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.