from Cairo to permit the deployment of some 1,500 Egyptian soldiers in northern and southern Sinai and in Egyptian Rafah, deviating from the peace treaty. Israel also decided to speed up construction of the new border fence with Egypt.

Furthermore, on February 5, the Egypt-Jordan natural gas pipeline in northern Sinai was sabotaged. The proximity of the Egypt-Israel pipeline (which was not targeted) led to the cessation of gas transfers to Israel. Around 40 percent of Israeli electric power generation relies on gas; much of it is obtained from an offshore field, but almost half of it is imported from Egypt. This is likely to continue even after Israel develops newly discovered offshore gas fields in the coming years. Ultimately, Israelis pin their hopes on Egyptian self-interest prevailing so that gas will continue to flow, the Suez Canal will remain open to Israeli ships, and the Qualifying Industrial Zones (which allow Egypt to export products containing certain Israeli input to the United States duty-free) will still operate.

Wider Context
Beyond Egypt, Israel is mostly concerned about the weakening of the pragmatic Arab center in the face of staunch radical forces. Egypt is unlikely to play its traditionally dominant regional role, at least for some time. Coupled with a feeble Saudi role due to aging leadership, and coming at a critical stage in the struggle between pragmatic and radical forces throughout the Middle East, this development could energize extremist elements led by Iran -- unless Tehran faces mass protests of its own in the wake of Egypt's revolution. Israelis are particularly concerned about Jordan, fearing that if Cairo goes the wrong way, fragile Amman might be swept in the same direction.

Israelis have also paid close attention to the American role in the Egypt crisis. Some, including various officials, have concluded that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to support an ally at a moment of truth. Many officials, however, acknowledge the nuances and limits of U.S. policy. They also reason that the bond between America and Israel is deep rooted at the popular level and based on numerous shared values, not just interests, obviating the choice between democracy and stability.

On the peace front, Israelis are debating whether the regional turmoil calls for an effort to revive negotiations with the Palestinians or a wait-and-see attitude in a period of regional transition, a vacuum in Egyptian and Arab backing for the process, and regional perceptions of American weakness. At the moment, caution is the stronger sentiment in the Israeli government. One common conclusion is that peace agreements should encompass peoples, not just governments, and be fortified by solid security arrangements. Agreements alone do not guarantee stability.

Conclusion
In dealing with the new situation, Washington should take Israel's concerns into account and maintain close bilateral security relations. At the same time, the United States will have to perform a balancing act, ensuring that Egypt is moving toward democracy while maintaining stability, peaceful relations with Israel, and as much cooperation as possible in the face of regional radicalism. Concurrently, the international community should not give Iran and its proxies a free pass. Pressure should be elevated to include human rights and democracy promotion in the spirit of the changes resonating throughout the region.

Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Michael Herzog is The Washington Institute's Milton Fine international fellow, based in Israel.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk