February 14, 2011, 4:28 PM
| Comments (10) | | |
 |
| |  |
One of the first casualties of the Egyptian revolution may very well be Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. The Egyptian public's overwhelming animus towards Jews renders it politically impossible for any Egyptian leader to come out in support of the treaty.
Over the weekend, the junta now ruling Egypt refused to explicitly commit themselves to maintaining the treaty. Instead, under intense American pressure they sufficed with stating that they would maintain all of Egypt's international obligations.
According to news reports, the generals themselves are split in their positions on Israel. One group supports maintaining the treaty. The other supports its abrogation.
Ayman Nour, the head of the oppositionist Ghad Party and the man heralded as the liberal democratic alternative to Mubarak by Washington neo-conservatives has called for the peace treaty to be abrogated. In an interview with an Egyptian radio station he said, "The Camp David Accords are finished. Egypt has to at least conduct negotiations over conditions of the agreement."
For its part, the Muslim Brotherhood has been outspoken in its call to end the treaty since it was signed 32 years ago.
Whatever ends up happening, it is clear that Israel is entering a new era in its relations with Egypt. And before we can begin contending with its challenges, we must first consider the legacy of the peace treaty that then prime minister Menachem Begin signed with then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat on March 26, 1979.
What was the nature of Israel's agreement with Egypt? What was its impact on Israel's strategic vision? What were the strategic assumptions that formed the basis of its component parts? How did all of these issues impact Israel's perception of the long-term prospects for its relations with Egypt?
WHEN BEGIN and Sadat signed the peace treaty, their act was the culmination of 15 months of negotiations catalyzed by Sadat's visit to Jerusalem and his speech before the Knesset on November 20, 1977.
Sadat's visit to Israel's capital was an extraordinary gesture. Here was the man who just four years earlier had waged an unprovoked, brutal war of aggression against Israel that placed the country in mortal danger and killed some 2,600 of its finest sons.
Here was the leader of the country that had fought five unprovoked wars of aggression against Israel in 29 years.
And yet suddenly, here was this man, Israel's greatest foe, standing before the Knesset and declaring that he was not seeking a ceasefire, but peace.
As he put it, "I have not come to you to seek a partial peace, namely to terminate the state of belligerency at this stage...I have come to you so that together we might build a durable peace based on justice, to avoid the shedding of one single drop of blood from an Arab or an Israeli."
The effect of Sadat's visit on the Israeli psyche generally and on Begin's mindset in particular was profound. A new book of the two leaders' correspondence, Peace in the Making: The Menachem Begin-Anwar Sadat Personal Correspondence edited by Harry Hurwitz and Yisrael Medad of the Begin Heritage Center presents readers with a portrait of the Israeli leader enthralled with the belief that he and Sadat were embarking their nations on the road to a peaceful future.
But it was not to be. Whether Sadat was purposely deceptive or whether he was simply blocked from implementing his vision of peace by an assassin's bullet in 1981is unclear. True, he committed Egypt committed to peace. The peace treaty contains an entire annex devoted to specific commitments to cultivate every sort of cultural, social and economic tie imaginable. But both Sadat and his successor Mubarak breached every one of them.
As the intervening 32 years since the treaty was signed have shown, in essence, the deal was nothing more than a ceasefire. Israel surrendered the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and in exchange, Egypt has not staged a military attack against Israel from its territory.
The peace treaty's critics maintain that the price Israel paid was too high and so the treaty was unjustified. They also argue that Israel set a horrible precedent for future negotiations with its neighbors by ceding the entire Sinai in exchange for the treaty. Moreover, they note that Palestinian autonomy agreement in the treaty was a terrible deal. And it set the framework for the disastrous Oslo peace process with the PLO 15 years later.
For their part, supporters of the treaty claim that the precedent it set was terrific for Israel. The treaty cites the borders of the Palestine Mandate as Israel's legal borders. And since the Mandate envisioned a Jewish state on both banks of the Jordan River, at a minimum the peace treaty sets a precedent for a future annexation of the west bank of the Jordan.
Whatever their relative merits may be, in the end, both sides of the argument are largely irrelevant. Precedents don't matter in politics. Interests, not precedents determine how states and non-state actors operate. As for whether or not the deal was justified given the exorbitant price, it is unclear what choice Begin had.
In 1977 Jimmy Carter was the president of the United States. And Carter was the most hostile president Israel had faced. His negative attitude towards Israel made it all but impossible for Begin to walk away from the table. When Carter's antagonism is coupled with Sadat's romantic pledges of everlasting peace and brotherhood, it is easy to understand why Begin agreed to overpay for a ceasefire.
WHILE BEGIN'S behavior during the negotiations is relatively easy to understand, Israel's behavior since the peace with Egypt was signed is less comprehensible, and certainly less forgivable. Since Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1981, it has been the state's consistent policy to ignore Egypt's bad faith. This 30-year refusal of Israel's leadership to contend with the true nature of the deal Israel achieved with Egypt has had a debilitating impact both on Israel's internal strategic discourse as well as on its international behavior.
As the US-backed demonstrators in Tahrir Square gained steam, and the prospect that Mubarak's regime would indeed be overthrown became increasingly likely, IDF sources began noting that the IDF and the Mossad will need to build intelligence gathering capabilities towards Egypt after 30 years of neglect. These statements make clear the debilitating impact of Israel's self-induced strategic blindness to our neighbor in the south.
Under the ceasefire, with Israeli approval and encouragement, Egypt has built a modern, US-trained and armed military. And for 30 years, that military has been training to fight Israel.
On the other side, Israel stopped training in desert warfare and stopped gathering intelligence on the Egyptian military. As far as IDF commanders and successive defense ministers have been concerned, there was no reason to prepare for war or care about Egypt's preparations for war because we were at peace.
On the international stage, our leadership's refusal to acknowledge that Egypt had not abandoned its belligerent attitude against Israel was translated into an abject refusal to admit or deal with the fact that Egypt leads the international political war against Israel. Rather than fight back when Egyptian diplomats at the UN instigate anti-Israel resolution after anti-Israel resolution, Israeli diplomats have pretended that there is no reason for concern.
The same is the case regarding Egyptian anti-Semitism. Before the peace treaty, the Foreign Ministry prepared regular reports on anti-Semitism in the Egyptian media and school system. These reports were distributed at embassies and consulates throughout the world. After the treaty was signed, the reports were filed away and never spoken of.
In his speeches Sadat repeatedly claimed that he was channeling the hopes and beliefs of the entire Egyptian people. But the fact is that Sadat was a military dictator.
Israel failed to consider the implications of signing a deal with a military dictator on the prospects for the deal's longevity. In an interview with Der Spiegel last week the Muslim Brotherhood's puppet Mohammed ElBaradei explained those implications. As ElBaradei put it, Israel has "a peace treaty with Mubarak, but not one with the Egyptian people."
THE ADVANTAGE of having a good relationship with a dictator is that he can deliver quickly. The disadvantage is that once he is gone no one is bound by his decisions because he doesn't represent anyone.
There are other problems with making deals with dictators. Due to the repressive nature of authoritarian regimes, they have no mechanisms in place for peaceful changes. And yet change in dictatorships, like change everywhere else, is an historic inevitability. In the absence of a mechanism for peaceful change, as a general rule, change in authoritarian regimes is revolutionary rather than evolutionary. The revolution in Cairo is the clearest example of this.
Another problem with the deal that Israel made with Sadat the dictator is demonstrated by the current unrest in the Sinai. In 1977 Egypt's was the strongest regime in the region. So when Israel thought about the threat emanating from Egypt, it thought about the Egyptian army barreling toward Beersheba. That is why the Egyptian military was barred from operating in the Sinai.
The last thing on Israel's mind in 1978 was the Bedouin tribes in the Sinai. Back then Sinai's Bedouin were pro-Israel and bitterly disappointed when Israel withdrew. But a lot has changed since then.
Over the past 20 years or so, the power of Egypt's central authority in its hinterlands has weakened. The strength of the Bedouin has grown. And over the past decade or so, the Bedouin of Sinai, like the Bedouin from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Israel have become aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and its al Qaida and Hamas spinoffs.
The Bedouin attacks on Egyptian police and border guard installations in al Arish and Suez over the past three weeks are an indication that the fear of a strong state, which was so central to Israel's thinking in during the peace process with Egypt, is no longer Israel's most urgent concern. Transnational jihadists in the Sinai are much more immediately threatening than the Egyptian military is. But the peace treaty - signed with a military dictator -- provides neither Israel nor Egypt with tools to deal with this threat.
AS ISRAEL moves into the uncharted territory of managing its relations with the post-Mubarak Egypt, it is imperative that our leaders understand the lessons of the past.
Fantasies are no match for reality. Aggression must be fought, not wished away. And the world is a dynamic place. Today's solutions will likely be irrelevant tomorrow as new challenges eclipse the current ones. Our strategies must be rational, flexible and sober-minded if we are to chart a forward course rather than be thrown asunder by the coming storm.
And we must never put all our eggs in anyone's basket.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
| Comments (10) | | |
|
For many years I have stated that real and lasting peace with Islam is impossible but the majority still hold on tight to their delusion.
It's never going to happen.
Israel ,Islam, One has to disappear for ever.
And I know beyond any doubt which on'es days are numbered.
The vertically challenged can only look horizontally to the Super,turned Pooper Power and never beyond.
They think that peace will come by way of the corrupt and perverted nation across the Atlantic and it's land for jihad agenda.
Small minds can only reach so far.
If the average Israeli truly understood the true nature of basic Islam they would understand that like Moses before Pharaoh,it is intractable and the only thing that will drown this curse in the sea for good are the supernatural,divine works of the Holy One of Israel.
By the time this chapter is over ,the whole earth will come to know beyond any doubt that the God of Israel ,He is God alone,and finally,finally the Arabs and the world will know that allah was the vain imagination of a false prophet named Mohammed.
There is no peace possible with evil and so as the Jewish prophet Joel warned us in advance....
'Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare a war; rouse the mighty men!
Let all the soldiers draw near, let them come up! Beat your plowshares into swords
And your pruning hooks into spears;....
Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe Come, tread, for the wine press is full;
The vats overflow, for their wickedness is great.
Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision!
For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
The sun and moon grow dark'...
Joel 3
So what is the IDF waiting for? A personal invitation perhaps? The time for the IDF to ramp up its desert training is today not tomorrow. The IDF has waged tank and desert warfare before and been victorious even when it had to overcome an enemy's initial advantage. So, was that some other people who did waged that fight? Perhaps all those victorious generals, colonels, and NCOs are retired and buried now and their knowledge is only found in history books or musty archives. Is that the case? Seriously?
The IDF must get off its duff and get back to preparing for what its next battle will be. Of course, peace in our time might be an option. Of course, there might be more important things to do, like developing ways to encourage tourism and selling souvenirs or the like!
Israel knows the drill it must follow and that a nation not willing to face reality will face the consequences of that failure, which consequences are never pretty or nice.
Cheers.
Ps: The same thing can be said about us Yanks.
Regardless of whether the peace treaty survives or not - Israel must deal with Egypt as a potential belligerent state in the future. This is only common sense. Israel must prepare for this even as it keeps channels open to those in Egypt who want to preserve the peace with Israel. Times change and so do agreements. If the Egyptians want to revisit the treaty, Israel should be open to re-negotiating it, provided that Israel's interests are protected. Another lesson of the Egyptian revolution is treaties are not meant to last forever and circumstances do change. Israel must manage the situation in the Middle East as it is and not on the basis of wishful thinking about what it could be. The stakes have never been higher.
Dear Caroline,
It is hard to argue with your sensible warning. There is little choice but preparedness for the myriad of foreseable and unforseable eventualities that challenge the very future of the State of Israel. And of course the cost to me in saying so an ocean away is far less. However, the Egyptian popular revolution may not become the lever that opens the door to a new Islamic dictatorship by the Muslim Brotherhood. Whether the US effectively stood up to support its long time friend or strategically helped clear the path for the unstoppable democratic tidal wave that washed over thirty years of authoritarian rule is incidental unless it enables it to help the US to insure a reasonable measure of stability and the likelyhood of the continuance in large part of the Camp David Treaty. There are many interests in Egypt and Western power and money if used carefully may help to keep the Brotherhood only one of many partners in a coalition government. Israel must become ready for all eventualities.
Caroline, once again you are to be commended on a cogent analysis of the state of affairs now facing Israel. I never cease to be amazed at our blindness or is it sheer stupidity in believing that our enemies want peace with Israel and the Jews. Time and again our action or inaction has proven us dead wrong. The past is the past, but we must look to the future realistically with the blinders off. Our enemies want us dead. We want to live. It is as simple as that.
So, in other words, our 'peace' president Carter's success was based on the military junta keeping things under their thumb for 30 years. What a loser. Epitaph.
In her essay, Our World: the legacy of a teetering peace, February 15, 2011, Ms Glick looks at the events we see unfolding daily in Egypt and makes several suggestions. Near her conclusion, she comments that “Fantasies are no match for reality”, in order to make the point that Israel’s leaders had better take a very hard, clear-eyed second look at making pacts with authoritarian or unstable regimes, because the consequences of such pacts for Israel could be both unfortunate and significant.
Ms Glick has turned to this theme—Israel fantasies vs fact or reality—several times in the recent past, and for good reason: our media seems married to fantasy.
As a case in point, the day before Ms Glick published this most recent essay on Egypt, Haaretz published a piece by Bradley Burston entitled, Egypt, Israel, and the sudden return of Land for Peace, arguing that that the events in Egypt today validate the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt; the treaty serves as a model example of land for peace, something which could now inspire a new appreciation for land-for-peace, and create an unanticipated opportunity for Israel-Palestinian talks.
Both of these essays capture the difference between writers of the Right and writers of Left : fantasy vs reality.
On this topic of Egypt, for example, the Left believes that, “as a direct result of revolution in Egypt, Land for Peace has returned” as a major tool for resolving the Arab-Israel conflict.
The Right does not agree. Instead, writers on the Right focus on public comments by the most important major players in Egypt right now—Ayman Nour, head of the Oppositionist Ghad Party; Mohamed ElBaradei, nuclear diplomat who is a possible Mubarak successor; and the Muslim Brotherhood—who are all declaring that the Camp David Accords and the ‘Peace treaty’ with Israel are “over”.
The Left makes no comment about these pronouncements and, seeing no reason to account for them, acts as if they do not exist.
The Right looks at these pronouncements and sees no reason to disregard them.
One chooses to ignore what is being said in Egypt; one chooses to look directly at what is being said.
Fantasy vs reality.
One might argue that, if the Left and the Right each had the same number of essays written in an English-language media, an enquiring reader could accept this divide: each side would get an equal opportunity to capture our eye and ear; one could read both points of view; and then, finally, one could decide whom to choose as the keenest observer. But that is not what happens here in Israel. The reader is disadvantaged: rather than getting an equal playing field, the reader gets a field heavily weighted to the Left.
I think that the Jerusalem Post does not do a bad job offering essays from both Left and Right; and if the Post were the only English-language outlet, that balance might be acceptable. But of course, the JPost is not alone: we also have Haaretz, a very Left outlet. In fact, they are often so heavily Left that there are days when Al Jezeera English appears more balanced on the topic of Israel than Haaretz.
Of course, the JPost is not the only outlet to turn to, in order to find Right-leaning essays: there is Arutz Sheva. I would guess that, if an educated reader were to identify, say, four basic items a Right-leaning news outlet must have or do, then Arutz Sheva could say that they meet that test. But their presence on the political playing field seems nonetheless muted, for several reasons:
1. Arutz Sheva does not appear to match Haaretz, writer for writer, with the same number of essayists to offer daily commentary on the news. Worse, I suspect that Arutz Sheva may not even have one full-time writer available to comment on daily news from a Right point of view. The drumbeat from Haaretz is daily, repeated by multiple essayists and consistently Left. Arutz Sheva’s Right-oriented presentations do not seem to appear so regularly, consistently or repeatedly.
2. Arutz Sheva seems to offer news commentary only as unpaid (or paid-by-piece) volunteers submit. This means that commentary may not be timely—or, it may not be received at all, thereby leaving a reader hungry for commentary to offset what is in Haaretz unsatisfied.
3. Finally, I suspect that, while Haaretz pulls no punches—and too often goes overboard with its name-calling and invective—Arutz Sheva appears to impose an editorial policy that leans too far to the other side, appearing to limit almost everything that might look controversial. In the face of Haaretz’ uncontrolled and sometimes vicious anger, Arutz Sheva appears too delicate, even effete.
Think of the difference between Haaretz and Arutz Sheva this way: both are in the same boxing arena. Both come prepared to fight. For gloves, Arutz Sheva enters the ring wearing on each hand two large pillows that are tied haphazardly; meanwhile, Haaretz arrives wearing brass knuckles. It is not an even match; and if you argue that Arutz Sheva really is not in the same boxing ring as Haaretz—-because Arutz Sheva has a different objective--then I will share with you a dirty secret: to the internet surfer looking for news and daily political commentary, if Arutz Sheva claims they are not in the same arena as Haaretz—then, to that reader hungry for information, what happens is not a boxing match between two news outlets, but a mugging.
Arutz Sheva gets mugged. The message of Haaretz screams—with barely a sound from the Right.
Why is this unequal messaging important?
Possibly, because of the lessons of applied mathematics.
In applied mathematics, there is something called ‘game theory’. Since I am no mathematician, I cannot tell you what ‘game theory’ is, other than to quote Wikipedia’s description that this was “initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense”; but I can tell you one way it was explained to me: two children grab a piece of candy at the same time. Each claims that the candy is his. No adult is present to adjudicate. How do they work it out? Generally, game theory suggests (I was told) that the one with the clearest goals and the most persistence—i.e., the one who yells the loudest and persists the hardest—even if he is lying—has the greatest chance to get the candy.
Even if this is not really ‘game theory’, the description above can still prove useful because many of us have seen how children often work out these competitive situations: if the Left gets to scream all it wants to, with no one of equal weight or substance pushing back or proving them false, then ‘game theory’ or something like game theory, might suggest that the Left could win the day at the Right’s expense, for they are the ones who appear to publicize the clearest statement, the clearest goals, and it is they who get to the come to the public with the loudest, most repeated and most persistent message.
In fact, we may see this already beginning. Today, we have in power a Right-leaning government. If you consider the political history of Israel, the Right is not the party of ‘surrender land for peace’. The Right has typically been for an Israel that does not yield. Yes, there have been some exceptions here, but I believe that is the main line of the Israel Right; and yet, with the current leadership, we see what appears to some to be a real support for a two-state solution that requires Israel to surrender land.
I would suggest that a part of the calculus that has prompted our Prime Minister to take the position he has taken is ‘game theory’—that is, what the PM is doing might be explained by saying that the Left’s incessant and unchallenged drumbeat for surrender is ‘winning the day’ at the Right’s expense, as perhaps game theory suggests.
The problem here is one of exposure. All readers are not political analysts who know what is accurate and what is misrepresentation. Every reader does not always take the time to read carefully. But all readers are influenced by repetition; and the repetition all readers see is weighted heavily to the message of the Left, which means that the way Israelis vote may be more influenced by repetition than truth.
What should Israel do? I think the Left itself provides the answer.
In the past couple of months, regarding calls to investigate NGOs, and news stories surrounding Rabbis writing letters, we have seen the Left sometimes bitterly insisting that democracy must be protected. How many times have we seen complaints from the Left that any investigation into NGOs, and any activist role by Israel’s Rabbis, threatens Israel’s democracy? How many times did Haaretz’s commentators cry that our democracy would be destroyed if we listened to Rabbis or questioned Left NGOs?
The Left argues that we must protect our democracy. The Left is adamant about this.
Therefore, I would suggest that, because voters are not always so careful or discerning, the existence of unequal messaging is not conducive to a democracy; indeed, it would seem to me that unequal messaging threatens democracy, for it seems more the tool of the demagogue, not the democrat.
So, since the Left feels so strongly about protecting democracy--and since it might be possible to argue that unequal messaging could ultimately destroy democracy-- I have a modest proposal.
First, I do not advocate closing Haaretz. Instead, I advocate opening a new outlet, one that offers a sufficiently Right point of view, something to offset the incessant Left drumbeat of Haaretz, so that the voter can hear both sides, equally weighted.
Haaretz itself suggests the format to follow. Look at their website. See how columnists are highlighted. See how stories are arranged. The new Right outlet could imitate this, so that a reader would see the same format, one Right, one Left. It would be intellectually easy, convenient and simple.
And the reader will be able to see how the Right would answer the Left’s point of view.
In fact, one might even suggest that, once the Left is actually confronted with fact and reality, they may give up screaming, name-calling and vicious personal attacks. Why? Because most writers have no more than 900 words to say their piece. How is a writer going to scream names at the Right—and still have space left over to answer the factual arguments the Right has presented. Maybe, the reason the Left has become so vicious is that nobody has demanded that they write something else.
Is it possible that the existence of a strong Right news outlet willing to argue the Left point-by-point on a daily basis could actually improve the level of political discourse in Israel? (Well, that might be a little too optimistic)
Certainly, details must be worked out. Money must be raised. A website must be designed. People must be hired and paid. Editorial guidelines need to be established. The government must be convinced to allow such a new entity. But Ms Glick is correct. Israel’s leaders must study what is fantasy and what is reality, and act accordingly. Wouldn’t the challenge of discerning the difference between fantasy and reality be simplified with a truly robust Right news outlet?
I would suggest that we would all be the better for it.
'But that is not what happens here in Israel. The reader is disadvantaged: rather than getting an equal playing field, the reader gets a field heavily weighted to the Left.'
So whats new,Tuvia ?
It's always been the same.
The tiny grasshoppers always outnumber the faithful ,that is until God sends his judgment on the evil,faithless,mega-loser-tribe of Israel.
Money or faith ?
Joshua and Calev picked wisely ,will you ?
Numbers 14:36
Now the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation complain against him by bringing a bad report of the land, 37 those very men who brought the evil report about the land, died by the plague before the LORD. But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh remained alive, of the men who went to spy out the land.
New York Times best selling author Joel C. Rosenberg offered the following analysis of the pending U.N. vote against Israel on his blog page:
WITH MIDEAST IN TURMOIL, U.S. DECIDES TO REBUKE ISRAEL — A TRUE DEMOCRACY AND ITS MOST LOYAL ALLY — AT THE U.N.
By turning against Israel, the U.S. may be sowing the seeds of its own demise. May God help us all.
In regards to the ongoing crisis in Egypt and the Middle East, New York Times best selling author Joel C. Rosenberg states the following:
WITH MIDEAST IN TURMOIL, U.S. DECIDES TO REBUKE ISRAEL — A TRUE DEMOCRACY AND ITS MOST LOYAL ALLY — AT THE U.N.
As Israel faces new threats from Russia, Syria, and Iran, The United States is abandoning Israel in its time of need, which begs the following question: Will the God of Israel abandon the U.S. as the U.S. continues to abandon Israel?