Israel's Insightful Cynicism
March 27, 2013 | 0901 GMT
| Text Size |
Stratfor
Chief Geopolitical Analyst
Israel is in the process of watching a peace treaty unravel. I don't mean the one with Egypt, but the one with Syria. No, I'm not crazy. Since Henry Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy in 1974, the Israelis have had a de facto peace agreement of sorts with the al Assad family. After all, there were clear red lines that both sides knew they shouldn't cross, as well as reasonable predictability on both sides. Forget about the uplifting rhetoric, the requirement to exchange ambassadors and the other public policy frills that normally define peace treaties. What counts in this case is that both sides observed limits and constraints, so that the contested border between them was secure. Even better, because there was no formal peace agreement in writing, neither side had to make inconvenient public and strategic concessions. Israel did not have to give up the Golan Heights, for example. And if Syria stepped over a red line in Lebanon, or say, sought a nuclear capacity as it did, Israel was free to punish it through targeted military strikes. There was usefully no peace treaty that Israel would have had to violate.
Of course, the Syrians built up a chemical arsenal
and invited the Iranians all over their country and Lebanon. But no
formal treaty in the real world -- given the nature of the Syrian regime
-- would likely have prevented those things. In an imperfect world of
naked power, the al Assads were at least tolerable. Moreover, they
represented a minority sect, which prevented Syria from becoming a
larger and much more powerful version of radical, Sunni Arab Gaza. In February 1993 in The Atlantic Monthly, I told readers that Syria was not a state but a writhing underworld of sectarian and ethnic divides
and that the al Assads might exit the stage through an Alawite
mini-state in the northwest of their country that could be quietly
supported by the Israeli security services. That may yet come to pass.
Israeli political leaders may periodically tell the media that
Bashar al Assad's days are numbered, but that does not necessarily mean
Israelis themselves believe that is an altogether good scenario. Indeed,
I strongly suspect that, for example, when the Israelis and the
Russians meet, they have much in common regarding Syria. Russia is supporting the al Assad regime
through arms transfers by sea and through Iraq and Iran. Israelis may
see some benefits in this. Russian President Vladimir Putin may actually
enjoy his meetings with Israelis -- who likely don't lecture him about
human rights and the evils of the al Assad regime the way the Americans
do.
True, a post-al Assad Syria may undermine Iranian influence in the Levant, which would be a great benefit to Israel, as well as to the United States. On the other hand, a post-al Assad Syria will probably be an anarchic mess in which the Iranians will skillfully back proxy guerrilla groups and still be able to move weapons around. Again, al Assad is the devil you know.
And the fact that he is no longer, functionally speaking, the president
of Syria but, rather, the country's leading warlord, presents
challenges that Israelis would prefer not to face.
What about Hezbollah, in this admittedly cynical Israeli view?
Hezbollah is not a strategic threat to Israel. Hezbollah fighters are
not about to march en masse over the border into Haifa and Tiberias.
Anti-missile systems like Iron Dome and David's Sling
could reasonably contain the military threat from the north. Then there
are Israel's bomb shelters -- a one-time only expense. Hezbollah,
moreover, needs Israel. For without a powerful Israel, Hezbollah would
be robbed of the existential adversary that provides Hezbollah with its
immense prestige in the Lebanese political universe, making Hezbollah so
much more than just another Shiite group battling Sunnis.
Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006 is known as a disaster. But
it did have its positive side effects: Israel has had seven years of
relative peace on its northern border, even as the war usefully exposed
many inadequacies in the Israeli military and reserve system that had
been building for years and were henceforth decisively repaired, making
Israel stronger as a consequence.
Threats abound, truly. The collapse of the al Assad regime may lead to a weapons free-for-all -- just like in post-Gadhafi Libya
-- that might force Israel to "mow the lawn" again in southern Lebanon.
As for Hassan Nasrallah, the charismatic and capable Hezbollah leader,
maybe he, too, is the devil you know, informally obeying red
lines with Israel since 2006. Nasrallah appears to be less extreme than
his deputy, Naim Qassim, who would take over if Nasrallah were ever
assassinated by the Israelis, unless the Sunnis in a Lebanon and Syria
thrown into utter, post-al Assad chaos assassinate him sooner.
Then there is Gaza: once again, like southern Lebanon, "mow the
lawn" once or twice a decade, though this might be harder in a post-Arab
Spring geopolitical environment because of the greater danger of
unhinging Israeli-Egyptian relations. Still, in Gaza there is no
existential threat, nor a real solution, regardless of what the
diplomats say. Idealists in the West talk about peace; realists inside
Israel talk about spacing out limited wars by enough years so that
Israeli society can continue to thrive in the meantime. As one highly
placed Israeli security analyst explained to me, the East Coast of the
United States and the Caribbean have periodic hurricanes. After each
one, people rebuild, even as they are aware that a decade or so down the
road there will be another hurricane. Israel's wars are like that, he
said.
Presently a real underlying worry for Israel appears to be Jordan. Yes, King Abdullah has so far expertly manipulated the growing unrest there,
but to speculate about the collapse of the Hashemite dynasty is only
prudent. More anarchy. More reason to heed Ariel Sharon's analysis of
four decades ago to the effect that Jordan is the real Palestinian
state, more so than the West Bank. And because Jordan and Saudi Arabia
could conceivably unravel in coming decades, maybe Israel should seek to
avoid attacking Iran -- which along with Israel is the only real state
between the Mediterranean Sea and the Iranian Plateau. Iran may have a
repulsive regime, but its society is probably healthier than most in the
Arab world. So there is some hope.
You get the picture. Israel had a convenient situation for decades, surrounded as it was by stable Arab dictatorships. Israel could promote itself as the region's only real democracy, even as it quietly depended on the likes of Hosni Mubarak, the al Assad clan and the Hashemites to ensure order and more-or-less few surprises. Now dictators are falling
and anarchy is on the rise. Fighting state armies of the kind that the
Arab dictators built in wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 was simpler
compared totoday's
wars: Because the Arabs never really believed in their dysfunctional
states, they didn't always fight very well in state-organized
formations. But sub-state militaries like Hezbollah and Hamas have been
more of a challenge. In the old days, Israel could destroy an Egyptian
air force on the ground and solve its security dilemma in the south.
Nowadays, to repeat, there are no solutions for Israel: only sub-state
adversaries that hide among civilian concentrations in order to attack
your own civilian concentrations. No peace ever, therefore, just
periodic wars, hopefully spaced-out.
The Middle East today has
turned out perfectly if you are a Jewish West Bank settler. The
divisions within Palestinian ranks, coupled with the increasing anarchy
of the Arab world, mean the opportunities for territorial concessions on
Israel's part have diminished. In fact, Israel's only option may be
more unilateral withdrawals. That is probably the only thing the
settlers have to worry about.
But the Zionist dream lives on. Jerusalem and much of the rest of
Israel are thriving. Light rail and pedestrian walkways make Jerusalem
more vibrant than ever. The Arabs in the Old City survive well -- under
the circumstances, that is -- on the "Jewish" side of the "fence," where
the standard of living and quality of life is so much better than on
the Arab side. The "fence" is both a monstrosity in abstract moralistic
terms and a practical solution in an age of repeated diplomatic failure
and fewer and fewer diplomatic opportunities. From 28 percent of the
gross domestic product in the mid-1970s, Israeli military spending is
down to between 6 and 8 percent of the country's GDP. Life is good in
Israel. The unemployment rate is lower than in the United States and
Europe, despite high housing costs and the need for reform in health
care and education. One could argue that Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu -- so vilified in the West -- has not handled the economy
altogether badly.
But what about idealism? What about a better, more humane Middle
East? What about the wise and talented statesmen who periodically see
opportunities where others see none? What about slowing down Israel's
drift to a quasi-Apartheid society, characterized by Israeli domination
of the more numerous Arabs and something certainly not in Israel's
interest? These are all real things to constantly keep in mind and to
struggle for. But the Levant remains a zero-sum struggle for physical
survival. So it is a place where there will always be benefits to
dealing with strong dictators. Given their geographical circumstances,
Israelis can be forgiven their cynicism.
Read more: Israel's Insightful Cynicism | Stratfor
No comments:
Post a Comment