I have discovered an article of mine from 2006 still online. It is a review I wrote for the journal Global Understanding of William Quandt’s book, Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab–Israeli Conflict since 1967. Despite being eight years old, it is striking how much of this piece remains relevant. It will also serve as a preview of some more current work I am doing. I hadn’t seen the piece since its initial publication, so I’m happy to share it with you here. I hope you find it as valuable as I do.
All of us writers, analysts, bloggers and Mideast observers, across the political spectrum are in agreement about one thing: the recent upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt, and the smaller ones in other Arab countries mean that there is going to a new Middle East soon.
The shape of that new Mideast is open to prediction, which is also going to give all of us a lot to write and talk about for a long while to come. But one thing we can look at today is how other actors are preparing for what we know will be new, but in an unknown form. In particular, what seems to be a massive rise in demands toward democracy in the Arab world presents unprecedented challenges to the regional policies of the United States and Israel, jointly and in ways that threaten to drive those
policies in separate directions for the first time in decades.
Like much of the rest of the world, the statements that have come from the US and Israel have been oddly divided between the support they must show for people fighting to free themselves from a dictator and a more coldly pragmatic concern for whether Egypt will maintain its role in working with the West in Middle East with a new government.
Former Israeli Defense Minister and Likud stalwart Moshe Arens laid out one prominent Israeli view in stark terms: “Israeli governments have never insisted that they would negotiate only with a democratically elected Arab government. The implicit assumption probably was that it would be easier for a dictatorship to meet Israel’s fundamental conditions, but this would be a near-impossible task for a democratically elected Arab government.”
Why would it be “near-impossible?” Arens is referring to the fact that Arab citizens, on the whole, are opposed to cooperation with Israel. Much of the rhetoric, especially that which is often selectively reported in the US and Israel, speaks in fiery words about confronting the “Zionist regime” and toppling it. The opposing contention, which I make as well, is that an end to the occupation and freedom for the Palestinians will blunt a great deal of the popular rage on this issue and people will focus elsewhere and accept the potential benefits of dealing with Israel. Continue reading
Didi Remez, at Coteret, posts a translation of an article in Yediot today. The article is by Alex Fishman, who is second to none in Israel for providing important and keen insight into the thinking of Israel’s security establishment.
Fishman gives an enormous amount of background into the wheeling and dealing between US and Israeli leaders over the past few months around the bizarre gift the US has offered to Israel in exchange for a mere 90-day settlement moratorium. He also explains just how Bibi maneuvered the US into it and how he subsequently found himself in a trap alongside the one he snared Obama in.