Will it go wrong?

I think historians will be kind to Gabi Ashkenazi. With the passage of time the Yoav Galant imbroglio will be forgotten or mentioned merely as a brief footnote. His able and qualified successor, IDF chief of staff Lt-Gen Benny Gantz now commands a formidable military machine.

Ashkenazi's four year command of the IDF began with a major overhaul necessitated by the army's much-criticised performance in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. The IDF focused on enhancing accurate long-range firepower, rebuilding its neglected capacity for sweeping armoured manoeuvres, and improving coordination for joint ground, sea and air strikes. Training on all relevant parameters was increased by as much as 200 percent.

Ashkenazi and many military analysts say our development of "smart" guided missile firepower is unrivalled, and in many respects the IDF may even be a world leader in this type of cutting edge technology. Journalist Leslie Susser defined it as ,"the ability to pinpoint targets in the heat of battle and bring lethal fire to bear within seconds."

A few weeks ago the outgoing chief of staff could have presented a calmer appraisal of the nation's security. Hezbollah was preoccupied with the Hariri Tribunal findings and hadn't fired a shot at Israel in more than four years. Syria was more concerned about bolstering Hezbollah and cementing its ties with Iran. We were benefiting from a cold peace with Egypt and Jordan. Only Hamas in Gaza was practicing a kind of mini-brinkmanship, occasionally testing how far it could infringe the ceasefire without provoking painful reprisals.

Iran was behind schedule with its enriched uranium production due to damage caused to its batteries of centrifuges by the Stuxnet worm.

Since then a lot has changed. Are the uprisings that started in Tunisia and spread throughout the Middle East liable to change the present fragile but stable status quo?

Foreign commentators claim Israel's leaders are alarmed. “The Egyptian upset is heightening a sense of encirclement that has not been felt so acutely by Israelis in decades.” Said The Economist and asked if Israel was “encircled by enemies again?”

Surveying the deteriorating situation in the Middle East the paper singled out Jordan as our major cause for concern.

“Perhaps even more worrying for Israel is a rising fear that on its eastern flank the ruling monarchy in Jordan, the only Arab country bar Egypt that has a formal treaty with the Jewish state, is being shaken by an assortment of Islamists, tribal leaders, Palestinians (who make up a good half of Jordan’s people), disgruntled former security men and a middle class irritated by the royal family’s perceived extravagance.”

Worst case scenarios are more the rule than the exception in this region.

Our political and military decision makers tempered by the harsh reality of our unfriendly neighbourhood often quote Murphy's adage," Everything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong."

Last week Gabi Ashkenazi repeated his less than optimistic regional assessment when he addressed the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, referring specifically to the tectonic changes in the region that are leading to gains for the Iranian-led radical axis at the expense of the region’s moderates.

Ashkenazi and certainly his successor Benny Ganz believe the IDF needs to prepare for a significant broadening of the spectrum of threats against Israel. Not only does the IDF have to be ready to fight a simultaneous war on several fronts, it must be able to wage very different kinds of warfare -- from "low intensity" irregular conflict with terrorists, to classical conventional warfare against regular armies, to missile warfare against states or powerful non-state actors like Hezbollah.

Even though the threat of a terrorist or missile attack might seem more imminent, Ashkenazi's IDF doctrine emphasised preparedness for war between regular armies.

"We must train for classic conventional warfare. It poses the biggest challenge, and from it we can make adaptations to other forms of warfare, but not vice versa,” said Ashkenazi earlier this month when he addressed the 11th annual Herzliya Conference on national, regional and global strategic issues. "It would be a mistake to train for low-intensity conflict and to think that the army will be ready overnight to make the switch to full-scale warfare."

Despite the focus on conventional warfare, the IDF has also developed specific capabilities for terrorist and missile warfare. They include a four-layered anti-missile defence system starting with the Arrow missile, which is capable of intercepting long-range missiles at altitudes of above 50 miles, to the Iron Dome system for shooting down low-flying, short-range rockets.

In any future missile war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ashkenazi says the IDF will apply conventional warfare skills, committing ground forces to attack the enemy in its embedded positions and considerably shortening the duration of the conflict.

Perhaps the most dramatic stride forward made by the IDF over the past few years is in field intelligence. If in 2006, its "bank" of targets in Lebanon numbered approximately 200, today the bank contains thousands of potential targets. Ashkenazi insists that firepower is meaningless unless there are targets of high military value.

The tried and tested Iron Dome system is fully operational. Now more than ever before the thirteen units required to protect our borders with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip periphery should be provided without delay. Although the total cost of the thirteen units amounts to an awesome $1.4 billion the system possesses an added value factor. Interest in the Iron Dome System will probably develop into sales to other friendly nations once its effectiveness is proven "under fire."

A newer improved model of the Arrow missile was successfully tested last week and it too will take its place in the multi-layered anti-missile defence system. Despite the race against time, namely the need to have the complete system operational before Iran can produce a nuclear device and a missile system to deliver it, we can't afford to cut corners.

On the ground the IDF continues to further develop its main battle tanks.

Some military strategists have relegated the main battle tank to tertiary roles, others to national war museums. They claim large armoured corps battles have no place in modern warfare. The MBT is large, cumbersome and provides an easy target. Armour penetrating missiles have made them death traps for their crews. Furthermore, they argue, MBT's have little or no use in low intensity warfare. Admittedly improved tank armour provides a greater degree of protection, however more powerful armour penetrating missiles like the Kornet laser guided anti-tank missile are weapons to be reckoned with and now they have been acquired by both Hezbollah and Hamas.

The ultimate counter to anti-tank missiles is the new "Trophy" defence system: a miniature anti-missile system that detects incoming projectiles and destroys them down before they reach their targets. Eventually all IDF armoured vehicles, tanks and personnel carriers will be equipped with the Trophy system. Trophy is the product of a ten-year collaborative development project between the Rafael Advanced Defence Systems and Israel Aircraft Industries' Elta Group.

The IDF is certainly not about to scrap its main battle tanks. Maybe major tank battles won’t feature in conventional warfare, however tanks are valuable adjuncts and have been used effectively even in low intensity warfare.

Should Israel really be alarmed by the prospect of regime change in the countries it shares a common border with?

It’s difficult to predict what will happen in Lebanon following the publication of the findings of the Hariri Tribunal.

Jeffrey White, a defence fellow at The Washington Institute, specialising in military and security affairs attempted to assess the possible outcome of the regime change in Egypt. Writing in Policy Watch published by the institute he said the Supreme Military Council, effectively the ruling body in Egypt during the interim period till a new government can be elected must deal with major challenges. “Challenges both within Egypt and in its external relations. Internally, it has the tasks of asserting its authority, restoring normalcy, removing the most objectionable vestiges of the old regime, and making the transition to a new regime. Externally, it must deal with the United States and Israel.”

White believes that at least four scenarios could emerge in the coming months. “First, the military forms an effective partnership with opposition elements and proceeds toward real political reform and transition to democracy. Second, the military attempts to rush the process in order to return to the barracks and avoid direct responsibility for mounting political and economic difficulties, or at least to reduce its overt role; this approach would produce a flawed or incomplete transition. Third, the SMC (Supreme Military Council) employs a divide-and-conquer strategy against the opposition in an attempt to retain essential control. Fourth, the military slowly gains power by default in response to a weak and fragmented opposition.
In the last scenario, the military might find itself in the difficult position of not having a competent partner for a transfer of power. At the moment, one of the first two scenarios seems most likely, but the others are well within the realm of possibility. Much will depend on how well and for what purposes the SMC plays the game in the period ahead. Mistakes will be made by all those involved, and new crises may develop. Revolutions are not deterministic processes, and as in most human affairs, the laws of unanticipated consequences and unexpected outcomes apply.”
Reading over these remarks I realise I have described a dismal state of affairs. Worst case scenarios, IDF strategy options and a lot of uncertainty.

Maybe I’m overstating the situation. By and large we go about our daily affairs without giving too much thought to the turmoil surrounding us. If we read a newspaper or turn to the newscasts we become more aware of the potential danger.

In the meantime I’m planning a Saturday trip with an overseas business associate. He is an observant Christian so Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee have been included in our itinerary.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 24^th of February, 2011.

Wild flowers

Saturday was a fine sunny day, ideal for a drive along the Gilboa scenic route. On clear winter days it's possible to see Mount Hermon at high points along the route. To the east the Gilead mountain range in Jordan is visible even on hazy summer days.

Our first stop was Saul's Shoulder, a vantage point on the north east side of the mountain. Hapless King Saul and his equally misfortunate sons died on the mountain, but gained immortality when an Israeli place names committee named two peaks and a rocky outcrop in their memory. David cursed the mountain, so the committee thought it inappropriate to give him a peak.

The Gilboa scenic route, popular in all seasons was unusually well travelled on Saturday. The vantage points along the route afford breathtaking views of the Jezreel Valley. The balmy weather and the appearance of wild anemones and cyclamens on the slopes near the mountain road attracted Saturday tourists to this and other scenic spots.

While Tunisians and Egyptians are ousting their autocratic rulers and other countries in the region are in a state of political turmoil we are photographing wild flowers.

The purpose of this preamble is to state that Israelis concerned as they certainly are by the upheavals in the Middle East manage to adopt a business as usual attitude and to relax a bit too.

Now that Mubarak has gone everyone is speculating about what will happen next. The military governing body headed by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi has been received with mixed sentiments.

A number of media networks anxious to provide a personal profile quoted a US diplomatic cable from March 2008 published by Wikileaks.

It described Field Marshal Tantawi as "charming and courtly" but also "aged and change-resistant".

"He and Mubarak are focused on regime stability and maintaining the status quo through the end of their time. They simply do not have the energy, inclination or world view to do anything differently," the cable read.

An up-to-date description didn't improve his image, "Field Marshal Tantawi embodies the reactionary forces still embedded at the heart of a regime that may have shed its figurehead but not its essence”

Another evaluation of Tantawi and the Egyptian armed forces was provided recently by the Middle East Institute in an article written by Dr. Graeme Bannerman.

The author claims that few people outside the Egyptian armed forces truly understand how the military functions.

“The Egyptian army is an institution--largely self-sustained through enterprises such as farms, factories, hospitals and the like-- with the dual purposes of defending the nation against external threats and preserving domestic stability.”
In effect it is a society within the broad Egyptian society. "Members of the military live on cantonments and do not participate in the national political process. They cannot vote in elections.
Egyptians do not know the army. The Defense Minister, the Chief of Staff, and the commanding generals are not nationally known personalities."

Bannerman explains that in Egypt, the Minister of Defense is also the Minister of Military Production. The armed forces produce many of their own essential goods and services. They own large farms and produce most commodities consumed by the army. They have bakeries, water bottling facilities, and clothing manufacturing factories. All of these are in addition to the military production factories. The logic of these operations is that it assures the military of essential supplies and insulates them from corruption in the private sector.

At this juncture let's consider how immune the Egyptian military is to bribery and corruption. Baksheesh is endemic in the Middle East. It has been traditionally identified with Ottoman decadency, its origins can be traced to a Persian word (Middle Iranian) .Baksheesh is a term used to describe tipping, charitable giving, and certain forms of political corruption and bribery in the Middle East and South Asia.

Author Leo Deuel described baksheesh as "lavish remuneration and bribes, rudely demanded but ever so graciously accepted by the natives in return for little or no services rendered."

Ironically the self-contained services and industrial conglomerates established by the military possess an inbuilt graft factor.

To its credit it also has inbuilt merits. The military fields and sponsors several of the country's most popular sports organisations. During recent bread riots, it helped mollify angry crowds by ramping up production from its own bakeries. But despite the military's predominant role, the Egyptian public knows remarkably little about how the military actually operates. That's because writing about the military has long been off-limits to the press. The secrecy begins with the military budget, which Jane's Defence Weekly estimates to be about $5 billion. However, one independent researcher has calculated that actual military expenditures could be four or five times larger. Part of the budget is made up of U.S. military assistance amounting to $1.3 billion annually that provides financing for Egypt's major weapons systems. (The funding must be spent on U.S. goods and services and is therefore effectively a subsidy for U.S. defence. contractors.) Normally, (in other places) defence expenditure is subject to an independent external supervisory body. Journalist Ken Stier reporting for CNN/Time said, "As for the parliamentary committee responsible for overseeing those expenses, it is stuffed with police and military officers; the prospects for meaningful civilian oversight anytime soon are dim."

Stier traced the evolution of the military's business growth, “Military factories first sprang up in the 1820s to produce uniforms and small arms. Their role expanded with the state-led economy from the early 1950s and was consolidated when the military needed to gainfully employ a significant part of the army made redundant after the peace agreement with Israel. (At that point, the active military had numbered about 900,000.) Now, military-run firms hold strong positions in a wide range of key industries, including food (olive oil, milk, bread and water); cement and gasoline; vehicle production (joint ventures with Jeep to produce Cherokees and Wranglers); and construction, in which it benefits being able to deploy conscripts during their last six months of service. Another source of the military's untold wealth is its hold on one of this densely populated country's most precious commodities: public land, which is increasingly being converted into gated communities and resorts. The military has other advantages: it does not pay taxes and does not have to deal with the bureaucratic red tape that strangles the private sector.

Robert Springborg, a professor in the department of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and author of “Mubarak’s Egypt: Fragmentation of the Political Order.”

Predicts that the generals “will try to massage the new order so that it does not seek to impose civilian control on the armed forces,” he said. “It’s not just a question of preserving the institution of the Army. It’s a question of preserving the financial base of its members.”

The Egyptian military is in an awkward predicament. For the present it has a mandate to bring about the return to normalcy and carryout its promise to hold national elections. At the same time it is anxious to preserve its assets.

The military and large sections of the opposition parties fear a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has gone to pains to present a moderate image, ostensibly declining to propose a candidate for the presidency and keeping a low profile. An article in the New York Times authored by a member of the party sought to allay fears of a Muslim Brotherhood coup d’état. However, Der Spiegel journalist Alexander Smoltczyk presents a different picture in an article on the Muslim televangelist Youssef al-Qaradawi . Smoltczyk says Qaradawi is the father figure of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the organisation is sure to play a part in deciding what path Egypt will now take.

“Qaradawi advocates establishing a ‘United Muslim Nations’ as a contemporary form of the caliphate and the only alternative to the hegemony of the West. He hates Israel and would love to take up arms himself. In one of his sermons, he asked God ‘to kill the Jewish Zionists, every last one of them.’

In January 2009, he said: ‘Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler.’

Will this man encourage his brothers in Cairo to uphold the peace treaty with Israel, should the Muslim Brotherhood become part of a government now that Mubarak has resigned?

The 84-year-old is the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. He has written more than 120 books and penned countless doctrines, which he distributes internationally via his website IslamOnline.net.”

Some analysts argue that the Egyptian military might aspire to maintain a seemingly unobtrusive presence, similar to the role the Turkish military has played in that country’s politics. Since the military is dependent on U.S. military assistance it is reasonable to suppose that it will be satisfied to remain in the background ready to correct matters if they get out of hand.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 17^th of February, 2011.

The people in the square.

I have been paging through various articles, editorials and interviews, material I stored away in a virtual folder for this week’s letter. Now I am about to click the delete key and obliterate it all. My best made plans have led to naught.

A New York Times editorial, an article from the Washington Post, a quote from the Daily Telegraph as well as material gleaned from our local press will soon disappear.

Earlier today my casual and not very methodical scan of news media sources indicated that the inevitable fatigue factor was beginning to affect the Rosetta Revolution (The Economist’s cognomen for the Egyptian upheaval). Don’t misunderstand me, the people packing Tahrir Square in Cairo were not tiring of their struggle, but there were unmistakable signs that the enormous audience of lookers on all over the world was tired of watching the same crowd scenes. Even the momentous events taking place in Egypt are subject to the public’s limited attention span. It seems that matters closer to home concern us more.

I could be wrong especially regarding the Israeli public. Tahrir Square is only a bus ride away from Tel Aviv. Admittedly a long and not very comfortable bus ride. Of course there are better ways of going to Cairo, but I purposely chose the overland route to emphasise the physical link between Egypt and Israel. We can’t afford to ignore what is happening in Cairo.

As I wrote these opening paragraphs a breaking-news announcement claimed President Hosni Mubarak was about to resign and Egypt's Higher Military Council headed by Defence Minister Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi was ”in a state of continuous session to protect the nation and meet the aspirations of the people.”

A few hours later Mubarak addressed the Egyptian nation and proved that rumours of his political demise were greatly exaggerated. Despite his announced transfer of power to Omar Suleiman, Mubarak hasn’t gone yet.

I won’t presume to guess what will happen next. I think many people in Israel will be relieved to learn that the army is in control in Egypt. The worst case scenario described a leaderless and divided group of opposition bodies led by a better organised Muslim Brotherhood.

Arab affairs expert Dr Guy Bechor was quick to criticise fellow analysts, observers and all the people who are writing obituaries for Hosni Mubarak.

Commenting on the latest developments in Egypt in an op-ed he wrote for Yediot Ahronot he said,

“We have experienced plenty of arrogance and a failure to understand Egypt over the past 10 days on the part of experts and commentators, both in Israel and abroad, who terminated Mubarak and his regime with their very words. The Obama Administration joined this assessment, until it realised its mistake.

The moment it became clear that Egypt’s immense defense establishment – millions of soldiers, police officers and security personnel – is standing by Mubarak and his officers, the matter was decided. The moment government institutions in Cairo were kept in the army’s hands, it didn’t matter how many protestors gathered at Tahrir Square, because this is how Egypt is ruled: From the radio and television building, from the Interior Ministry, from the government palaces, and from the Central Bank.”

Bechor is an expert on Arab and Egyptian law. He is well acquainted with the powerful Egyptian regime and rightly presumes to understand how it governs.

Unlike other observers he doesn’t over estimate the power of the people in the square.

He quotes Machiavelli, “There is nothing more frightening than an impassioned crowd without a leader and also nothing weaker.”

Relating specifically to the people in the square he said, “And indeed, the masses who gathered in the squares had no leader. Baradei is a Western joke, as he knows nobody in Egypt and mostly in its corridors of power. He has lived in Europe for most of his life.

The other candidates are insignificant as well. The cleric Yusuf Qaradawi lives far away in exile and the only leadership that remains is the almost primitive incitement of al-Jazeera; many people in the Middle East already understand that this is no news channel, but rather, a propaganda tool on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and its regional proxies. Al-Jazeera is already being watched carefully in the Mideast. “

Guy Bechor warns of the real danger -

“And so, under a green veneer of democracy and stability, political Islam is waiting on the sidelines. Tunisia’s Islamic leader, Rashid Al-Ghannoushi, returned after the revolution and is already preparing his party to win the democratic elections in the country. He may not run for office, yet his Islamic revival party is an organised power that waits its turn. Europe, which lauded the “democratic” revolution in Tunisia, will be surprised by the result, which will materialise right on Europe’s doorstep.”

If I understand him correctly Bechor believes Mubarak or his regime will survive. He ends by criticising the US president.

“Had Mubarak listened to Obama, he would have been in exile in Dubai by now. Fortunately for Mubarak, he did not listen, and survived. And this is the main problem now: There is no master of the house in the Middle East. The Obama Administration is either absent or doesn’t get it, and accordingly, we are seeing the grave results. Not everyone is as powerful as Mubarak and his regime, and quite a few Arab elements may pay the price of American amateurism.”

I think Dr. Bechor would have done well to wait a little to see how the people in the square react to Hosni Mubarak’s disappointing announcement. Furthermore I’m not sure the army has decided to stick with the regime.

Another Arab affairs analyst Avi Issacharoff wrote in an entirely different vein. Reviewing the demonstrations in Egypt he wrote in Haaretz, “At the beginning of the week it seemed as if Mubarak and Suleiman had succeeded in weakening and fracturing the opposition. It had no leadership, and certainly no leader. “

Issacharoff identifies the turning point in the demonstrators struggle, “So why did Mubarak end his war of attrition with the protesters and transfer his powers? It wasn't only American pressure on the Egyptian government to institute reforms, or the economic harm being caused to the Egyptian tourist industry that was adding up.

Apparently it was the government workers that decided to hold a workers' strike and join the demonstrations. Thousands of workers in key corporations like the Suez Canal Authority, the Suez Steel company and of course thousands of government office workers (including the state-run media) joined the great festival in the square on Tuesday, preventing the state from continuing to function as a political entity.

Suleiman, Defense Minister Mohammed Tantawi and other army leaders understood that in order for life to return to normal, they must make a symbolic sacrifice of Mubarak himself.”

Keep watching the people in the square.

Have a good weekend

Beni 11^th of February, 2011.

In the eye of the storm

Just two weeks ago Stephan M Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University wrote in Foreign Policy magazine

"The toppling of the Tunisian regime led by Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali has led a lot of smart people -- including my FP colleague Marc Lynch -- to suggest that this might be the catalyst for a wave of democratization throughout the Arab world. The basic idea is that events in Tunisia will have a powerful demonstration effect (magnified by various forms of new media), leading other unhappy masses to rise up and challenge the stultifying dictatorships in places like Egypt or Syria. The obvious analogy (though not everyone makes it) is to the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe, or perhaps the various 'color revolutions' that took place in places like Ukraine or Georgia."

He capped off his criticism of the "domino effect" theorists as follows:

"Color me skeptical. In fact, the history of world revolution suggests that this sort of revolutionary cascade is quite rare, and even when some sort of revolutionary contagion does take place, it happens pretty slowly and is often. ineffective."

It seems Stephan Walt was wrong, but he wasn’t alone when he pooh-poohed the domino effect. Furthermore, a number of intelligence agencies found no reason to question the stability of the Arab states. Documents recently published by WikiLeaks revealed that former Mossad chief Meir Dagan estimated that President Hosni Mubarak's regime was stable. Quite recently incoming IDF Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi said the regime in Cairo was in no serious danger of collapsing.

When former IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak was asked to explain these failings in our own intelligence evaluations he said, "While we knew there were major problems in Egypt, it is still hard to demand from the intelligence agencies to predict such extreme developments. The intelligence services have their own priorities. We expect them to warn of an upcoming war, but the demands must be reasonable."

According to senior security officials (unnamed of course) the fact that Israel did not anticipate the uprising in Egypt does not constitute an intelligence failure. They urged the government in Jerusalem to follow the developments but refrain from intervening.

It seems the age of prophecy really has ended. It would be nice to have a Jeremiah, Isaiah or even an Amos around to warn us of any impending doom. Perhaps we will have to wait till the astrologists realign their charts. Alternatively we could consult Nostradamus or buy some Tarot cards.

The debate over the Middle East revolution contagion continued late last week in The Economist.

"First Tunisia, next Egypt? The scent of the jasmine revolution, as Tunisians are calling their national upheaval, has certainly spread. Satellite television, mobile telephones, the internet and Twitter continue to relay the giddy news across the Maghreb, along the Mediterranean’s southern coast, and on even through Saudi Arabia to the Gulf and Yemen. Plainly, the dictators are nervous. But that does not mean that they are about to fall like dominoes."

Our most immediate concern is Egypt. Admittedly the ramifications of the demonstrations in Jordan appear more menacing, but a closer analysis reveals that they are not directed against the Hashemite royal house.

Shmuel Even a senior research fellow at The Institute for National Security Studies - Tel Aviv University, made the following interim assessment:

"The question of how deep the crisis will go and what the outcomes will be depends on the ability of the protesters or the opposition to translate the protest into a political force opposing the president’s power and the apparatus at his disposal. The position of the generals is likely to be very influential, as was evident in the deposal of Tunisian President Ben Ali. It is not clear if there are any cracks in the military’s support for the regime, but there seems to be no willingness on the military’s part to confront the demonstrators. How much the military will be willing to act to ensure the continuation of Mubarak’s regime is a critical question.

The outcome of the riots may not necessarily be connected to what or who ignited them, rather to whatever power structure is created and those who succeed in leveraging it for their own benefit. In such a power structure, the Islamic opposition is liable to expand its influence. At the same time, even if the regime succeeds in suppressing the uprising, it seems that Egypt will not be able to go back to what it was and that the Mubarak regime will end this year, one way or another."

An editorial in the New York Times this week also stressed the lack of any driving force behind the demonstrations. In effecting a regime change it said.

“This is made far more complicated by the fact that Egypt has few opposition groups — the result of Mr. Mubarak’s 30 years of authoritarian rule. The best organized is the banned Muslim Brotherhood. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former top nuclear inspector for the United Nations and a Nobel laureate, is eager to lead.

The Iranian revolution is seared in our memories. There are no guarantees that Egypt’s next government will be as friendly to Washington as this one. And no guarantee that it will treat its own people any better. But Mr. Mubarak’s efforts to hold on to power, at all costs, will lead to more instability and fury. If Egypt devolves into chaos, it will feed extremism throughout the Arab world.”

Amnon Lipkin-Shahak stressed a crucial point in assessing the military's influence on the outcome of the present struggle vis-à-vis Israel. "The fact that the Egyptian army is holding its ground is positive for Israel. The army is western in its orientation and is dependent on American money and equipment. It needs the West's support," he said.

Our peace treaty with Egypt, defined by many people as a cold relationship, has lasted more than thirty two and isn't likely to end now. The Egyptians depend on that treaty as much as we do.

Let’s pause a moment and look at the Middle East. Tunisia is still simmering on a back burner. The Egyptian demonstrators are squaring off against Mubarak's supporters while the army hasn't as yet joined in the fray. In Yemen the demonstrators succeeded in forestalling the establishment of a Mubarak-like dynasty, but it seems the struggle hasn't ended there yet. In Jordan the King fired the government and appointed a new prime minister. It's still unclear if the demonstrators will be satisfied with a new government and a few price cuts and lower taxes.

Lebanon is far from calm waiting for the Hariri Tribunal indictments While in Syria Assad hopes the last domino won't fall on him

Here in Israel it seems we are in the eye of the storm, well not quite.

The events occurring in our region concern us, however the past few weeks have been packed with disturbing events of our own making.

A recent increase in the price of petrol annoyed a lot of people, however it hardly aroused more than a whimper of protest. The real anger has been vented on the people concerned with the appointment of the new IDF chief of staff. It should simply have been a matter of choosing the best man for the job. Yoav Galant was one of several candidates for the post. All of them capable and well qualified for the post. Then an exposé in the daily Ma’ariv disclosed a few of General Galant’s character flaws. A cabinet minister raised the matter further and it was investigated by a special appointments committee, then examined by the state ombudsman and finally by the attorney general who said he would decline to defend the appointment if it were appealed in the High Court of Justice.

That’s as tight as I can pack it into a nutshell, and all you need to know if you don’t live in Israel. If you do live in Israel you have probably grown sick of the matter long ago and don’t want to hear any more.

The whole affair has been aggravated by a major “difference of opinion” between the Minister of Defence Ehud Barak and the outgoing IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. Just a few months ago Ehud Barak exploited almost every opportunity to praise Gabi Ashkenazi. Then something happened to mar their amicable relationship. At a time when our neighbours are trying to overthrow their leaders the Minister of Defence and the outgoing IDF chief of staff are not on speaking terms. All the military analysts, observers and even the close associates of the two feuding leaders don’t know or don’t want to divulge what caused the rift.

As you know Barak recently resigned from the Labour party and formed a splinter parliamentary faction called “Independence.” His resignation preempted a move to replace him at the forthcoming party convention.

His breakaway faction has a life expectancy of two years at the most.

Contrary to expectations Barak’s resignation seems to have given the Labour party a new lease of life. People from all walks of life who were hitherto uninvolved in politics are now taking an active interest in the decimated Labour party.

Our old friend Thomas L. Friedman is here in Israel trying to make some kind of damage assessment for Israel and Egypt. I want to dissect some of Friedman’s observations.

He quotes Mark Heller another senior analyst at The Institute for National Security Studies. “Everything that once anchored our world is now unmoored, and it is happening right at a moment when nuclearisation of the region hangs in the air.”

Friedman echoes other foreign journalists when he too mentioned the disorienting sense of shock and awe that the popular uprising in Egypt has inflicted on the psyche of Israel’s establishment. “The peace treaty with a stable Egypt was the unspoken foundation for every geopolitical and economic policy in this country.”

In weighing up the situation regarding a settlement with the Palestinians Friedman repeats a conclusion he has reached in the past. “No, I do not know if this Palestinian leadership has the fortitude to close a deal. But I do know this: Israel has an overwhelming interest in going the extra mile to test them.

Why? With the leaders of both Egypt and Jordan scrambling to shuffle their governments in an effort to stay ahead of the street, two things can be said for sure: Whatever happens in the only two Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, the moderate secularists who had a monopoly of power will be weaker and the previously confined Muslim Brotherhood will be stronger. How much remains to be seen.

As such, it is virtually certain that the next Egyptian government will not have the patience or room that Mubarak did to maneuver with Israel. Same with the new Jordanian cabinet. Make no mistake: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with sparking the demonstrations in Egypt and Jordan, but Israeli-Palestinian relations will be impacted by the events in both countries.”

My view from here on a hill in the Jezreel Valley is probably distorted by the tranquility that pervades everything, the idyllic landscape and our mundane everyday concerns.

I know it’s worrying to know that the IDF is leaderless, with no new operative work programme. Officers are waiting for their new commissions and unless something happens the most powerful army in the Middle East will come to a halt. The logical solution is to extend Gabi Ashkenazi’s tenure for a few months till his successor takes over.

It’s disconcerting to say the least, however there is some consolation knowing that we are living in a free and open society. The system of stops and checks works, especially in the courts. The government stinks and we are no better (the people that voted them in).

I often try to end on an optimistic note. So once again I will quote Rabbi Nachum Ish Gamzu, a sage of old who greeted every misfortune with the words Gam zu l'tovah. “It’s all for the best.”

Have a good weekend

Beni 3^rd of February, 2011.