So much has happened
in the last two months it’s hard to know where to start. Egypt, the People,
Mubarak, the Middle East conflict and how that changes in the light of Egypt
and LIbya
I read an
interesting article claiming that there was a cold war in the Middle East
(excluding Israel) and this was between Tyrannical Despots and Muslim regimes.
Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt did little to redress the balance, as the
“People’s Revolution” has only managed to install military juntas in both
countries. The puppets (albeit powerful puppets) have gone and the military
remains the ruling body.
Egypt could be the
exception to the rule. It has defied all
expectations and this has been reflected in the changing responses coming from
world leaders. While Tunisia was pro-western, it was not a major player in US
policy or EU policy. Egypt was and possibly still will be.
Mubarak was a major
player and certainly a lynchpin in the “Peace Process”. He maintained a peace
treaty with Israel against the tide of popular opinion in the area and even his
own country (although it was supported in a national referendum in 1979). He
was a middle-man for both Israelis and Palestinians in dealing with day to day
issues without having to meet face to face.
Will this peace
treaty stay in place now that Mubarak has gone? This is now a real test of
American Foreign Policy and its influence. American influence has dwindled
since the end of the Cold War and of course to argue that the US controls the
world now flies in the face of all the facts.
The Cold War was a
numbers game where the end justified the means. So both the Americans and the
Soviets supported regimes that were ideologically repulsive to them, just so
long as they remained within their sphere of influence. The legacy for America
was that it found itself supporting many a tyrannical despot whose claim for
support was their strategic importance. Only two US presidents have made an
issue of Human Rights with these despots, Jimmy Carter and interestingly
enough, George W Bush (in his second term). Several despots remained important
to the Americans and especially in the Middle East, where an ideological ally
(Israel) was under constant threat of war and Muslim hegemony in the area that
Muslim’s believe is theirs exclusively (once again a view that flies in the
face of historical facts).
Over the last 10
years the “Arab/Israeli conflict” has been transformed by the western media and
western world into the “Israeli/Palestinian conflict”. There is a vast difference between the two
and it is fundamental to how you approach Middle East politics. Certainly it
has proven to be so in the west, where the average citizen is starting to adopt
this approach to the area.
For some
perspective, Israel is a country that fits into Tasmania 3 and half times. It
has a population of 7 million of which 5.8 million are Jewish. It is surrounded
by 22 Arab and Muslim countries that covers 66000 the land mass of Israel and
has a population 100 times larger. Of
those 22 countries only 2 have signed a peace treaty with Israel, and 3 others
have de-facto relations with Israel. Most are still officially at war with
Israel. Only 2 recognise Israel’s right to exist and one is calling for the
total obliteration of Israel.
As to where
Palestine fits into this equation for Israel, it is an interesting question and
no less interesting as to where Palestine fits into the equation for other Arab
countries. Interestingly enough there was no Palestinian problem before the
state of Israel. Palestine was not an Arab state and never had been. Israeli
rule to Roman rule, to Turkish rule to British rule, Palestine (so named by the
Romans) was a land which had always had both Arab and Jews living there.
Despite
historical revisionism, it is generally recognised that the local Arab
population in Palestine were told to vacate their houses until Arab armies had
crushed the new Jewish state. The number of Palestinian refugees is equal to
the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries over the ensuing ten years.
Ephraim
Karsh suggests that the goal of the Arab armies was to destroy Israel, but then
to divide up the area between the Egyptian in the south, Jordanians in the
east, Syrians in the north east and Lebanon immediately north, with no
intention of creating a Palestinian state
With this in mind it
is impossible for Israel to view its own situation in the narrow format of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but must necessarily view it as part of the
larger regional conflict which is Arab/ Israeli conflict.
The events of the
last two months only goes to emphasise the regional issues in the Middle East
have little to do with what is happening between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Palestinians, as per usual, have no united approach to what is happening in the
Middle-East, but both sides of the Palestinian camp are worried about protests
and mass movements.
One event in the
last 2 months that did not receive as much publicity as it might have, had the
Middle East been quieter, is the UN Security Council vote calling all
settlement in the West Bank illegal and a hindrance to peace. This was the only
time in the last 2 months that the US has remained consistent with past policy
and also supported an ally. American allies have been hard hit in the Middle
East and the US finds itself with a diminishing sphere of influence.
The Americans had
always said that the Security Council was not the place to decide how a peace
should be negotiated. To that extent it was not a surprise to anyone, but the
vote was interesting for the fact that it carried with it the weight of 130
signature countries. It was a vote made to embarrass the US internationally, to
make her a pariah. However timing makes all the difference and this news got
swallowed up in the rest of the Middle East news.
Why did America
“stick phat” with Israel? Had they voted with everyone else there would have
been enormous pressure on Israel to halt all building in anything considered a
settlement. Why is that bad? Wouldn’t that lead to peace?
The Americans had
not been doing so well by their allies in the Middle East, with Mubarak gone in
Egypt, Tunisia also. Allies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan would have been sweating
profusely at the lack of support shown by the US. Standing by Israel helped alleviate
those fears.
While Bahrain had
threatened to blow out of control, it, like most of the regimes in the area,
its government is regaining a semblance of control. Libya has provided quite a
different scenario.
Libya and Gaddafi
were often held up by the intellectual left as a model society. Gadaffi’s Libya
sat on the UNHRC inner sanctum that felt its duty to constantly lambast Israel.
Gadaffi was the darling of the left and courted by the Europeans despite his
direct and known connections to terrorism (especially the Lockerbie bombing).
And yet no one was really surprised that this madman threatened to let the
streets run with the blood of the rebels.
The response from
western countries was encouraging. They took the threat seriously, unlike the
threats against the Jews by Hitler in World War 2. The need to protect the
innocent from slaughter was backed by NATO, the UN and a “coalition of the
willing” for want of a better phrase. Most importantly it was backed by the
Arab League.
I believe had the Arab League not been
prepared to back this call, the US would not have taken an active part. Obama
is concerned about how the US in viewed in the Arab world and I would venture
to say he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in this area. Despite the hatred
for George W Bush, there was no doubt in anybody’s mind that the US had its
agenda and worked according to that. Today US policy is the Middle East is on
hold and rudderless. Every move is a reaction to events. But Obama is also
worried about how this plays out at home, committing even more soldiers to
action.
It is for this
reason that NATO is in charge of the mission. The British, but more
specifically the French have taken a pro active role in the whole escapade. The
mandate given these forces allows them to do all to prevent the slaughter of
civilians. There is of course a reticence to send in foreign troops and so this
is talk of the alternative was arming the rebels. I believe that this was not
covered legally by the mandate, which did not call for regime change. NATO
certainly wanted regime change.
The Arab league
initially called for intervention, but the chairman (not chairperson in this
case) who is a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, suddenly got cold feet
when Gaddafi started showing film of civilian dead in Tripoli. However they got
back on the horse and decided to back the intervention. My personal belief is
that if there is to be a military presence introduced, then the soldiers should
be that of a combined Arab League force. The west doesn’t need to be called
colonialists or oil-interested sharks for carrying out what is ultimately a
humanitarian mission.
One area of concern
is who the rebels actually are. The Europeans have already moved quickly in
accepting the legitimacy of a leadership that is largely unknown. They even
invited a representative to a military debriefing and policy session in Paris.
Despite Gadaffi's
ravings about the rebels being Al Quaieda, there is some basis for this. The
initial Al Quaieda fighters, fighting the Americans in Iraq were from Benghazi.
It is an Al Quaieda stronghold. This by no means that they control the rebels, but
it means that caution is required.
On February 11
Ahmedinajad said that as result of changes in the Middle East, Israel would
soon cease to exist. Could he be right?
I don’t think so and certainly not because of the changes taking place in the
Middle East at the moment.
I would love to
believe, like most westerners that the “social revolution” or “jasmine
revolution” were powered by the youth craving democracy and freedom; and that
these people would go onto form government. Unfortunately I remain cynical
about the ability of the youth to translate the momentum to political acumen
and the ability to govern. I’m sure they never planned that far ahead and for
that reason, the traditional opponents of the regime, whether they had been a
legal or oppressed opposition, will form the basis of any new government.
Because the regimes that have fallen and/ or are about to fall, have largely
been friendly to the west, it is therefore safe to assume that the new regimes
will definitely be less so. The US has no colonial guilt, but the Europeans do.
For some reason they think they can fix things now. The Arabs still blame
colonialism for everything. In an interview of President Assad of Syria-:
“Mr. President, why
is it so difficult for this region since hundreds and hundreds of years to find
peace?
Very simply, in one
word, because of the occupation. We have been living in very difficult
circumstances during the centuries; but if you look at the social fabric, it is
always peaceful; you do not have civil wars, except for Lebanon for the last
three decades. Look at Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and this entire
region
where we did not
have any internal conflict. All the conflicts were because of the occupations:
the British, the French and now the Israeli. That is why we do not have peace.
We see desperation that leads to extremism. That is why we do not have the peace.”
Syria is going to be
the test ground for how much of a revolution is really happening in the Middle
East. Both Syria and Iran slaughter innocent civilians in much the same way
that Gaddafi said he would. They both have proven track records in this area, but
the west feels no compunction to intervene. This may change as things develop,
but I am not hopeful. Assad feels protected, knowing that China and Russia will
prevent any major condemnation of Syria getting through the Security Council.
In Lebanon
Hizbullah, still recognised by most western countries as a terrorist
organisation as ascended to government and rule in Lebanon, allowing them to
completely squash the UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which
pointed the finger directly at Hizbullah. Where the south of Lebanon was once a
Christian stronghold, it is now firmly in the hands of Hizbullah and they sit
on the border with Israel with Iranian supplied rockets. It is worthwhile
noting that the Lebanese Army works separately from Hizbullah forces, yet
Hizbullah now have theoretical control of both.
Turkey has
interestingly decided to opt out of Europe and align with their Muslim
brothers. The Turks are Muslims, but not Arabs. They were last in the Middle
East as colonial masters. I imagine that they see themselves playing a
significant role and as a counterbalance to Iran, another non-Arab country.
They remain part of NATO and are therefore involved in several conflicts in the
region as well. Turkey still has diplomatic ties with Israel, at least
officially. Until very recently they had military ties as well. They remain an
unknown commodity as a player in the region, but I believe they will take a
populist view of things and move further and further away from Israel.
Lastly I would like
to address how all of this impacts on Israel. As I said above, Israel sees
itself as part of the Middle East and the conflict it faces is an Arab/ Israeli
conflict. Its decisions must be based on the realities of the day. With a change
in leadership in Egypt and despite the ruling generals saying the peace treaty
with Israel would remain intact and effective, Egypt Air has already cancelled
all flights to Israel, which now no longer appears on their map of the Middle
East. There have been attacks on the Israeli/ Egyptian gas line and more
worrisome is the apparent renewal of tunnel activity from Gaza into the Sinai,
smuggling in weapons (specifically rockets) and all sorts of military hardware
from Iran.
As I write this, the
Palestinians are declaring themselves a sovereign state via the good offices of
the UN and while it is not expected to pass the Security Council, it will
overwhelmingly pass through the General Assembly. This will certainly change the
dynamics and mindset, while not necessarily providing changes in real
terms. Israel has a conflict with the
Palestinians that it wants to resolve. The majority of Israelis still believe
that there is no choice other than a two state solution, but how does that
happen. The Palestinians have two states, both ruled by people whose term in
government has expired. Both have legitimacy issues and can’t hold elections
until there is a peace between Fatah and Hamas (an increasingly unlikely
prospect). There is also the western supported Fatah as opposed to the Iranian
supported Hamas, making this an issue of consequence in terms of Middle East
balance. Hamas does not recognise Israel’s right to exist, so the only alternative
is to negotiate with a “western puppet” government that has no street
credibility and the same amount of legitimacy.
Israel is told that
by resolving the Palestinian equation they would solve the whole mess in the
Middle East. The last few months have made a mockery of that and of the notion
that the main conflict in the area is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. We live
in interesting times.
So with the Middle
East ablaze in revolution and conflict where the Palestinians were not the
centre of attention. To make sure that they remain at the centre of world
attention they are pushing for statehood at the UN. This brazen step doomed to
failure in legal sense as it will be vetoed in the Security Council by the
United States and possibly some of the European powers. It will however receive
an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly and this will at least provide
the Palestinians with a moral victory.
Interestingly enough
the 2 parties that form the leadership of the Palestinians hate each other as
much as they despise the Israelis. Hamas and Fatah need to stick together for
there to be any real progress made from this step at the UN, but it is unlikely
they will succeed.
It would be remiss
of me not to mention that the government of Bibi has not done much to improve
things in the region. At best it was trying to maintain the status quo which is
like living in vacuum in today's Middle East. At worst they have tried to sabotage
any progress, with ill timed statements and what seemed to be contempt of the
Obama administration.
Israel however will
have been handed a fait accompli and be expected by the rest of the word to now
negotiate with the government of Palestine, half of which does not believe in
Israel's right to exist. The Middle East today is less stable than it was! The
influence of the United States is now minimal and their allies have been let
down by lack of support. The western world is embracing green energy and the
power of oil will continue to shrink. This will be a continual frustration to
Arab nations that have built their whole economy on oil.
I think we are going
to see a very interesting year and a half in the Middle East and hopefully the
focus will be elections rather than war.
