Tweet
NEW SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
30.06.2011
http://noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=5893
Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan
The change of the security environment round Israel
At the end of May the Minister of Defence of Israel Ehud Barak made a
statement which drew the attention of the experts dealing with the
Middles East issues at once. Barak stated that besides annual
assignments for military purposes1 in the coming five years at least
$20 billion would also be necessary to `secure the country in the new
generation'.
This statement by Ehud Barak was made against the background of
discussions in Israel concerning the impact Arab revolutions may have
on the security of the Jewish state. This issue has been in the
spotlight of Israeli experts dealing with regional issues and security
of Israel for the recent several weeks. And unlike many American and
European assessments in Israel they are not inspired by the `Arab
spring'2.
If we try to summarize, the dominating idea is as follows: for the
recent three and a half decades the Jewish state has avoided
large-scale military aggression and had a possibility to develop
because the leaderships in the three neighbouring countries, i.e. in
Egypt, Syria and Jordan, has been interested in or promoted preserving
of the military and political status quo advantageous for Israel3. And
now the fall of Mubarak's regime in Egypt, the disturbances against
Al-Assad authority in Syria, which is gradually turning into a
rebellion, and forced concessions of Hashemite dynasty to the
opposition in Jordan4, in fact, change the situation. For the recent
several decades being the main opposition to the ruling regimes, the
Islamist now have acquired a possibility to lead the masses and impact
political decision making.
>From the point of view of security, all the aforementioned is of
strategic importance, as in the countries mentioned above, alongside
with growing influence of the Islamists, the regional strategic
status-quo formed by the agreements in Camp David is endangered.
In this aspect in Israel they, e.g. distinguish the change of stance
of Egypt on Palestine issue, which happened after overthrowing Hosni
Mubarak. On April 27 at the joint press-conference the representatives
of Palestinian `Fatah' and `Hamas' stated that they put their
contradictions aside and were going to form joint government `with
purpose to hold national elections within eight months'. It is obvious
that consolidation of those two rivalling parties took place with the
assistance of Egypt. On the next day, April 28, the Foreign Minister
of Egypt Nabil Elarabi on the air of `Al Jazeera' TV Company called
the policy of Mubarak in regard to Gaza sector `unworthy'. In a month
after Elarabi's statement Rafah check point at the border of Gaza
sector, which was closed back in 2007 after `Hamas' came to power in
Gaza, was re-opened. And at last at the beginning of June, for the
first time in history, the authorities of Egypt allowed the delegation
of Egyptian `Muslim brothers' organization to go to Gaza and to have a
meeting there with the leadership of `Hamas'.
According to one of the conclusions of The Institute for National
Security Studies-INSS in Tel Aviv even if in a foreseeable future
Islamists does not come to power in Egypt or other Arab countries
neighbouring Israel, the regimes in those countries will be obliged to
compromise Islamists taking into consideration growing influence of
the later in the social and political relations.
But let us return to the statement by Ehud Barak. Most probably those
words by the Minister of Defence of Israel come to prove that against
the background of the aforementioned regional developments the
military and political elite of the Jewish state came to some
conclusions and the purpose of the statement was to demonstrate this.
If so, the statement should also be the evidence that in the face of
possible Middle East transformations Israel, besides military
preparations, will also have initiatives in foreign politicy.
The issue of the relations with partner-states
New situation in the Middle East also influences another aspect, which
is of great importance for Israel - the relations with partner-states.
In this aspect new realities which came forward in the relations with
Turkey stand out. Of course, the reasons of those new realities in
Israeli-Turkish relations are not caused by the `Arab spring' and it
is firstly connected with the goals of Ankara to undertake a leading
role in the Muslim world, though Arab revolutions provide new
possibilities for the Turkish policy and in Ankara, most probably,
they decided to take an advantage of that.
At the beginning of June, not without the support of western special
services and National Intelligence Service of Turkey (Milli Istihbarat
Teskilati - MIT) a meeting of the powers, which are in opposition to
the ruling Al-Assad regime in Syria, was held in Antalya; its goal was
to create common oppositional structure like in Libya. When on June 6,
in the town of Jisr al-Shughur, which is populated by Sunnites and is
situated in the North of Syria at the border with Turkey, the protest
action transformed into the armed rebellion, even Syrian sources wrote
about the militants of Turkish decent who fought against the soldiers
of Bashar al-Assad. The seriousness of the situation is proved by the
fact that official Damascus managed to crush a rebellion only after a
week, sending to the north the elite troops. But the remarkable is
that after all of that, on June 13, about two thousand supporters of
al-Assad assaulted Turkish embassy in Damascus and such an incident
could hardly happen in Syria without the consent of the authorities.
However, the involvement of Turkey in the Syrian affairs obviously
comes to prove the interest of Ankara in standing by the side of newly
arising powers in the Arab countries (maybe even in the entire Muslim
world), to support them and, correspondingly, to influence them. From
the point of view of Israel such a policy by Turkey brings to the
further aggravation of contradictions between Tel Aviv and Ankara,
because, as we have mentioned above, they believe in Israel that the
majority of those powers are of Islamist orientation. Though such
opinions are not expressed openly, but in the analytical materials
published in Israeli periodical you can already find hints that in
case of maintaining such a regional policy in the near future Ankara
will turn into one of the main competitors of Israel which, at the
same time, has good relations with western powers5.
The development in the relation between Israel and the United States
are no less remarkable. During his well-known address on May 19 at the
Department of State, which was devoted to the Middle East
developments, the president of the United States Barak Obama, while
speaking about the settlement of the Arab-Israeli confrontation,
stated that Israel must return to the 1967 borders, i.e. it must pass
to Palestine considerable part of the territory at the West bank of
Jordan River and Golan Heights to Syria. And on June 11, Israeli
`Haaretz' periodical wrote that a new Head of the Middle East and
North Africa department at the US National Security Council Steve
Simon during his meeting in Washington with the representatives of the
Jewish Diaspora stated that Israel had one month - it either has to
accept Obama's `proposal' or in September the UN General Assembly
would recognize Palestine as an sovereign state.
Of course, it is not for the first time that the US makes such demands
to Tel Aviv but this time the seriousness of the Americans is proved
by the reaction of the Israeli party and Jewish lobby in the US6. But
according to the Israeli observers this is not the point. They explain
the transformations in the Middle East policy of the US by the `Arab
spring', and against such a background Washington tends to consolidate
its positions in the Muslim world, thus promoting the process of the
Israeli and Palestinian reconciliation. Under such conditions they are
interested in the following: in a consequence of the Arab revolutions
the Middle East enters a period of fundamental changes and it is not
clear yet, what kind of relations between Israel and the US there will
be under new realities.
1 E.g. according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(SIPR) the military budget of Israel in 2010 was $13 billion and with
such an indicator the Jewish state occupied 18 line.
2 The term `Arab spring' was put into circulation by the US president
Barak Obama in May 2011 while speaking about the Arab revolutions.
3 As it is known in September 1978 in Camp David, which is situated
not far from Washington, Israel and Egypt concluded an agreement on
the ground of which in March 1979 in Washington a Peace treaty was
concluded between those two countries. In 1994 Jordan followed the
example of Egypt and in October 1994 Peace Treaty between Israel and
Jordan was concluded. As for Syria, last time there was a war between
those two states about 40 years ago - in 1973. In 2007-2008 through
the intermediary of Turkey secret negotiations took place between
those two countries in order to make peace but that attempt failed.
4 Among the continuing protest actions in Jordan the one on June 3 in
capital city Amman is distinguished when after the Friday namaz many
thousand people were present and they had two demands - to carry out
political and economic reforms in country and to dissolve the 1994
Peace treaty with Israel. And on June 12 the king of Jordan Abdullah
during his address timed to the 12th anniversary of his rule promised
that the future governments of the country will be formed in a
consequence of parliamentary elections.
5 The fact that on May 14, in connection with anniversary of the
independence of Israel, at the reception in the Israeli embassy in
Ankara neither the representatives of the ruling `Justice and
Development Part' nor any high-ranking Turkish officer were present is
remarkable.
6 Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United States
to discuss this issue, met there with the US president,
vice-president, addressed both houses of the US Congress stating that
Israel would not return to the 1967 borders as it was impossible to
defend them and that would endanger the existence of the Jewish state.
After he returned he stated that Israel would not be able to stop the
recognition of Palestine by the UN in September. On the other hand
according to the manager of the electoral campaign for Barak Obama Jim
Messina, some American wealthy figures of Jewish decent from
Democratic party mentioned that they stopped funding the campaign as a
result of a new Middle East policy by Barak Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another materials of author
-DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND KURDS[16.06.2011]
-CRISIS IN LIBYA AND REGIONAL DIPLOMACY OF TURKEY[28.04.2011]
-FUTURE OF THE MUSLIM POPULATION ON THE PLANET [24.02.2011]
-SOUTHERN SUDAN: NEW STATE IN THE WORLD[25.01.2011]
-ON THE CYBER-SECURITY[17.01.2011]
30.06.2011
http://noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=5893
Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan
The change of the security environment round Israel
At the end of May the Minister of Defence of Israel Ehud Barak made a
statement which drew the attention of the experts dealing with the
Middles East issues at once. Barak stated that besides annual
assignments for military purposes1 in the coming five years at least
$20 billion would also be necessary to `secure the country in the new
generation'.
This statement by Ehud Barak was made against the background of
discussions in Israel concerning the impact Arab revolutions may have
on the security of the Jewish state. This issue has been in the
spotlight of Israeli experts dealing with regional issues and security
of Israel for the recent several weeks. And unlike many American and
European assessments in Israel they are not inspired by the `Arab
spring'2.
If we try to summarize, the dominating idea is as follows: for the
recent three and a half decades the Jewish state has avoided
large-scale military aggression and had a possibility to develop
because the leaderships in the three neighbouring countries, i.e. in
Egypt, Syria and Jordan, has been interested in or promoted preserving
of the military and political status quo advantageous for Israel3. And
now the fall of Mubarak's regime in Egypt, the disturbances against
Al-Assad authority in Syria, which is gradually turning into a
rebellion, and forced concessions of Hashemite dynasty to the
opposition in Jordan4, in fact, change the situation. For the recent
several decades being the main opposition to the ruling regimes, the
Islamist now have acquired a possibility to lead the masses and impact
political decision making.
>From the point of view of security, all the aforementioned is of
strategic importance, as in the countries mentioned above, alongside
with growing influence of the Islamists, the regional strategic
status-quo formed by the agreements in Camp David is endangered.
In this aspect in Israel they, e.g. distinguish the change of stance
of Egypt on Palestine issue, which happened after overthrowing Hosni
Mubarak. On April 27 at the joint press-conference the representatives
of Palestinian `Fatah' and `Hamas' stated that they put their
contradictions aside and were going to form joint government `with
purpose to hold national elections within eight months'. It is obvious
that consolidation of those two rivalling parties took place with the
assistance of Egypt. On the next day, April 28, the Foreign Minister
of Egypt Nabil Elarabi on the air of `Al Jazeera' TV Company called
the policy of Mubarak in regard to Gaza sector `unworthy'. In a month
after Elarabi's statement Rafah check point at the border of Gaza
sector, which was closed back in 2007 after `Hamas' came to power in
Gaza, was re-opened. And at last at the beginning of June, for the
first time in history, the authorities of Egypt allowed the delegation
of Egyptian `Muslim brothers' organization to go to Gaza and to have a
meeting there with the leadership of `Hamas'.
According to one of the conclusions of The Institute for National
Security Studies-INSS in Tel Aviv even if in a foreseeable future
Islamists does not come to power in Egypt or other Arab countries
neighbouring Israel, the regimes in those countries will be obliged to
compromise Islamists taking into consideration growing influence of
the later in the social and political relations.
But let us return to the statement by Ehud Barak. Most probably those
words by the Minister of Defence of Israel come to prove that against
the background of the aforementioned regional developments the
military and political elite of the Jewish state came to some
conclusions and the purpose of the statement was to demonstrate this.
If so, the statement should also be the evidence that in the face of
possible Middle East transformations Israel, besides military
preparations, will also have initiatives in foreign politicy.
The issue of the relations with partner-states
New situation in the Middle East also influences another aspect, which
is of great importance for Israel - the relations with partner-states.
In this aspect new realities which came forward in the relations with
Turkey stand out. Of course, the reasons of those new realities in
Israeli-Turkish relations are not caused by the `Arab spring' and it
is firstly connected with the goals of Ankara to undertake a leading
role in the Muslim world, though Arab revolutions provide new
possibilities for the Turkish policy and in Ankara, most probably,
they decided to take an advantage of that.
At the beginning of June, not without the support of western special
services and National Intelligence Service of Turkey (Milli Istihbarat
Teskilati - MIT) a meeting of the powers, which are in opposition to
the ruling Al-Assad regime in Syria, was held in Antalya; its goal was
to create common oppositional structure like in Libya. When on June 6,
in the town of Jisr al-Shughur, which is populated by Sunnites and is
situated in the North of Syria at the border with Turkey, the protest
action transformed into the armed rebellion, even Syrian sources wrote
about the militants of Turkish decent who fought against the soldiers
of Bashar al-Assad. The seriousness of the situation is proved by the
fact that official Damascus managed to crush a rebellion only after a
week, sending to the north the elite troops. But the remarkable is
that after all of that, on June 13, about two thousand supporters of
al-Assad assaulted Turkish embassy in Damascus and such an incident
could hardly happen in Syria without the consent of the authorities.
However, the involvement of Turkey in the Syrian affairs obviously
comes to prove the interest of Ankara in standing by the side of newly
arising powers in the Arab countries (maybe even in the entire Muslim
world), to support them and, correspondingly, to influence them. From
the point of view of Israel such a policy by Turkey brings to the
further aggravation of contradictions between Tel Aviv and Ankara,
because, as we have mentioned above, they believe in Israel that the
majority of those powers are of Islamist orientation. Though such
opinions are not expressed openly, but in the analytical materials
published in Israeli periodical you can already find hints that in
case of maintaining such a regional policy in the near future Ankara
will turn into one of the main competitors of Israel which, at the
same time, has good relations with western powers5.
The development in the relation between Israel and the United States
are no less remarkable. During his well-known address on May 19 at the
Department of State, which was devoted to the Middle East
developments, the president of the United States Barak Obama, while
speaking about the settlement of the Arab-Israeli confrontation,
stated that Israel must return to the 1967 borders, i.e. it must pass
to Palestine considerable part of the territory at the West bank of
Jordan River and Golan Heights to Syria. And on June 11, Israeli
`Haaretz' periodical wrote that a new Head of the Middle East and
North Africa department at the US National Security Council Steve
Simon during his meeting in Washington with the representatives of the
Jewish Diaspora stated that Israel had one month - it either has to
accept Obama's `proposal' or in September the UN General Assembly
would recognize Palestine as an sovereign state.
Of course, it is not for the first time that the US makes such demands
to Tel Aviv but this time the seriousness of the Americans is proved
by the reaction of the Israeli party and Jewish lobby in the US6. But
according to the Israeli observers this is not the point. They explain
the transformations in the Middle East policy of the US by the `Arab
spring', and against such a background Washington tends to consolidate
its positions in the Muslim world, thus promoting the process of the
Israeli and Palestinian reconciliation. Under such conditions they are
interested in the following: in a consequence of the Arab revolutions
the Middle East enters a period of fundamental changes and it is not
clear yet, what kind of relations between Israel and the US there will
be under new realities.
1 E.g. according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(SIPR) the military budget of Israel in 2010 was $13 billion and with
such an indicator the Jewish state occupied 18 line.
2 The term `Arab spring' was put into circulation by the US president
Barak Obama in May 2011 while speaking about the Arab revolutions.
3 As it is known in September 1978 in Camp David, which is situated
not far from Washington, Israel and Egypt concluded an agreement on
the ground of which in March 1979 in Washington a Peace treaty was
concluded between those two countries. In 1994 Jordan followed the
example of Egypt and in October 1994 Peace Treaty between Israel and
Jordan was concluded. As for Syria, last time there was a war between
those two states about 40 years ago - in 1973. In 2007-2008 through
the intermediary of Turkey secret negotiations took place between
those two countries in order to make peace but that attempt failed.
4 Among the continuing protest actions in Jordan the one on June 3 in
capital city Amman is distinguished when after the Friday namaz many
thousand people were present and they had two demands - to carry out
political and economic reforms in country and to dissolve the 1994
Peace treaty with Israel. And on June 12 the king of Jordan Abdullah
during his address timed to the 12th anniversary of his rule promised
that the future governments of the country will be formed in a
consequence of parliamentary elections.
5 The fact that on May 14, in connection with anniversary of the
independence of Israel, at the reception in the Israeli embassy in
Ankara neither the representatives of the ruling `Justice and
Development Part' nor any high-ranking Turkish officer were present is
remarkable.
6 Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United States
to discuss this issue, met there with the US president,
vice-president, addressed both houses of the US Congress stating that
Israel would not return to the 1967 borders as it was impossible to
defend them and that would endanger the existence of the Jewish state.
After he returned he stated that Israel would not be able to stop the
recognition of Palestine by the UN in September. On the other hand
according to the manager of the electoral campaign for Barak Obama Jim
Messina, some American wealthy figures of Jewish decent from
Democratic party mentioned that they stopped funding the campaign as a
result of a new Middle East policy by Barak Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another materials of author
-DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND KURDS[16.06.2011]
-CRISIS IN LIBYA AND REGIONAL DIPLOMACY OF TURKEY[28.04.2011]
-FUTURE OF THE MUSLIM POPULATION ON THE PLANET [24.02.2011]
-SOUTHERN SUDAN: NEW STATE IN THE WORLD[25.01.2011]
-ON THE CYBER-SECURITY[17.01.2011]