I have always maintained that Israel would love to collaborate with democracies in the Middle East. Unfortunately, true liberal democracies in the region do not exist beyond the borders of Israel. So Israel resorts to collaborating with moderate authoritarian regimes such as Mubarak's Egypt. This does not stem from any desire to keep the Egyptian people repressed, but rather out of fear that the alternative is far too bad. 'He is a bastard, but he is our bastard'.
For western viewers, the debate may be about abstract ideas about liberty and democracy. For Israelis, the debate is about life and death, because if Egypt becomes another Iran, well you can figure that one out. Remember: democracy does not equate to rule at the whims of the masses. Democracy should encode a deeper principle of an individual relationship with the state and the state's relationship with its neighbors.
Netanyahu, in what appears to be the first official government statement on the issue, is showing cautious optimism:
"It is inevitable that an Egypt which adopts the 21st century, which adopts such reforms, is a source of great hope for the world, the region, and us."
Netanyahu, who has previously voiced concern that the uprising would take on the characteristics of the Islamic revolution in Iran, spoke in a more positive tone on Wednesday.
"Democracy is dear to us, it is real, and it is obvious that a democratic Egypt will not endanger peace, just the opposite. If modern history teaches us anything it is that the stronger the democratic foundations, the stronger the foundations for peace," he said.
However, the prime minister reminded listeners that less optimistic scenarios could also transpire. "Tehran is waiting for the day in which darkness descends. They are not interested in the Egyptian citizens' aspirations for freedom, just as they were uninterested in such cries from the Iranian people," he warned.
Netanyahu also addressed concerns that the uprising would lead to the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's main opposition group, which may object to the 1979 peace agreement with Israel.
"A peace agreement does not guarantee the existence of peace, so in order to protect it and ourselves, in cases in which the agreement disappears or is violated due to a regime change on the other side, we protect it with security arrangements on the ground," he said.
Israel embraces all steps towards a true, modern and democratic Middle East. It is good to have a small flavour of optimism. It is more important however, to have a much larger dose of cautious realism.
-QP
Aluf Ben at Ha'aretz reports that the Netanyahu's government response to the recent wave of South American recognitions of a unilateral deceleration of a Palestinian state in the '67 borders, is to recognize such a state at existing PA borders.
Netanyahu needs a countermeasure that will get Abbas off his back, depict Israel as an avid supporter of peace and, if possible, also paint the Palestinians as having yet again missed an opportunity to reach an agreement.
But Netanyahu's ability to offer compromises and territorial withdrawals in the West Bank are limited. Any territorial concession, even a theoretical offer of concession, could cost him the coalition he just shored up. What's a prime minister to do?
One option is to adopt the concept advanced by the Reut Institute, under which Israel would upgrade the PA's political status and recognize it as an independent state within its existing borders. The state that would be established in the Palestinian urban enclaves would negotiate with Israel over the remaining West Bank territories and all the other issues of the final-status agreement. This concept is built into the second phase of the so-called "Road Map," which called for the creation of a Palestinian state within provisional borders.
Ben describes this as a win-win situation for Israel:
Abbas has opposed a state with provisional borders in the past and can be expected to do so again, even if the offer comes from Netanyahu. If he changes his mind and says yes, Israel will come out looking good. If he refuses, Israeli public relations will have a field day: We offered them a state again, and they didn't want it. That's the best place for Netanyahu to be, with the Palestinians once more in the role of the nay-sayers and Israel not having to make payments in the form of territory or dismantling settlements. Until either the next counterpropaganda measure from Abbas, or the outbreak of a new intifada next fall, when hopes for a final agreement and Palestinian independence are ultimately dashed.
I doubt the Palestinians want a state at all... the population just want either the IDF or the PLO off their backs... the PLO is living too comfortably as a welfare case. I don't think the PLO is ready to take the responsibilities of running a state.
But then, the prevailing philosophy of the day is that we should let them be, and not make it our problem. Perhaps this is what Debka was alluding to in the earlier article?
-QP
I found this slightly old Ynet article that I believe reflects on the real intentions of the Netanyahu government.
Pointing to what he described as "strong but unpublicized trade" between Haifa port and Iraq via Jordan, he suggested assembly points could be set up in the West Bank for some goods, which would create thousands of jobs. He did not elaborate on the nature or extent of the trade.
According to the prime minister, this would not be a substitute for a political settlement, but economic prosperity would make peace possible, as occurred in Northern Ireland.
It seems that Israel would rather build economical connections and quiet relations than expect immediate social acceptance. The intentions of Netanyahu indicate that he he honestly wants to see the Palestinians and other countries in the area prosper.
It's almost as if he sees the prosperity of the Arab world as a precondition for long term prosperity of Israel. If only Palestinian leaders cared as much as Netanyahu does for the Palestinians, perhaps things would be better?
-QP
