Update from AIJAC
January 15, 2016
Number 01/16 #02
This Update features three recent pieces on Israel’s evolving place in the politics of the Middle East – a region which has changed dramatically since 2011, with large parts devolving into chaos and violence and others living in the shadow of following suit.
First up is a look, by American columnist Ben Cohen, at how Israeli strategic thinkers divide up the contemporary Middle East into four “powers” or alliances of forces. These are: Iran and its allies; the moderate Sunni states such as Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf monarchies; the Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas in Gaza; and the radical jihadist sphere, including ISIS and al-Qaeda. Cohen quotes a senior Israeli military officer stressing that Israel’s strategic interest is in working with the moderate states to renew quiet in the region, which means sharing “common interests of neutralizing Iran and eliminating the jihadi groups.” For more on Israeli thinking, including discussion of the effects of US policy on the region, CLICK HERE.
Next up is a plea by Israeli historian and former diplomat Shimon Shamir to recognise how tragic the collapse of the Arab state system has been – and not only for its inhabitants, but also for Israel. Shamir brings his expertise as a historian to bear on the question of why this happened – exploring the failure of the 20th century Arab nationalist movement to create functioning states that did not depend on authoritarianism to hold together, the failures in the economic realm, and especially the region-wide inability or refusal to embrace Western knowledge and technology. He also discusses the failure of these states to contain and channel Islam to “instill values to bring society together”, ending up instead by empowering Islamist radicals. For his insightful explanation as to why all this threatens Israel in the long run and Israelis should never rejoice in the misfortunes of their Arabs neighbours, CLICK HERE. Meanwhile, academic Daniel Pipes suggests that the UAE may be an exception to this bleak picture, after visiting there.
Finally, American commentator Gary Gambill reminds readers that the once widespread belief that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to making progress on most of the region’s problems has been completely discredited by the events of recent years. He notes that even the region’s extremist groups seem “more interested in fighting the ‘far enemy’ in the West and subduing ‘infidel’ adversaries closer to home (Shi’a, Yezidis, Christians, etc.) than in fighting Israel.” He argues that Israel was largely used by regional authoritarian regimes as a safety net to allow people to express discontent and embrace an anti-establishment cause – but ordinary citizens across the region today have a great deal more to worry about than Israel. For this reminder of how much the Arab-Israel conflict seems to have dropped off the map of the region’s politics, CLICK HERE.
Readers may also be interested in:
- In the wake of news that an Israeli far-left activist was entrapping Palestinians into selling land to Israeli Jews and then turning their names over to Palestinian authorities to be tortured and or killed, both Ari Shavit and Liel Leibowitz discuss the crisis in the Israeli left revealed by the reaction to this revelation.
- Fatah and Hamas call for more violence and terror in the new year, after Hamas suppressed all New Year’s celebrations in Gaza. Meanwhile, ISIS says it plans to take over Gaza from Hamas.
- Palestinian writer Bassem Tawil suggests lessons the Palestinian national movement needs to learn from Zionism.
- The New York Times on the liberal Arab culture in the Israeli city of Haifa.
- A piece on the not-so-secret economic ties between Israel and Indonesia.
- A definitive discussion of the role of Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in the Holocaust – a subject of some controversy last year – from historian Jeffrey Herf.
- Isi Leibler writes about how new and original thinking is the key to containing the current wave of Palestinian terrorism.
Back to Top
Following the collapse of Arab socialism and demise of the Arab Spring, is there any hope that the cradle of civilization will become a superpower once more?
The 21st century is becoming increasingly characterized by the tragedies befalling the Arab world. Tribal, ethnic, regional, religious and other forces are fighting each other for power, while Arab states seem to be coming apart at the seams or even completely crumbling. The historic rift between Sunni and Shiite Islam remains as divisive as ever, and jihadists are gaining footholds throughout Arab lands. They give rise to questions about their implications for Arab states in the modern age.
Ever since the Western world first burst into the Arab-Islamist sphere, more than 200 years ago, Arabs have been tormented by the question of why they the bearers of such a magnificent cultural heritage now find themselves at such a disadvantage. They have struggled to understand how they could possibly compete with more developed nations.
To hope to achieve this goal, they needed to address four challenges: First, to create sovereign states with functioning national institutions that depend upon cooperative citizens. Second, to develop the capacity to produce technology, which would secure them a competitive position in the world economy. Third, to handle Islam in a way that would instill values to bring society together like common identity and solidarity but also neutralize the violent elements that look to restore the ways of the past. Fourth, to shake off the neocolonialist influence and involvement of superpowers, and act independently in the international arena.
These tasks became relevant when the Arab states gained independence, about midway through the 20th century or, at least, it seemed that they had started to confront these challenges then. In some of the Arab states, revolutionary Nasserist-Baathist regimes came to power, and they assumed these burdens. They founded national institutions and created educational systems to indoctrinate the people and enhance the individuals affinity to the state. They nationalized production, built industrial plants and sent the people to universities, in the hope of advancing their countrys scientific and technological capabilities. They called it Arab socialism.
Islam was cultivated as a symbol, but the regimes themselves were secular and kept the Islamic movement subdued. They dismantled the foreign military bases and scrapped foreign military strategies like 1955s Baghdad Pact, which established METO a treaty organization (modeled after NATO) that included Britain and Middle Eastern states, but which was dissolved in 1979. The newly independent Arab states sought to establish themselves collectively as a world power and aligned with the African-Asian bloc; they labeled it a kind of positive neutrality.
The Arab reality today is very different. The leaders glaring mistake was they believed that in this region, the societies might be weak, but the states are strong. It transpired that the systems of intimidation and enforcement did not reflect strength, but instead weakness. When the upheavals began, and the non-state factions became more powerful and began preaching a new reality, some of the states collapsed, while others are struggling to maintain their stability.
From todays perspective, it isnt hard to explain the phenomenon. It seems that the Arab states, to varying degrees, were hollow entities; their conceptual frameworks were weak. They were created during the modern age and had no names because such entities did not exist prior to their establishment. The classical Arabic lexicon did not include a word for state or nation. In its place, the word meaning dynasty, or ruling family, was adapted for the purpose. The concept of a nation became synonymous with the idea of a dynasty that rises and falls. Thus, large swaths of the population backed the idea that when the regime falls, the state is no more.
In the West, the thinking tends to be that the toppling of an authoritarian regime might lead to the establishment of a democracy. However, bitter experience has shown that overthrowing the rulers prompts the whole system to collapse, and then the alternative is chaos. This is also the root cause of the failure of the youth that led the Arab Spring. It turned out that while its possible to topple a dictator, the proper foundations for fostering democracy in the aftermath both conceptually and institutionally were lacking.
There is no escaping the conclusion that, at this stage, most Arab states can only function with some level of stability under authoritarian regimes or traditional monarchies. The challenge of creating nations similar to those in the modern West has yet to be fulfilled.
Similar failures have occurred on the economic front, too. True, there was economic development in some Arab nations that led to prosperity and in some cases even great wealth (Qatar, for example, is the richest country in the world in terms of GDP per capita, while Kuwait is ranked fourth). Arab states need foreign currency to import essential food items, but they dont receive enough from the selling of natural resources, tourism, people working overseas and, for Egypt, from the Suez Canal.
Arab products are barely represented in the global marketplace. Compare Egypt and South Korea, where the economic conditions were similar when both nations achieved independence. South Korea currently exports everything from high-tech electronics to cars and boats: as a result, its economy is five times the size of Egypts.
The dizzying growth of the global economy is based primarily on knowledge, and countries that cannot match the rate of development get left behind. In most Arab countries, the level of scientific and technological know-how does not meet the levels required to support advanced, innovative means of production. A United Nations report in 2002, Arab Human Development, called this the knowledge deficit, and determined that this was one of three factors hindering development in the Arab nations. Knowledge in the Arab world is not up to par because their schools and universities place too great an emphasis on memorization and rote learning.
The knowledge deficit stems from the fact that openness to the world is low among Arab states. For example, the number of translated books in the Arab world is exceedingly low: A 2003 UN report, Building a Knowledge Society, found that, on average, only 4.4 translated books were published per million people between 1981 and 1985 in the Arab states, while the corresponding rate in Hungary was 519 books, and in Spain 920.
Even when Arab states open up to the world and import technologies, the benefits are limited. Global technologies become obsolete very quickly, so those not participating in their production cant develop effective alternatives. Creativity and ingenuity are so critical these days, but these qualities are lacking in the Arab world. And despite their extremely modern image, even the Gulf states import technology from around the world and the locals have no stake in production.
According to the same 2003 UN report, all of the Arab states combined registered only 370 patents in the United States between 1980 and 2000, while Israel alone registered more than 7,000 and South Korea registered over 16,000. The number of researchers per million people in the Arab world sits at 300, while the global average is 900. The result of all of this is that unemployment rates among young people in the Arab world are among the highest on the planet between 30 to 50 percent.
Failure to tackle radical Islam
Even the clampdown on Islam in Arab countries did not work so well. Islamist factions werent eliminated, despite numerous efforts to that end. Gamal Abdel Nasser sent thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members to jail, as did other nations. Yet comparing the demographics of Islamists at the end of the 20th century and today shows a staggering rate of growth: In 2000, Islamist groups were small, underground factions with limited capabilities; by 2015, they had become large forces with military capabilities and cutting-edge weaponry, and were firmly established throughout Arab lands. They challenge not only local governments, but also the foreign regimes that support those governments. The last 15 years have seen a series of mega-terrorist attacks throughout the world from the September 11 attacks in the United States to the recent massacre in Paris. During the last five years alone, there has been a stark increase in the number of casualties from Islamic terrorism in various nations in some cases up more than tenfold in comparison to previous years.
Its possible that the failure to deal with radical Islam also stems from the fact that attempts to do so were always brutal. Not enough attention was paid to the fact that Islamism (also known as Political Islam) is not only terrorism, but that it represents first and foremost an idea an idea that is very attractive to many Muslims, especially during times of regional conflict and strife. Many nations failed because they did not see the need to pose an alternative idea, despite the fact that such an idea existed.
During the first half of the 20th century, liberal, humanist and rational streams appeared within Islam streams that separated religion and state, and found their own intellectual expression. Unfortunately, most Arab state regimes rejected these ideas, choosing instead to embrace a combination that had the worst of all options. The Arab nations could not find a courageous leader capable of sparking the necessary transformation for repelling brutal Islamism and creating a new order that marched with the times.
Also, the aspirations of the first generations to achieve independence went unrealized, and they were unable to prevent a situation in which the end of colonialism would create a vacuum and space for foreign influence. The first sign of this failure was already evident in the days of Nasser: He became the hero of the Arab world when he expelled 10,000 British soldiers from their bases in Egypt, but then quickly brought in 20,000 Soviet military advisers (who Anwar Sadat later expelled, in 1972).
The clear turning point was the Gulf War in 1991, when Arab armies fought as part of a coalition commanded and led mostly by Americans, against an Arab leader who was the Arab bulwark against Iran. And thats how it continued: NATO forces were employed against Muammar Gadhafi in Libya; the Iranians are making excursions into Iraq and Syria, as are the Turks; the Russians are intervening in the Syrian civil war on President Bashar Assads side; France is asking fellow European Union states to aid in the fight against the Islamic State; and the United States, which had seemingly retreated from the arena, is being pulled back into the fray in both Iraq and Syria.
In Arab states, the regional wars are fierce and the number of casualties over recent decades has reached the millions. Huge waves of refugees are abandoning their countries, fleeing from death and destruction. The refugees mostly express utter despair for life in their homeland.
In a bleak leader article regarding the state of the Arab world published in The Economist (The Tragedy of the Arabs, July 5, 2014) , the writer laments the fact that a civilization that used to lead the world is in ruins, and declared that the Arab peoples are in a wretched state. The remarks call to mind Egyptian writer Naguib Mahfouz, who was one of the first in Egypt to express support for reconciliation with Israel. He said that peace was justified because of the need to rebuild civilization.
Mahfouz knew what he was talking about. Theres no doubt that developments in the region affect Israel. It is a mistake to rejoice in the misfortunes of our neighbors, and praise ourselves for being the villa in the jungle, as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak once said. Our borders are not immune to the threats of violence raging around us, and we can get involved in our neighbors well-being.
The author is a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern History and former Israeli ambassador to both Egypt and Jordan.
Back to Top
by Gary C. Gambill
The National Post
January 11, 2016
A friend of mine recently lamented that the Western media was downplaying the brutal string of Palestinian stabbings that has claimed 25 Israeli lives since September.
I nodded in assent, but couldn’t help recalling the closing scene of the film Casablanca. With religious and ethno-sectarian violence rampant in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and across the Arab world claiming several tens of thousands of lives every year, fuelling an unprecedented wave of global Sunni Islamist terror, Israeli-Palestinian troubles “just don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”
It wasn’t so very long ago that the vast majority of Western pundits thought otherwise. Since Israel stood alone as the most vilified antagonist in Arab public life for over six decades, outside observers assumed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be a singular affront to Arabs everywhere, a cause of their collective political dysfunction, and therefore a leading source of the Middle East’s problems. Arab anger toward Israel “weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes,” explained U.S. CENTCOM commander David H. Petraeus in 2010.
Take away the source of this anger, the reasoning went, and problems such as poverty, Islamism, and the like would be easier to solve. Israelis and Palestinians both played into the belief that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would allow for a “new” Middle East (foreign aid supplicants rarely lead with, “Not that this matters much …”). A half-century of American diplomacy was built on this premise.
If the so-called “Arab Spring” has taught us anything, however, it is that Israel isn’t central to the region’s problems, and isn’t even perceived as such by most non-Palestinian Arabs. Since anti-Zionism was typically the only anti-establishment political cause that tyrants routinely allowed their citizens to openly embrace, many did so with gusto, if only to vicariously express their rejection of the status quo. But the weakening and collapse of authoritarian regimes since 2011 has revealed that ordinary citizens care about a great many things more than “justice” for the Palestinians.
Anti-Israeli slogans were relatively few and far between in revolts that brought down governments in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, while insurgents in Syria and Yemen have virtually ignored the Jewish state. Absent a carefully-controlled political environment in which ethno-sectarian grievances are heavily suppressed by the state, radical Islamists outside of the Palestinian territories are more interested in fighting the “far enemy” in the West and subduing “infidel” adversaries closer to home (Shi’a, Yezidis, Christians, etc.) than in fighting Israel.
While the Palestinian Islamist Hamas movement is as determined as ever to kill Israelis, the scale of Israeli-Palestinian violence in recent years barely registers as an armed conflict by today’s regional standards. Even the July-August 2014 Gaza war the big exception to this period of relative calm was far outpaced by bloodletting in Syria and Iraq that summer.
Moreover, unlike these other regional bloodbaths, this old-school slugfest between Israelis and Palestinians is not threatening to overturn the status quo. Every few years, Israel smashes Hamas’ military infrastructure sufficiently to ensure a few more years of relative quiet (“mowing the lawn,” as they say), which Hamas provokes in order to burnish its stature as a resistance movement, raise loads of money from the Arab world, and rationalize its heavy-handed rule in Gaza. In between, both sides find ingenious ways to harm the other without violating the truce. The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement used to play the same game with the Israelis until it got sucked into the Syrian meat grinder.
This cycle of episodic violence is tragic, but it’s a fairly stable equilibrium so long as all stakeholders consider it minimally preferable to an Israeli reoccupation of Gaza. It’s an issue of concern that ranks well behind the surrounding Arab Levant’s self-immolation, Iran perched on the precipice of producing nuclear weapons, Russia intervening in the region with reckless abandon, Turkey’s bid to unite Sunni Arabs under its wing, and myriad other dangers.
Of course, we should do what we can to help Israeli-Palestinian peace, condemn egregious acts of violence, and blunt misguided European and Arab diplomatic initiatives likely to make things worse. But Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to get used to a brave new world in which the particulars of their fight don’t matter that much to the rest of us.
They should take it as a compliment.
Gary C. Gambill is a research fellow at the Middle East Forum