For many years, the Egyptian regime allowed Israel to have it both ways: to enjoy the benefits of peace with the most important Arab country while perpetrating a reality in the occupied territories that even the United States, Israel's closest ally, believes to be illegal. The Israeli leaders adopted Prime Minister Menachem Begin's perception that the Palestinian chapter in the Camp David Accords was just a fig leaf for the Egyptians. He believed the Israeli occupation didn't really bother Sadat, but he needed to show the Arab world that he didn't betray the Palestinians or turn his back on the Arab consensus. This was partially true at times during the last thirty years, but it is definitely not the case today. The Al Jazeera TV network will bring into the living rooms of millions of Egyptians the next images of Israeli soldiers chasing Palestinian demonstrators. And the Egyptian populace isn’t likely to let its leaders keep business as usual vis-à-vis the Jewish State.
The future of the Israeli-Egyptian relationship is not entirely in the hands of the Israelis. Israeli decision makers cannot determine who will be the leader of their next-door neighbor. If the Israelis wish to maintain their strategic interest in the neighborhood, they must realize that, whichever way the Egyptian elections go—whether toward a new, democratic era or a theocratic regime—it will be a dramatic step toward the end of Israel's impunity season.
Akiva Eldar is the chief political columnist and an editorial writer for Haaretz. His columns also appear regularly in the Ha'aretz-Herald Tribune edition.
Comments
It's interesting that while Eldar talks about it being the end of Israel impunity so far as I see he cites not one issue or arena on or in which it's going to suffer any significant costs or whatever due to this alleged end of impunity. The simple fact would seem to be that Israel's impunity—extending, as Bruce Reidel reveals elsewhere here, to a actual triad of nuke capabilities—has been precisely what the U.S. has built for it, and will maintain for it. Including impunity even to the wishes of the U.S., such as our now beyond pathetic requests of it to stop building on occupied ground. And now with Iran we essentially see Israel being able to get the U.S. to deny NPT rights to whoever in the region it wants to deny those rights to, even as it remains a non-NPT signatory. Moreover, we've recently seen whole delegations of U.S. congressmen and women pledging that no matter what happens to the U.S. economically, it will not affect the money we give to Israel every year, with a decades-long commitment from us already being secured by Israel. Very hard to see any of its issues or even facets of its existence that Israel hasn't secured impunity upon via the U.S., except perhaps the slow draining of its population who are sick of living in state that seems to move in ever more fascist directions and seems to be increasingly hated by everyone else in the world.
Eldar and Sin Nombre talk as if the Israelis are purely at fault here: how about a simple recognition from the Arab/Muslim world that the state of Israel has a right to exist: many issues could be settled. If there's anyone acting with impunity on this issue, it's Israel's enemies. The one functiuoning democracy in the Middle East, and Sin Nombre chooses to call it a "fascist" regime. If you want the real fascist regimes in the region, look across Israel's borders.
I didn't call Israel a fascist regime; I said it seems to be moving in ever more fascist directions. Perpetually highly militarized, ever more organized to serve its military and relying ever more on military might for its security and at true peace with none of its neighbors and at swords' point with nearly all; territorially aggrandizing; riots in the streets attacking foreigners and the building of camps to house them; ethno-racial-nationalist/supremacist ideas seeming to gain ever more ground ... it ain't classic fascist, but it ain't pretty. And I didn't say the Israelis are purely at fault here, but, for example, in response to the very keen observation asking for "the simple recognition from the Arab/Muslim world that the state of Israel has the right to exist" note that this offer has *twice* been made by the entire (unanimous) Arab League (which includes Iran, and Syria?) clearly based overwhelmingly on Israel just going back behind the Green Line. And what has been Israel's response to this offer? It hasn't even *deigned* to reply to it. Except perhaps in its actions to keep building, building, building on stolen territory. No matter how in how much esteem one holds the idea of balance and perspective in analyzing things the fact is that the only way that one can view the Israeli/Palestinian situation as balanced is to disregard what even the United States still honors which is international law, such as that outlawing the offensive taking of other's lands, and booting off its inhabitants, and then settling your own people on that land. Enough is enough, currieken: If Israel would just return behind the Green Line I agree things would look closer to 180 degrees different, if not perfectly balanced. But this isn't some fantasy world where you can just wish away such things and pretend they don't exist or matter. And if anyone is in danger of destroying Israel it's Israel itself with its decision to allow its fanatics (largely not even from Israel proper but from places like Brooklyn and the former Soviet Union!) to go settle on occupied territory. It isn't going to be anti-semites or even just the arabs or moslems; it's going to be the whole world refusing to ever accept this and saying that if it leads to Israel's destruction it will be in spite of decades worth of warnings that it was drinking its own poison.
Notice I said "Arab/Muslim" world which includes more than the Arab league; it also includes Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, none of whom have ever affirmed Israel's right to exist. These are fairly important lacunae, since Hezbollah is a key player in Palestinian politics. Remember also that in 2009, while supporting the peace initiative, Mubarak (whose country after all has a peace treaty with Israel) stated that the proposal specifically DID NOT mean recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Normalization of relations, indeed, does not necessarily imply such recognition. Regarding your attempt to split hairs on the "fascist" question, in what way is Israel headed in that direction? Fascism implies state-sponsorhip, and I'm not sure where the government can be said to be pushing the country in that direction. It was, in fact, the Arab countries that copied Hitler's antics back in the 40s and 50s, and one can easily argue those attitudes have been carried forward in many of the Arab regimes. And in case you haven't been looking, there's plenty of anti-Israeli hysteria on the other side. Of course Israel stresses its military capabilities: those capabilities are the only thing that has ensured the nation's survival in a hostile neighborhood. As far as Israel's fanatical supporters among the American Jewish community, we're obviously looking at different information here; many of Israel's most virulent critics in the US are in that very same Jewish community.
@ currieken: You know, I respectfully realize it isn't conscious on your part but after 40+ years these kinds of arguments are just nothing but chaff and distractions: So *what* if Iran and whoever else aren't part of the Arab League and thus haven't offered formal recognition? In the first place if you are really interested in peace you take whatever *steps* towards peace you can instead of insisting that for some unstated reason everything is tied to everything else and all must be wrapped up in one bundle. And in the second if Israel can so insist that everything is tied to everything else and all must be settled at once, then why can't Iran and others insist on that too and withhold recognition until there's some final, global deal reached? All this is is just accusing others of doing exactly what Israel has pioneered. And then there's the same endless sort of distractions thrown up whenever the simple question is raised of why, if Israel is not just simply interested in stealing ever more land, it just simply doesn't quit doing so, period, and take the benefits that flow from that? After 40+ years of doing X, you know, nobody believes you anymore when you say that no, you really don't care much about doing X. And how come—pretty uniquely I believe—if Israel isn't just rapaciously interested in stealing land it doesn't just come out and declare its borders? Does anyone believe that's anything other than part of a game on the part of Israel to avoid being held to what land it wants? 40+ years now, currieken, and Israel is the invincible superpower of the region, clearly enjoying near total impunity from its neighbors, and far more impunity from serious threat than damn near every other country on earth. And it *still* says it's too endangered to just stop stealing land and needs that as a bargaining chip? With that stealing from the beginning being described as changing the "facts on the ground" so that the thefts they represent could *never* be changed? Who in the world does Israel think it's fooling any more with this kind of argument? Nobody, that's who, which indeed is why you see their new ultimate argument being so commonly thrown around which is just the bald one that no, they always intended to keep that land because God gave it to them. Sheesh, talk about inciting hatred against yourself....