Can Tahrir Square Come to Tel Aviv? | The Nation


Can Tahrir Square Come to Tel Aviv?

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size

“The Corner of Rothschild and Tahrir,” reads one of the posters at the site where Israel’s summer of social protests began—on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv, which has become the movement’s tent-city HQ. Few of the protest leaders would flinch at acknowledging the inspiration they drew from the Arab Awakening, but it is a new, challenging and often uncomfortable feeling for many Jewish Israelis to consider the surrounding Arab world as providing a spark worth emulating. Now Israel’s governing coalition has to add a domestic social challenge to the already considerable headache posed by the regional upheavals of 2011.

About the Author

Daniel Levy
Daniel Levy is director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations, based...

Also by the Author

It is long past time to reject expansionism, intolerance and structural inequality and define what democratic Israeli patriotism really stands for.

After decades of near-hegemonic Israeli strategic supremacy in the Middle East, the ground is shifting. For Israel’s leaders, the Arab Awakening and the removal of Mubarak represents the collapse of a key support structure in the edifice that maintains Israel’s regional posture. That edifice had been fraying for some time. Yet with Israel unwilling or unable to relinquish its control over and occupation of Palestine, it was a system of conflict management that had proven to be remarkably resilient. Undemocratic Egypt was that system’s linchpin. In fact, only an undemocratic Egypt could play this role, indifferent and dismissive as the regime was toward public opinion and able to pursue policies, both at home and abroad, widely perceived as being an affront to Egyptian dignity.

Every country needs a strategy for managing its external relations, especially in the near abroad. Israel’s predicament in this respect is especially challenging. Born as an unusual movement combining religious and historical claims to land with modern aspirations of state-building and communal preservation, Zionism was initially branded by most in the region as a colonial project, a sense that Israel has fed with its expansionist and expulsionist approach to the indigenous population. Unfortunately for Israel, that indigenous population has ethnic and religious ties to a large population throughout the surrounding region. Nevertheless, Israel managed to adapt, pursuing whatever great power or regional alliances were available, making itself useful to the United States as a cold war ally.

Long after it became clear that the Oslo peace process would not deliver Palestinian freedom, rights or sovereignty, the structures established by it and the opportunities they have forged for Israel have endured. They were kept afloat by donor assistance, by the difficulties entailed in dismantling the Palestinian Authority and, crucially, by the stamp of legitimacy that only Egypt could confer. The impact of the Arab Awakening on Israel’s leaders must be understood first and foremost against this backdrop.

A mapping of Israel’s geostrategic priorities cannot be reduced exclusively to the Palestinian issue, but it is the pre-eminent feature on that map. The wars of Israel’s founding and early decades were a function of the Palestinian conflict, including the 1982 Lebanon War and Israel’s prolonged occupation of the south of that country. Even the separate peace treaty with Egypt signed in 1979 had to include a “framework” for broader peace, one that provided for Palestinian self-governance, the withdrawal of Israel’s military government and recognition of Palestinians’ “legitimate rights.” Indeed, Israel’s failure to implement those provisions is increasingly being discussed by Egyptians in the context of their own continued adherence to the treaty. When Israel has sought to play an open role in advancing regional alliances opposite Iran, as it did under the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, it could do so only in the context of perceived progress on Palestine. Even the deterioration in Israel’s relations with a once vital strategic ally, Turkey, can be traced primarily to developments on the Palestinian issue, most prominently the Israeli army’s killing last year of nine Turkish nationals on board a ship seeking to break the Gaza blockade. Quite simply, Israel cannot have a strategy for managing its regional posture without having a Palestinian strategy, and today it no longer has one.

Previously, the absence of representative governance, combined with the fiction of a peace process, allowed Arab rulers and Israel to engage in a mutually duplicitous relationship. Arab regimes would claim loyalty to the Palestinian cause as an article of faith while making (often discreet) common cause with Israel across a set of regional issues under the umbrella of a Pax Americana, refraining from challenging Israel in any meaningful way. Examples include hostility toward Iran, support for the closure imposed on Gaza (in which Mubarak’s Egypt was an active partner) and quiescence in the face of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon in 2006. The conservative regimes would alternatively chide Israel or appear alongside it (and the Palestinians) at the various peace-relaunching galas that have punctuated the “peace-processing” of the past two decades.

For its part, Israel would wear its “only democracy in the Middle East” badge with pride and bemoan Arab intransigence, while quietly reaping the rewards that US-aligned Arab autocracies could deliver. This routine is unlikely to survive the fallout from the Arab Awakening. Even if the advance of democratic governance is halting and partial, regimes can be expected to take greater account of public opinion and to go further in attempting to reclaim legitimacy in the eyes of their people, on both domestic and foreign policy. To argue that the Arab or Muslim street is indifferent to the Palestinian issue is to ignore the overwhelming weight of polling evidence as well as the historical record.

Given the challenges of delivering on socioeconomic aspirations at home, scoring public popularity points on Palestine might become a no-brainer for successor Arab governments. That needn’t translate into implacable and irreversible hostility toward Israel (in fact, polling suggests the vast majority of Arabs would accept an Israel that grants Palestinian freedom), but it is likely to generate more robust responses to Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians. As for the PLO leaders, they have no easy path back to the golden cage of the peace process, which at least in part helps explain the recent twitches of muscle-flexing on their part—conditioning resumption of negotiations on a settlement freeze, pursuing recognition at the United Nations and agreeing to a unity deal with Hamas.

Seen through this lens, it is easier to understand why Israel has been so wrongheaded in responding to regional developments in recent months. Its reactions to the demise of the Mubarak regime provide an interesting case in point. At first, Israel’s leaders appeared to be in denial, both assuming that Mubarak would tough this one out and encouraging him to do so. As Mubarak’s departure became inevitable, Israel’s leaders clung to the hope that their second BFF in Egypt, Gen. Omar Suleiman (briefly appointed vice president), might yet save the day. Then a panicked tone set in, with Israel’s elites going into hunker-down mode and taking a lead in the global scaremongering campaign over a potential Islamist takeover, an Iran Revolution II scenario. The tendency across the range of Israeli media was to blame President Obama for “losing Egypt.” It has now been revealed by a former government minister that Israel even offered Mubarak asylum.

Israel has had to find a new narrative and a new strategy for the region. The former was relatively easily accomplished; the latter, not so much. The new story line is not really so new, focusing as it does on the threat of Islamists and Iran, and the idea that acceptance of Israel is a litmus test for any budding democracy. This is a particularly bizarre notion, given the pace at which the Knesset is legislating antidemocratic measures, for instance on freedom of expression and on housing. Coming up with a new policy is proving far trickier—a difficulty compounded by Israel’s insulation from and impoverished understanding of its own neighborhood. Israel has erected a separation barrier between itself and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, is proceeding to do the same on the Egyptian border and has long had closed and militarily fortified borders with Lebanon and Syria. Trade with all of its Middle East neighbors, in fact, amounts to less than 5 percent of its total. Israelis rarely visit even those Arab countries it is possible to enter, and the Arab community inside Israel is treated as a fifth column rather than as a bridge to regional relations. Of course, this is a two-way street. Yet when the physical barriers are combined with what is often a striking lack of intellectual, cultural and social curiosity, Israel is in danger of being fundamentally incapable of interpreting developments in its immediate surroundings.

Israel was also uncertain in responding to developments in Syria. The desire to see a member of the resistance axis fall has been tempered by acknowledgment that the Assad regime has maintained a quiet border with Israel and hardly constitutes a formidable foe in either the military or diplomatic arena. Bashar al-Assad and Baath Party rule are “the devil Israel knows,” and the survival of that regime, especially with a more diminished stature, thoroughly discredited in and condemned by the West, could have some advantages for Israel.

Quietly over the past months, Israel’s strategy in the face of the Arab Awakening seems to have coalesced around a set of positions, none of which feature on the democracy-promotion end of the policy spectrum. Israeli leaders have said little in public; partly this is understandable and wise prudence.

In its immediate vicinity, Israel seems to prefer the status quo ante. In this respect, it shares an agenda with counterrevolutionary forces elsewhere in the region, notably in the Gulf. In fact, during the months of the Arab Awakening, Israel and Saudi Arabia more often than not found themselves singing from the same hymn sheet. Both have expressed frustration at the insufficient enthusiasm shown by the Obama administration for the ancien régimes. Of the neighbors experiencing some convulsions, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan stands out as the country where regime preservation is still considered possible, and it is also where there has been the most thorough Israeli alignment with the United States and Gulf states in supporting this agenda. While relations with King Abdullah remain frosty, Israel is doing all it can behind the scenes to be supportive.

Israel and the conservative Gulf forces also share common ground on Egypt. Here the focus is on salvaging what is possible (and much seems possible) from the old ruling elite structures, which are Western-oriented and over which Israel may have more leverage. Maintaining a pre-eminent role for the current ruling authority, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, is central to this project. The armed forces are interested in sustaining their economic privileges and continued assistance from Washington, again providing Israel with cards to play.

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.