Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

October 13, 2011 |  10 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Israel's Old Road is Rapidly Fading as Times Change in Middle East

John Taylor: While the Jewish state remains the strongest military power in the Middle East, it is increasingly isolated in a region undergoing dramatic political change. Israel needs to adopt a policy of engagement and dialogue with its neighbors in order to safeguard its position in the region.

In a recent speech to the US Congress, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected Barack Obama’s latest peace initiative, as he insisted that Israel could not return to its pre-1967 borders on the West Bank or give up sovereignty over Jerusalem. The impression of a confident, yet defiant, Israeli Prime Minster has been reinforced by Israel’s relative political stability, its robust economic growth and the Jewish state’s continued importance to America as its only dependable partner in the region. Nevertheless, recent events in the Middle East point to the Jewish state’s growing isolation and limited ability to influence events as they unfold.

The demand for more democracy in the Arab world has also strengthened the desire among the Palestinians for an independent state. For the first time in many years, the Palestinians have succeeded in creating a united front, as the two largest factions - Fatah and Hamas - have overcome their bitter rivalry to form a unity government, and are now seeking recognition for an independent state at the United Nations - a move, which Israel is desperately trying to prevent.

Outside Israel’s borders, the fall of former Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, has also had serious implications for the Jewish state. While the ruling elite in Egypt had reconciled itself to the existence of Israel, the population, at large, remained considerably more hostile. Now the new Egyptian administration has reopened the border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip and facilitated the reconciliation process between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. In effect, Israel’s efforts to defeat Hamas through a blockade of the Gaza strip and a brief war in 2009 have been nullified by political revolution in Egypt. The recent attacks in southern Israel and the closure of the Israeli embassy in Cairo have served to merely heighten the existing tensions between the two countries.

The Jewish state’s inability to influence events which impact its security has been further highlighted by Iran’s nuclear program. Despite the imposition of economic sanctions and the threat of force by both the US and Israel, Iran has refused to give up its efforts to develop nuclear power. The Israeli government has also been unable to dissuade Russia from providing Iran with nuclear expertise. Moreover, the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is supported by Iran, continues to pose a threat to the Jewish state.

In a further sign of Israel’s diplomatic weakness, relations with Turkey – one of the few states in the region with which the Jewish state has previously enjoyed close ties - have markedly deteriorated during the last few years. A series of diplomatic incidents and Israel’s seizure of a Turkish aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip in 2010 has caused a serious rift between the two countries, and despite international efforts to isolate Iran, Turkey has been keen to increase trade with Tehran, much to Israel’s chagrin.

While Israel’s relations with Western governments remain good, its standing in Western public opinion has fallen dramatically. In this regard, criticism of Israel is now appearing from an unexpected source, as an increasing number of Jewish organizations and academics/intellectuals are voicing their opposition to the policies pursued by the Israeli government. In unprecedented scenes, Netanyahu’s speeches before AIPAC and the US Congress this past May were disrupted by Jewish hecklers protesting against Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and siege of the Gaza Strip.

What can Israel do to address these issues? A radical new approach is needed which will enable Israel to regain the diplomatic initiative in the Middle East and improve its image in the West. The Jewish state needs to offer substantial concessions to the Palestinians. This involves not only relinquishing control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but also recognizing Palestinian claims to areas that were inhabited by the Palestinians before 1948. This might not mean a return of all the Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel, but would involve an equitable sharing of resources between Israelis and Palestinians over all of Israel and Palestine. Such a shift in policy could, in turn, open the way for an improvement in relations with Egypt and Turkey and repair Israel’s tarnished image in the West. The Jewish state also needs to extend its cooperation with the Arab states in the Gulf region, which feel equally threatened by the Islamic republic, rather than simply restating the threat of a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. This involves considerable political risks, but at least provides an alternative to the current situation where Israel faces growing international isolation over its policies towards the Palestinians and is locked into permanent conflict with its neighbors.

John Taylor is a recent M.A graduate in War Studies at King’s College London.

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Izzettin  Tosun

October 13, 2011

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Israel should give up agressive sitiuation in middle east so as to security. Israel has heavy guns and nuclear weapons. anyone cant dare attaciking israel. and also all super west countries support this country against muslim worlds. if these countries support Israel's agressive sitiuation, there will no peace in the middle east forever. UN should stop Israel's agressive. Turkey supported Israel in any case. but Israel killed Turkey's citizens international water in spite of that they dont have guns. and also Turkey is a Nato member. Nato never warn Israel bcs of attacking Turkey's citizen. why didnt Nato warn Israel? is there any seperation for Turkey in Nato bcz of Muslim country?
 
Alexandra  Hensley

October 15, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Izzettin Tosun,

I have to cordially disagree with your description of Israel's situation as a whole as aggressive--continued settlement in the West Bank aside, as that is certainly so. I would rather describe Israel's position as extremely (some believe excessively) defensive, as it has been in the business of defending its territory since its inception.

It is clear--concessions need to be made on both sides in order to create a perennial and reasonable peace. Mr. Taylor--I wholeheartedly agree that Israel's growing isolation surely exacerbates the security concerns of that nation. It is a path with serious consequences from which it should quickly divert. Your solutions in the last paragraph are formidable ideas.

The relinquishment of East Jerusalem, however, is a concession that Israel has repeatedly declared it will never make. As this land is so precious to both sides, I believe the consideration of a shared or neutral zone should be seriously considered. As the UN deliberates over the issue of Palestinian independence, the Middle East Quartet has a grand opportunity to have a strong impact on the situation. I believe it should give a neutral zone serious thought as a potential solution to the East Jerusalem question. A neutral zone supported by the international community and effectively implemented would be a milestone in global affairs. Not only would it be a supreme example of peaceful coexistence, it would set an excellent precedent for future passionately shared territory claims.

Very best regards,

Alexandra Hensley
MS Candidate, Global Affairs, NYU
 
Pamela  Faber

October 16, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Taylor,

Thank you for an interesting perspective on Israel’s isolation in the region, but I wonder if your article too closely melds external (international, regional) and internal (domestic) forces which Israel and surrounding nations face.

I think it is unrealistic to expect any state, including Israel, to be able to influence events which impact its security. Even if Israel were to transition to a more diplomatically-minded modus operandi for domestic and international conflict it would not be able to anticipate or respond to all security threats. There is no panacea to conflict, and even if all of the suggestions at the end of this piece were implemented, conflict may simply be transformed rather than abated. While I agree that tensions are particularly high at the moment due to the Palestinian bid for nationhood and the Arab spring, Israel has had strained relationships with other states in the region since 1948, manifest in multiple wars, failed peace treaties and veiled threats. I fail to see an impending state-level crisis, although one may rightfully argue that crises are continuous due to the humanitarian strife of the Palestinians.

I think there is also a tendency to oversimplify Israeli foreign policy. For instance, what are your views on Israel’s agreement with Hamas to release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the return of Gilad Shalit, in which Egyptian and German negotiators were instrumental, with the agreement being signed in Egypt itself? While many are quick to claim this was due to upcoming elections, could it not also be viewed as a transition in Israel’s diplomatic stance? I think this may also call into question your assertions regarding Israel’s relationship with Egypt.

Best regards,
Pamela Faber
 
Bernhard  Lucke

October 18, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Excellent article, I totally agree with Mr. Taylor. However, this strategy would need an extremely courageous Israeli leader and I don't see anyone being able to lead that way. It is so much easier and less risky to bomb Gaza instead of making serious concessions to the Palestinian.

However, given the current development in the Near East, Israel may soon have to do so. But then, if acting out of a comparable weak position, perspectives will likely deteriorate. Israelis usually have a different viewpoint, saying they can't trust the Palestinians, but I am afraid that is a pretty bad concept for living together well, especially on the long run.
 
John  Taylor

October 19, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hello Pamela,

Thank you for your comments.

My thoughts on the recent prisoner swap are the following; After having condemned Hamas for years as a terrorist organization, which it has refused to talk to, Israel now decides it can do a deal with the Islamist movement. Perhaps, this is tacit recognition that Hamas cannot be defeated. Apart from the upcoming elections, another reason for the prisoner swap could be an attempt by Netanyahu to exploit the rivalry between Hamas and Fatah in order to weaken the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN. I don’t believe that the prisoner swap points to any change in Israel’s overall policy. The Israeli government continues to build settlements in the West Bank and as far as I am aware, Netanyahu still refuses to accept the recent peace plan put forward by Barack Obama.

To respond to some of the other points you raised.

I disagree with you that states are not able to influence events which impact on their security. In the past, the Jewish state has been able to influence events across the Middle East - the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 is a case in point. It is true that Israel has had strained relationships with other states in the region since its creation, but I think that circumstances are different from what they were, say 30 or 40 years ago. In particular, many of the advantages which Israel previously enjoyed have evaporated. In the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, there was huge sympathy for the Jewish people around the world. This sympathy translated into support for the creation of the state of Israel, but with the passage of time, the collective memory of Jewish suffering during World War 2 has faded. During the Cold War, Israel was allied with the West while the Palestinians looked to the Soviet Union for support. In consequence, there was less awareness about the Palestinian side of the Arab/Israeli conflict. However, with the end of the Cold War, the balance has changed. Moreover, while the Jewish state remains the strongest military power in the Middle East, Israel has been unable to subdue either Hezbollah or Hamas during the brief wars of 2006 and 2009. Contrast this to Israel’s earlier victories over Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians during the last century.

What I have described above does not point to an immediate state-level crisis, but in my article, I argue that the policy of force backed up by US support, which Israel has followed in the past cannot guarantee its long term survival. This is why I have suggested that a radical rethink of Israel’s policy is needed. As Bernhard has pointed out, it is another question as to whether the current Israeli political/military leadership is capable of such a major policy shift.
Tags: | Response to Pamela |
 
Joshua  Clapp

October 20, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
John,

Thank you for your contribution. While Israel should certainly re-think some of its policies (e.g. settlement policy), I find it unrealistic to expect Israel to recognize most Palestinian claims on pre-1948 land. This in effect would be the end of Israel, as we know it. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning. And even if some claims were recognized, I am unsure of how certain claims should be prioritized. You obviously know more and have thought more on this issue than I have. Which Palestinian claims do you view as the most important for Israel to recognize?

And certainly, there is indeed a need for ‘equitable sharing of resources’ between the two parties. But what exactly would this equitable sharing consist of? This point of sharing or compromise seems to be the crux of the conflict. And I believe, therein lies the rub. Do the Israelis and Palestinians share sufficiently compatible perspectives on each other and the conflict in order to reach a settlement? I am uncertain that such corresponding viewpoints exist. Do you believe the political culture and will exists on both sides for a sustained peace, or must the two sides wait for truly exceptional political leaders to emerge? If the latter is the case, I am afraid we could be waiting for some time.

Regards,

Joshua

 
Niklas  Anzinger

October 21, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear John,

as Joshua pointed out at some points, your argument lacks soundness in some ways.

For example, why is it unquestionable from your perspective that concessions to the Palestinians lead to more effective peace-forming conditions? See the withdrawal from Gaza, leading to intensified rocket firing at the south of Israel. As we can see from the responses to the prisoner swap, not only Hamas views any re-treatment by the Israeli side as a sign of their weakness. Recognizing weakness, they feel encouraged to carry out more aggressive actions bringing the Israelis to more re-treatment.

It is riddling for me that analysts take the fallacy of this argument for granted - as a matter of fact, it explains the Palestinian ratio in the last decades profoundly. This is the very reason, sad as it is for Europeans, who don´t have to deal with that kind of problems, why this argument is predominant in the Israeli security calculus. I see no reason at all why it should be unsound, as pessimistic the conclusions for a future peace settlement might be, we are dealing here with reality - not as it is imagined of wishful-thinkers.

Your analysis turns the facts around. As sound it might seem, fitting the picture of the Israeli perpetrator and the Palestinian victim, it is not real. What you describe as a "radical change" has been elaborated and experimented by the Israelis too many times, failing for the reason described above, and I should not pinpoint at the numerous occasions, because these should have been entailed in your research.

I am sorry for my tone, but I am hearing your very argument over and over again, if the Israelis concede, the Palestinians will do alike. It is a complete distortion of the facts on the ground not taking any of the numerous attempts by the Israeli side to do so in account - while there was none of the seriously taking out by the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are also responsible for their actions. Impeding the negotiation-way, constantly upheld by Mr. Abbas, offered in every speech of Netanjahu, should be followed by punitive measures, as recently cutting aid by the US. Why? Because even the pessimists agree that this is the only way.
 
John  Taylor

October 25, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?

Thanks for your comments and response, Joshua.

In relation to Palestinian claims on pre-1948 land, I was thinking more in terms of a change in approach on the part of Israel, rather than the physical return of Palestinians to areas which are now part of the State of Israel. By a change in approach, I mean a recognition by the Israeli state that there was a Palestinian presence in what is now Israel and the Palestinians do have legitimate grievances even if the Palestinians have in the past, pursued their grievances using illegitimate means. This is something which Israel has never done. By an equitable sharing of resources I was thinking primarily about water resources which are vital, but also scarce in the region. At the moment, water resources are controlled almost exclusively by Israel.

To answer your question as to whether a real and lasting peace between the two sides is possible. As things stand at the moment, I think the answer is no. Aside from the personal enmity between Palestinians and Israelis, there are a number of external factors which make peace unlikely in the foreseeable future. Firstly, external powers, including Russia and the US, continue to vie for power and control in the region. Contrast Russian involvement in Iran’s nuclear program and its opposition (together with China) to UN sanctions against Syria, with US backing for autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and continued support for Israel. Where you have intense rivalry between major powers, it makes it very difficult for regional/ethnic conflicts to be resolved. Moreover, a number of countries in the Middle East (Syria/Iran), for reasons of their own, have an interest in prolonging the conflict. Bear in mind as well, that Israel continues to be the US’s key strategic ally in the region and, as a result, is probably one of the most heavily armed states in the world, today. Heavily armed states have a tendency to be averse to peaceful compromise. What makes the situation in Israel dangerous is that while Israel is strong militarily - politically, it is weak. I don’t think the current leadership in Israel (Netanyahu/Liebermann) is capable of reaching a peace agreement even if they wanted one. John
Tags: | Response to Joshua |
 
John  Taylor

October 27, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hello Niklas,

Thank you for your response. To reply to some of the points you raised.

I don’t agree with you that the dismantling of settlements in the Gaza Strip was an attempt to make peace with the Palestinians or even a concession. Israel retained control over the area, while the settlers themselves were simply moved to the West Bank. Israel gave up settlements in the Gaza Strip in order to consolidate its hold over the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu has not offered anything to Abbas. As I pointed out in my article, in his recent speech to the US Congress, the Israeli Prime Minster insisted that the Jewish settlements on the West Bank would have to stay, Jerusalem would remain undivided and under Israeli control and that Israel would retain a sizable military presence on the West Bank. He even rejected Abbas’s modest demand that Israel freeze settlement building as precondition for resuming negotiations. Netanyahu’s policy effectively nullifies any prospect for a viable Palestinian state.

I think the onus is on Israel to make concessions to Palestinians as it is by far the stronger side. It has the best equipped armed forces in the Middle East, is allied to the world’s only superpower, has a strong economy and controls nearly all of what is Palestine.

I agree there is no guarantee that a change in policy by Israel along the lines I have argued would bring about peace. However, I also believe that maintaining a hardline stance against the Palestinians as you appear to suggest will not give Israel long-term security either.
Tags: | Reply to Niklas |
 
John  Taylor

October 27, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
My last comment had some type errors so I am resubmitting it.

Hello Niklas,

Thank you for your response. To reply to some of the points you raised.

I don’t agree with you that the dismantling of settlements in the Gaza Strip was an attempt to make peace with the Palestinians or was even a concession. Israel retains control over the area, while the settlers themselves were simply moved to the West Bank. Israel gave up the settlements in the Gaza Strip primarily in order to consolidate its hold over the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu has not offered anything to Abbas. As I pointed out in my article, in his recent speech to the US Congress, the Israeli Prime Minster insisted that Israel could not withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, Jerusalem would remain undivided and under Israeli control and that Israel would retain a sizable military presence on the West Bank. He even rejected Abbas’s modest demand that Israel halt settlement construction as a precondition for resuming negotiations. Netanyahu’s policy effectively torpedoes any prospect for a viable Palestinian state.

I think the onus is on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians as it is by far the stronger side. It has the best equipped armed forces in the Middle East, is allied to the world’s only superpower, has a strong economy and controls nearly all of what used to be Palestine.

I agree there is no guarantee that a change in policy by Israel, along the lines I have suggested, would bring about peace. However, I also believe that maintaining a hardline stance against the Palestinians, as you appear to argue, will not give Israel long-term security.
Tags: | Reply to Niklas | |
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website