The Unfortunate Olympic Legacy

The Israeli Olympic team has returned from Rio with two bronze medals, both for judo.  This almost equals Israel's best medal haul in any Olympic Games to date.  Twice before Israel has earned two medals although, on the previous occasions, one medal was either a silver or gold.  Unfortunately, however, the most talked-about story in Israel relating to the games has nothing to do with the medals that were brought home.  Instead, the legacy of the Rio Olympics in Israel will always be the handshake that never was.

This of course relates to the judo bout between Israel's Ori Sasson and Egyptian judoka Islam El Shehaby.  The incident began long before the bout when, we are advised, El Shehaby indicated that he was not willing to fight an Israeli opponent.  He had been encouraged by fans on social media not to fight the Israeli in this bout.  Some reports suggest that the Egyptian authorities forced El Shehaby to partake in the bout, against his will.  This all seems somewhat strange for an athlete at the peak of his career.  It is assumed that the opportuntity to participate in, and excel at the Olympic Games is almost unrivaled as an ambition of any athlete.  The story published in some media says that El Shehaby decided to  retaliate against being forced to participate, and this came in the form of a refusal to shake hands with Ori at the end of the match.  Sasson had been warned of this situation beforehand, but still approached his vanquished opponent at the end of the fight for a handshake that was rejected by the Egyptian.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) intervened and  found that the Egyptian athlete had acted contrary to the rules of fair play and against the spirit of friendship embodied in the Olympic Values.  They issued the athlete with a reprimand.  The Egyptian Olympic Committee punished the athlete by sending him home from the games.  This incident followed the "scolding" issued to the head of the Lebanese Olympic delegation in Rio, after he refused to allow the Israeli team onto their bus that they were due to have shared on the way to the opening ceremony.  And also came after the incident involving the Saudi Arabian judoka who withdrew from a bout, when it became clear that the winner of her bout would have to fight against an Israeli in the next round.

Even though these incidents, particularly the rejection of Ori Sasson's handshake, made news around the world especially on social media, none of them come as a huge surprise to Israelis.  Despite the ideals of the Olympic Movement to promote peace and cooperation between peoples around the world, Israelis have always known that these ideals do not necessarily extend in equal measure to them.  The terror attack at the Munich Olympic Games, in 1972 in which 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team and a German police officer were killed, is clear evidence of that.  It is not so much about the terror attack itself - it is well known that terror groups around the world will use every possible way of getting to Israelis to sow fear amongst them.  It is rather about the response by the IOC to this incident.  It is inconceivable that it took until 2016 for the IOC to finally agree to officially honour the slain members of the Israeli Olympic team at a games in any way.  Why would it take 44 years to do this?  Who would have opposed the request made many years ago by the Israeli delegation to officially honour those who were killed?  And why?

It is notable that the most prominent anti-Israel incident at the Rio Games, the incident with El Shehaby, came from an athlete representing a country with whom Israel does have diplomatic relations.  Despite the concept and tradition of the "Olympic Truce" which calls for athletes to be allowed right of safe travel to and from the Games, Israel will expect representatives of countries like Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, with whom there are no diplomatic relations, not to agree to travel on the bus with her athletes.  This is clearly in direct contravention of the Olympic ideals.  But it is more surprising when the greatest protest comes from a so-called friendly country.  While it is noted that the country's Olympic Committee and other official bodies came out against the actions of the individual athlete, it seems as though El Shehaby received a huge amount of unofficial support for his actions from fellow Egyptians.  

Israel and Egypt signed their peace treaty 37 years ago.  More than a generation has elapsed since then, and yet their athletes still refuse to shake hands with Israel's athletes at the Olympic Games.  It is true that the peace has not been a truly warm peace, and there have been awkward times when the peace agreement looked like it was in grave danger.  It is nevertheless a peace treaty between countries that are neighbours, and comes with full diplomatic relations.  Was this refusal from an athlete who was born after the peace treaty was signed, a product of the education that he received?  I cannot imagine one Israeli athlete who would refuse to shake the hand of any opponent, no matter which country they come from.  Even from those countries that are insistent on wanting to destroy Israel.

It is ironic that the Israeli athletes travelling to the opening ceremony were willing to travel with the Lebanese delegation in the way that the organisers had intended.  After all, Lebanon is a country that has been at constant war with Israel for the past 68 years, and has tried to destroy Israel on numerous occasions.  It is even more ironic that the Israeli team had to refuse to be split up and reallocated onto a number of other buses due to security concerns associated with  the team being split up.  With the ramifications of Munich still resonating in their ears, the Israeli team was ordered by their security team to remain together until the organisers laid on an alternative bus in which the entire team could travel together along with their required security escort.  Perhaps the greatest irony of all, is the fact that the security of the entire Olympic Games in Rio was left to a group of 36 Israeli companies to take care of.

With anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment rife around the world, Israeli athletes went to the Olympic Games in Rio to find a relative safe haven from the turmoil.  If everybody adhered to the ideals of the Olympic Movement, this is what they would have found in Rio.  But this was not the case at all.  They found in Rio the same anti-Semitic behaviour that has become openly acceptable in football stadiums in Europe, and in the General Assembly of the United Nations.  And this from  countries with whom Israel has diplomatic relations.  This puts the achievement of our athletes in earning two bronze medals into the proper context.  Kol hakavod!

The Importance of Preemptive Strikes

Israel's recent double strike on Syrian weapons storage facilities has, once again, raised the issue of the validity of preemptive strikes.  Israel has used this tactic on more than a number of previous occasions, has already struck Syria already a few times this year.  There are those who go as far as attributing Israel's continued existence to the fact that she has been prepared to go out and defend herself even before the attack materialises.

The issue of preemptive strikes as a defense mechanism to counter a potential threat has a number of inherent problems attached to it, particularly when this encroaches on the sovereign territory of another country.  Firstly, there is always the question as to whether the perceived threat is real and credible.  We saw the consequences of a bad call on the perceived threat when it was revealed that intelligence information was incorrect prior to the Second Gulf War.  This dogged both Tony Blair and George W. Bush until the end of their respective tenures, and continues to dog them in their personal capacities to this day.  Secondly, there is the question as to whether one sovereign country has the right to attack another sovereign country in defense of itself even where the threat is sure.  It could easily be argued that there is an element of hypocrisy in this concept.  Does it make a difference if the perceived threat is not an immediate one, but rather a perceived future threat?  This is the case with Israel's strikes in Syria last week, where the rationale for the strike was that Hezbollah may use these arms against Israel at an undetermined time in the future.  There are no firm answers to these questions, and the international community has historically judged such deeds on the basis of the parties involved, rather than the act.  On this occasion, Israel succeeded in capitalising on the negative views currently held by the international community towards Syria and Hezbollah, and escaped with little or no censure by the international community - something quite rare for Israeli attacks.  But this has not always been the case in the past.

Israel, a small island located in a sea of aggressive and hateful enemies, has been forced to employ the tactic of preemptive strikes in order to survive.  Some of Israel's most famous and important victories - most notably that in the Six Day War - were achieved by surprising the enemy before they were able to inflict damage.  The Egyptian air force was destroyed while on the ground in 1967.  This surely paved the way for the famous Israeli victory.  Israel was roundly criticised for sending its air force aeroplanes to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor site in Iraq in 1981.  It was only many years later in 2005 that President Clinton finally acknowledged for the first time that the strike on Osirak by Israel was a "really good thing".  Similarly, the strike on the Syrian nuclear facility that was carried out by Israel in 2007, attracted criticism from Mohamed ElBaradei, then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Imagine if the civil war in Syria being waged at this time involved the added concern of nuclear weapons.  With the benefit of hindsight, the Israeli strike in 2007 has potentially saved massive consequences.

These historical experiences also put a context to the ongoing standoff with Iran concerning the development of its own nuclear facilities.  A preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be much more difficult, and would have far greater consequences than the ones carried out against Iraq and Syria.  Both of the previous attacks solicited no military response at all.  This miraculous escape, after catching each of these countries off guard, is highly unlikely in the Iranian context.  It is almost assured that any attempt to carry out a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities would include a substantial response.  It is for this reason that Israel has tried using different tactics against Iran, including mounting a concerted campaign to assassinate key personnel employed in the Iranian nuclear industry and using cyber warfare to destroy software and hardware in use by the Iranian nuclear facilities.  Until now, these tactics have served to slow the processes down at best, and have not been effective in halting Iran's march towards becoming a nuclear power.  Israel is still considering a game-changing strike that will kill off Iran's nuclear push once and for all.  The threat posed by a retaliation to such a strike is surely much lower than the threat presented by a nuclear Iran.  Despite this fact, the threat presented by retaliation is substantial.

While not completely invincible, Israel's military and intelligence establishments have proven themselves over and over again.  Mistakes have certainly been made, but reports of potential threats which are reported by these organisations are always taken seriously by the Israeli government.  This is based on its amazing track record of getting things right more often than getting them wrong, and managing to sniff out information in a seemingly impossible way.  The way that the Israeli organisations work seems somehow to be different and more effective than similar intelligence agencies elsewhere in the world.  A potential threat to Israel which is reported by Israeli intelligence will almost certainly be taken seriously.  Equally, the Israeli intelligence community is well aware of the importance of the advice that they offer, and the consequences of giving bad advice or making mistakes.

It seems highly unlikely that Israel will reverse its tactic of preemptive strikes against enemies in the near future.  This tactic which has proved very effective in the past, and critical to Israel's survival. Despite the fact that a great deal of Israel's focus is on defense rather than attack, as evidenced by new developments such as the Iron Dome, the tactic of attack is often the best form of defense.  Despite this fact, we all wish to believe that this will always be used sparingly and very cautiously.  Ultimately, however, it is one of the ways that Israel will be able to maintain any superiority over its enemy neighbours around the Middle East.  If attacks and threats against Israel persist, Israel will be forced to employ measures to protect herself.  These measures include preemptive tactics to prevent the possibility of attacks taking place, and to prevent loss of innocent lives.  Extreme circumstances demand extreme measures.  It would be difficult to argue that Israel is not living under extreme circumstances.

Summer Security Assessment

It may be my imagination, but it seems to me that the security situation in Israel somehow seems to heat up when the weather gets hotter.  Many of the wars that Israel has had to fight in recent times have taken place during the summer months.  Somehow, as soon as the summer is in full glow, the security threats appear to escalate.  I was doing a mental assessment of Israel's current security situation.  The truth of the matter is that the situation is not brilliant.  If I was the chief of general staff or head of the national security council, this is the type of assessment I would be making at this time.

The southern border with Egypt is probably facing its least secure time since the signing of the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979.  A number of attacks have been made on Israel from the Sinai Peninsula, and we know that the Egyptian police force has been unwilling to secure this area, in the way that they did during the Mubarak years.  This has resulted in the Sinai becoming like the Wild West.  Arms shipments are crossing the Sinai towards Gaza in massive convoys, and with alarming frequency.  Most of these arms come from the "terrorist godfather" Iran, while others are coming from the stock of munitions that was looted from Libya when Gaddafi was overthrown.  The freedom with which these convoys are reaching Gaza via Egyptian territory is concerning.

More than this, a number of recent attacks have been launched into Israel from Sinai.  For the first time ever, Israel's southern resort of Eilat has joined the list of Israeli cities that are susceptible to a terror attack.  The attacks are not necessarily being carried out by militants themselves, because they have succeeded in recruiting Bedouins in the Sinai to act as their proxy in the battle against Israel.  Suddenly, they are the ones launching rockets into Israeli territory on behalf of their Gaza benefactors.  The Israeli government has moved to reinforce security along the Sinai border, and is constructing a security barrier fence along the length of the border.  This only takes care of part of the problem of the lawlessness in the Sinai, and then only to a certain extent.  It will be impossible to completely eradicate the threat of missiles being launched from Sinai into Israel, or the threat of infiltrations along this border.  The security barrier and increased security activity will go a long way towards achieving this, but it will be impossible to do away with it completely.  The lack of law and order in the Sinai also means that the gas pipeline that travels through this area, and carries urgently needed natural gas from Egypt to Israel, will continue to be under constant attack.  It has already been exploded 13 times in the past year.  This gas is critical to Israel's economy, at least until gas begins to flow from Israel's own gas fields in the next year or two.

The ongoing political turmoil in Egypt does not add anything to the safety of the southern border.  There is a part of me that says that it would probably be better to have the Muslim Brotherhood candidate installed as president of Egypt, rather than the current situation where there is no president at all.  Social unrest is building along with the lack of trust in the interim military rulers to hand power over to the elected candidate.  Social unrest is a highly destabilising force which Israel would prefer to avoid at all costs.

The situation along the Syrian border is also very concerning.  Assad continues his crackdown on opposition forces, in spite of the fact that there is practically no way for him to emerge from this uprising in control of Syria.  His forces continue to murder and maim militants and civilians alike in the lead-up to his deposal.  There is no indication what sort of regime will eventually replace Assad when the time comes for him to leave office.  The lack of stability that this situation creates for Israel stretches far beyond the Syrian border.  Hezbollah has already been observed looting missiles from the Syrian arms stores.  Some of these missiles have the capability to reach Tel Aviv.  They have been relocated onto the Lebanese side of the border, something that does nothing to help Israel's security in this area.  If Hezbollah is taking missiles, it is not impossible that weapons and missiles are falling into the hands of other anti-Israel groups.  This adds to the lack of stability in the area, and in the wider region.

The instability along the Gazan border also continues.  More than 100 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel last week.  Fortunately, most of them fell harmlessly into open areas causing no injury or damage.  There were a few, however, that did damage to buildings and caused injury to individuals.  It will not take long before one rocket hits its target causing risk to life and limb.  This concern is even greater now that schoolchildren have begun their summer vacation, and will no longer spend a significant part of their day in the more protected environs of the school buildings.  The IDF and its Iron Dome batteries are doing a great job to protect those in harm's way.  This will, however, not be enough under the current circumstances and the rocket fire must be stopped as soon as possible.

Judging by the above, the overall security assessment is pretty grim.  Threats abound from all sides, and this is not to mention the continuous challenges of policing the borders to the Palestinian Authority areas in the West Bank, and keeping Jerusalem secure.  We can also not forget the ongoing threats posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the way in which Turkey has become hostile to Israel in recent times.  In addition, the growing social protest movement in Israel has been strengthened, and is set for another summer of demonstrations against rising costs and economic hardships being suffered by so many.

Many countries would be plunged into depression and despair by the security and economic challenges faced by Israeli people.  And yet, this is certainly not the feeling in Israel.  People are gearing up for the long hot summer as usual.  Families are preparing for their summer vacations, high school students are getting summer jobs and tourists are gracing us with their presence in ever-increasing numbers.  Roaming around the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, it is easy to think that you are in a country that has not a care in the world.  The overall mood is good, and people are going about their daily lives with a very positive outlook.  I am not sure if this is people trying to kid themselves into a false sense of security, or whether it is the sign of Israelis continuing to build their country against all the odds. just as they have done for the past 64 years.  One thing is clear to all Israel's enemies, near and far.  It will take a great deal more than this to break the spirit of the average Israeli, and of our peoplel and our nation.  We are built of stronger stuff, and this comes out loudly and clearly in days like these when there is so much to be concerned about, and seemingly not much to smile about.  The smiles continue to grace our faces, and our optimism never seems to wane.  This is the enormous strength of Israel and her people.

Wishing everybody a happy and safe summer.

The Best and Worst of 2011

As we welcome 2012, it gives the opportunity to reflect on the best and worst parts of 2011.  In Israel, 2011 was an eventful year, including a number of interesting and challenging events.  For some, it was a year that they would prefer to forget.  Despite many negative aspects to the year, I think that Israelis will regard 2011 as having been a year that was more positive than negative.  Here are the main reasons why I think that this was the case.

The best story coming out of 2011 was the release of captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.  It is not only the fact that Gilad was returned safely to the arms of his family that makes this story good.  The fact that the Israeli government was finally able to agree and execute this deal sends some amazingly strong and positive statements to all Israelis.  For me, this is a classic story where the right thing finally triumphed.  Like all good stories, this has a negative side to it as well.  I really cannot blame all of those who opposed the deal due to the "price" that had to be paid in terms of the number of Palestinian prisoners who were released, even those who have murdered Israelis.  I also know how paranoid the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is about the possibility of soldiers being kidnapped in the future, and the measures that have been put in place to try to avoid this at any price.  I feel that working to avoid future kidnappings is a better reaction than leaving Gilad in captivity under the conditions that he was held.  This was, by far, the highlight of the year in my view.

Another good story of 2011 was that of the social protests.  Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to demonstrate against lack of social justice, and of the dramatic increases in the cost of living without commensurate increases in earnings.  This was a great story for a number of reasons.  It was good to see the Israeli public having the time and energy to devote to social issues, and behaving in a manner that most "normal" countries behave.  In the 63 years since Israel's independence, most of the time has been spent worrying about an existential threat.  Wars have been fought, terror attacks overcome and many people have been left dead and injured.  This allows little time or energy to give even a fleeting thought to daily social issues.  The fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis were able to come out into the street to protest social issues gives some indication that the existential threat is not quite at the same level as it has been in the past.  It also shows what Israelis really care about, and shows the real democracy that exists in Israel.  On all of these levels, the protests were extremely encouraging.  These good points, however, should not cause us to lose sight of the core issue of these protests - the economic inequality and hardships that many people are suffering.  Unfortunately, the government has not responded sufficiently to the message of the protest marches, and this issue is likely to plague us for some time yet.

A further good story for 2011 was the extent to which the economy succeeded in holding up during the year.  Even though this seems to be at odds with the message brought by the social protest movement, more Israelis were in employment during 2011 than at any other time in Israel's history.  In addition, while economies around the world were floundering and suffering all types of economic problems, Israel somehow managed to keep its economy on track.  This does not mean that the year translated into a boom year for Israel.  It does, however, continue the theme of displaying a real underlying strength to Israel's economy that was shown during 2008 when the credit crunch hit many economies so hard.  Once again in 2011, Israel's economy has performed admirably.  Along with the good things, come some very difficult questions.  Why are so many Israelis struggling financially when the economy is at almost full employment?  This is clearly something that needs to be addressed as part of the social equality agenda.

The major regional story this year was the unfolding of the Arab Spring in countries in the Middle East and North Africa.  The way in which the Arab Spring has swept through the region could never have been predicted.  Even though this is great news for democracy in the Middle East, it has created an instability that is proving to be negative for Israel, and many countries in the western world.  While the free world has an obligation to support the move towards democracy in principle, there is a real problem about whether these countries are really ready to embrace democracy.  In many respects, stability in the Arab world is more important than democracy.  As things seem at the moment, the two don't seem to be able to live side by side.  The change of regime in Egypt is particularly concerning, with the increasing popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The protest movement in Syria also promises some dramatic changes to regional politics, and they are not necessarily all going to be positive.

The second major regional story surrounds Iran's development of nuclear weapons.  2011 can be characterised as a year of confirmation and inaction where this is concerned.  The international community were presented with irrefutable evidence of Iran's development of nuclear missiles.  Even the International Atomic Energy Agency were forced to accept that Israel's representations about Iran's nuclear program have been correct all along.  Having had this fact confirmed, the best that the international community could muster up, were a few ineffectual sanctions.  It has become clear that Iran is not only setting out to threaten Israel.  The events over the past few days in the Straits of Hormuz are a clear challenge to the US.  The military exercise on this occasion closed the straights for only a short period of time.  The next time could be for longer, precipitating a potential military conflict with the USA.

Despite the fact that 2011 was a hugely eventful year, it seems only to have set the scene for what awaits us in 2012.  Israel's social justice movement is likely to be more vociferous, particularly if the economy suffers more than it did in 2011.  The government will need to be prepared to commit to spend more money on social issues, and to see these promises through.  This is an issue that is no less imporant than Israel's security challenges.

The Arab Spring will come to a head in Syria.  It seems as though the Sunni Muslims, who represent over 70% of the population, are likely to gain the ascendancy after having been ruled by the minority Alawites for many years.  The Spring could yet spread to other countries in the region, and this could present a greater threat to Israel as more of her neighbours became destabilised by these events. 

I expect that 2012 will also see the Iranian nuclear issue come to a head, as Iran continues to intimidate and provoke Israel, the USA and other western countries.  All of this adds up to 2012 looking to be a tough year.

In between the pessimistic expectations are a few rays of light.  Even though I expect a great deal of instability during 2012, it is my hope that this will then bring a period of greater stability as is often the case.  I also hope that the unfolding Arab Spring can create a new, more compromising, reality with the Palestinians to allow moves towards a genuine peace based on mutual recognition and respect.

It is my hope and prayer that 2012 holds only great things for all of you.  Happy new year!!

Egypt's Elections Produce a Surprise Package

The Arab Spring uprisings began exactly 1 year ago this month.  The demonstrations against the government of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia began in December 2010, and resulted in him being removed from power 1 month later.  The Spring subsequently spread to many other countries in the Middle East, and has been encouraged by enthusiastic support from the western countries.  Ironically, the one voice of hesitation against the uprisings came from Israel.  At the time, it was difficult for many to understand why Netanyahu did not support the Spring whole-heartedly.  Now, a year later, his reasons are starting to become apparent.

Netanyahu's concern about the uprisings were most obvious when the demonstrations reached Egypt, and thousands of Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square demanding the head of President Hosni Mubarak.  It was clear that Mubarak had ruled with an iron fist in the 30 years that he had presided over Egypt.  He was never elected in a free democratic election, and he never repealed the emergency laws under which his government and his security apparatus were entitled to do almost as they wished, and which they used to maximum effect.  Most citizens around the world who have lived in a democratic system (as well as many who have not) felt some level of empathy with Egyptians as they demanded, and finally got, the resignation of their president.  Netanyahu's voice was a lone one during that time, and it seemed strange to many that the leader of a free and democratic country would express concern about the democratisation of another country.  There were silent whispers about whether the relationship between Mubarak and Netanyahu held more than what was publicly known.  There were mutterings about whether the gas deal that was struck between Egypt and Israel, and which Mubarak's family are reputed to have personally profited from, possibly held personal profits for Israel's leaders too.  All the while, Netanyahu was heard to speak out in understated tones about his concerns for the Arab Spring.

Fast forward 11 months since the day that it was announced that Mubarak had resigned from power, and how different the situation looks.  Egypt has undergone its first round of voting in its nascent democratic process, and things are looking distinctly worrying for Israel and the west.  Voting for the lower house of Egypt's parliament has revealed that Islamic extremist groups are likely to rule in the new Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood, which was held responsible for the assassination of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and which remained a banned organisation throughout the 30 years of Mubarak's rule, has emerged as the strongest party in the elections.  There are those who believe that this support comes as a result of euphoria over the unbanning of the Muslim Brotherhood, not unlike the euphoria which saw the ANC sweep to power in South Africa after it was unbanned.  There are those, however, who believe that this reflects a trend towards Islamic fundamentalism  that can be seen in many countries around the world.  This is borne out by the meteoric rise of the Salafist Al-Nour party which received the second highest number of votes in the first round.  The Salafists advocate greater Islamic fundamentalism than the Muslim Brotherhood, and wish to apply Islamic Sharia law to Egypt.  They make the Muslim Brotherhood look like amateur fundamentalists.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had strong showings in the elections in Tunisia and Morocco, is not nearly as concerning as the indications of the trend in Egypt.  Besides the fact that Egypt has a direct land border with Israel, Egypt also enjoys a strategic position both geographically and politically in the current fragile state of international diplomacy.  Is the election result in Egypt showing that some countries are not yet ready to cope with western-style democracy, as so many people claim?  Or is the truth that Hosni Mubarak's iron fist also worked to protect the west against the scourge of Islamic fundamentalism?  Netanyahu seems to have been one of the only western leaders who understood this at a stage that it was still early enough to do something.  Unfortunately, his was very much a lone voice, and he had no prospect of stemming the tide towards the overthrow of Mubarak.

The Israeli establishment understood as soon as Mubarak left power that Israel's relationship with Egypt has changed forever.  There are some doubts as to whether the peace treaty signed between late Prime Minister Menachem Begin and late President Anwar Sadat will be respected by the new regime.  Even if it is, a new era has dawned for Israel and Egypt.  This will also manifest itself in Israel's relationship with the Palestinians.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a close ally of Hamas.  Whereas President Mubarak worked hard with the Israelis to try to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons into the Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to do the exact opposite.  This promises greater and more sophisticated attacks coming from Gaza, spelling real danger for southern Israel, and for the safety and security of the State of Israel as a whole.

It will be interesting to watch what sort of political system will manifest itself in post-Gaddafi Libya.  In this case, western countries were actively involved in overthrowing Gaddafi by supplying NATO air power to assist rebel forces against him.  Now, they will be forced to stand back to allow a new democratic government to replace the old dictatorship.  But who will be the new elected leaders of Libya, and could it be that the west may yet come to regret this too?  Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for.

The "Arab Spring" Sweeps Through Syria

The "Arab Spring", the name given to the uprisings which are taking place in many countries around the Arab world, has reached Syria in earnest. Despite the fact that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad indicated that he thought that the uprisings would not reach his country, I wrote more than two months ago that Syria was a clear candidate for the political unrest that started in Tunisia and Egypt, and which has swept through Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East like a fire out of control.

Reports being smuggled out of Syria suggest that more than 100 Syrians have been killed by Assad's security forces over the weekend, the largest number in Syria since the start of the uprising. It seems that the situation in Syria has finally escaped from Assad's control, and he is being forced in the same direction as other countries before him. The uprisings have already claimed the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Gaddafi's situation in Libya is looking extremely precarious and one wonders what prospects Assad may have of overcoming this rebellion and retaining power. His chances of success are not looking good if the results in other countries are anything to go by.

Even though Syria has its own idiosyncrasies which makes it slightly different from the other countries whose leaders have been forced out of power, there is one common thread running through the region. Like the other countries that have been part of the "Arab Spring" so far, Syria has a dictatorial leader who has been in power for many years without having been elected in a free and fair election. It is this point, combined with the dreams and aspirations of his citizens fuelled by the Internet and international media, which is causing citizens of Syria and other countries to rise up against their leaders. Ironically, it is also access to the Internet that is bringing their plight to the attention of the rest of the world. The flow of information and pictures over the Internet is what is really providing the fuel to the fires which have been lit on the streets of the Arab capitals.

When Bashar al-Assad took the reins of power in Damascus following the death of his father, there was real optimism that things in Syria were on the verge of a major change. Bashar is an ophthalmologist who undertook some of his training in London. He is married to Asma who was born and bred in the UK. He was regarded as more worldly, and with a better understanding of western ideals than those who went before him. When assuming the presidency of Syria in 2000, he promised reform and new opportunities for his people. He expressed the wish to upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure to give Syrians greater access to the Internet and, with it, greater participation in the activities of the international world. Unfortunately, his promises remain unfulfilled and Syria remains largely the same country that he inherited in 2000.

The current uprising in Syria brings back memories of the uprising against Hafez al-Assad in 1982. On that occasion, it was the Muslim Brotherhood which mobilised tens of thousands of people to protest against Assad in the city of Hama. By use of murderous force, Assad was able to quell the uprising and retain power in Syria for both himself and his son. In Hama, however, there were no cellular phones and no YouTube video clips documenting the behaviour of the security forces for the world to see. In that sense, Bashar is forced to confront an entirely different reality. He has tried to block information leaking out to the world by closing the country's borders and limiting access for journalists. He has also tried to block Internet access by citizens of Syria to prevent them from leaking out details of the crackdown by the feared Assad security apparatus. The global village has, however, become too small and Assad has been unable to block information leaking out of Syria's uprising. One small hole in the dike has been enough to allow a flood of information to reach the outside world about what is really happening in Syria.

Despite Assad's substantial attempts to block the flow of information and images out of Syria, he has also recognised the futility of this exercise. He has requested of the security forces not to kill more than 20 people a day in their attempts to put down the uprising. This cynical order has been ignored, particularly in recent days. An equally ironic step has been Assad's announcement that he is lifting the state of emergency that has remained in force in Syria for approximately 50 years. The announcement has, however, been accompanied by behaviour on the part of the security forces which completely ignores the fact that, formally, the state of emergency is no longer in place. This state of emergency is one of the main symbols of oppression against which the people are protesting. The irony of this state of emergency is that Assad has been forced to lift it just when he really requires its provisions to control the protest movement.

In a perverse way, Syria's lack of oil reserves may ultimately save the Assad regime. Although the world is looking on with horror at the way in which Assad's security forces are trying to put down the protests, it seems highly unlikely that the world will intervene in any way. Not only are the military forces of the free world stretched to their limits with ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, there seems little incentive for the world to become involved in Syria. This fact may give Assad a free hand to emulate the actions of his father in Hama almost 30 years ago to also squash this dramatic challenge to his power. In spite of the images reaching our TV and computer screens from Damascus and other Syrian cities, it seems as though Bashar will be allowed to do almost whatever he likes. The only remaining question is to what lengths Bashar will be prepared to go to defend his realm.

For Israel, the unrest in Syria creates mixed emotions. On the one hand, while Assad is fighting to stay in power, he has little time to devote to support the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah. This represents something of a relief for Israel. In addition, it is clear that the threat from Syria on Israel's northern border is lower than at other times, which comes as a welcome relief to the Israeli military establishment. While Assad's government is under threat and the possibility exists that Assad may be deposed, Israeli intelligence is trying to create scenarios as to what may happen if Assad is forced out of office. This is always a difficult situation to predict. While the period of Assad's rule has presented a real threat to Israel, directly from Syria and via Syria's proxy armies in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas, there is the possibility that Assad's replacement may even be worse. It is also unclear whether a change of government will bring the possibility of peace talks nearer, or further away. Sometimes, it is better the devil you know than you don't know.

It seems quite likely that the "Arab Spring" will extend into an "Arab Summer". Countries like Jordan, the Gulf States, Iran and even Saudi Arabia are not immune from the current wave of uprisings, and may find themselves next on the list. As the protests reach nearer to the heart of the major oil-producing countries causing further increases in international oil prices, countries in the west will be forced to take more of an active interest. If the current crisis in the Arab world cannot be brought under control in the near future and have a further negative effect on the economies of western countries, we may see the impact of the "Arab Spring" depose western leaders such as Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel and others via a ballot box revolution.

The Challenges Facing Benny Gantz

Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz has now taken over as Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) after a very forgettable period in the upper echelons of the high command. He has major challenges ahead of him, both in terms of repairing damage caused over the past few month as well as confronting threats that Israel faces and will continue to face in the foreseeable future.

The very public falling-out between Minister of Defence Barak and former Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi did no favours to either of man. Although Ashkenazi was the one whose tenure was not extended by the minister of defence and he paid the price by losing his job, Ehud Barak has not come out of the incident with his reputation intact. The public holds the view that his decision to terminate Ashkenazi's term was purely personal, and did not consider the best interests of the State of Israel. In addition, the manner of doing so was unprofessional and has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the general public. Barak chose to fight his case in the public domain by using the national press to express his criticism of Ashkenazi. Despite this fact, I remain unsure exactly why Barak decided not to extend Ashkenazi's time in office. I am not alone in my confusion. It is the defence minister's right and responsibility to nominate the IDF chief of general staff, and the ultimate decision is taken together with the prime minister, and with the approval of the cabinet. This process need not take place in the eye of the general public, particularly when there seems to be a personal vendetta tied into the subject. Barak's tactics seem to me to have been flawed.

Having decided to terminate Ashkenazi, Barak then proposed Yoav Galant to be his replacement. It appears as though Barak was aware of the furore surrounding Galant's "land grab" at the time of his appointment, and this surely reflects negatively on Barak's choice. The dirty issue in question involves a dispute between Galant and the Israel Lands Authority about hundreds of square metres of land surrounding Galant's personal residence, which Galant is accused of grabbing for his own personal use when they don't belong to him. If Galant had any sense, he would have ensured that this issue was taken care of long before his appointment to succeed Ashkenazi as the head of the IDF. Instead, he allowed the problem to fester and, when it finally came out into the public domain, it prevented him from taking office. The government's attorney general and the government's comptroller both produced independent reports on the matter ruling that Galant has a case to answer for the land grab. Quite rightly, the cabinet decided to terminate Galant's appointment even before he took office. Barak is again the guy presented as having taken the incorrect option and Galant's promising career has been summarily terminated.

So now, the task of restoring the reputation of the office of the chief of general staff falls to the new man Benny Gantz who was hastily appointed after Galant was prevented from taking office. Although their names are similar, that appears to be where the similarities end. Not only does Gantz now have the enormous task of keeping Israel battle-ready in a changing world, he is also required to undertake substantial political repair work to restore reputations and working relationships. Gantz seems, for now, to be the right man for a most difficult job. He has started off on the right leg by maintaining a low profile while simply getting on with his job. He has not made any major political statements or public appearances. Instead, he has done exactly what is required of him at this time. He made his appearance at the prime minister's office to be awarded with his promotion in rank to that of Lt. General, after which he was sworn into office at a parade at the IDF high command in which he was inducted as the Israel's 20th chief of general staff. He immediately got to work without public fanfare or media interviews. He is, of course, a public figure and will inevitably appear in the media in the future. For now, however, he needs to keep his profile low and the level of his achievements high. He seems to understand this.

Gantz has taken over the command at one of the most interesting periods in Middle Eastern history. The flames of revolution are sweeping through the region at a pace that could not have been previously predicted. After uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt which have already succeeded in forcing the resignation of the rulers in those countries, protests are taking place in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran. Opposition forces in these countries have been encouraged by the successes witnessed, particularly in Egypt, and this is likely to begin to take hold in other countries too. It would not surprise me if this spreads to Syria, Jordan, other countries in the Emirates and even Saudi Arabia. All we can do is sit back in wonderment at the speed with which this change is taking place.

In his previous position as deputy chief of general staff, Benny Gantz was responsible for putting together the IDF's plans for 2011. With only 6 weeks of 2011 behind us, and less than a week into his new job, I wonder how relevant these plans are given the changes that are being experienced. While the successes achieved by the protestors seem good for democracy and freedom of speech, it is difficult to know exactly what types of government will replace the ones that are currently being dismantled. It is not inevitable that the new governments will be better, or more democratic, than the old ones. In the case of Egypt, the tearing down of Mubarak's government has left a dangerous vacuum that may spell more trouble than progress. The same may be the result in other countries where protests are taking place. Succession planning has not been big in the Middle East, and this creates its own set of dangers.

As Gantz gets his feet under his new desk and begins to take control of the situation, I wonder whether he might not have preferred the 2010 situation to the one that he finds in 2011. It is true that 2010 saw many hostile nations surrounding Israel with the threats that such a situation brings. But this hostility was not a moving feast. He will need to prepare himself for changing situations in many of these hostile nations, bringing the threat of more active hostility and threats to Israel rather than the simple lack of recognition, lack of diplomatic relations and public posturing and rhetoric that has characterised Israel's relations with many of these countries in the past. The hostility now runs the risk of being much more active and threatening to Israel's continued safety and survival. This is particularly true of the situation in Iran which continues with its program of constructing nuclear weapons. In the wrong hands, these could have devastating consequences for safety in the Middle East, and around the world.

Benny Gantz has a huge job on his hands. Taking over as the IDF's chief comes with massive responsibilities and challenges, even under "normal" circumstances. The particular situation which confronts Gantz comes with even greater challenges and pitfalls. It is our wish that he will succeed in carrying out his new job with much success and by bringing greater security to the State of Israel and her citizens. It is my hope that he will also be able to restore some sorely-needed pride and credibility to the political hierarchy of Israel's security establishment.

Life After Mubarak

Even though I have written twice over the past month about the uprising in Egypt, it is difficult to ignore the tumultuous events that have taken place over the past few days. Mubarak finally gave in to the will of the Egyptian people, and resigned as president late on Friday. This was only after he found the audacity to continue to cling onto power when it was clear that his position was no longer tenable. Mubarak left office as he had ruled for 30 years - thinking firstly of himself, and taking little consideration of what may be best for his people.

Now that he is gone, what happens next? Mubarak ensured that he had no logical successor, and nobody to hand control of Africa's most populous country to. He was so concerned about the possibility of his absolute rule being undermined, that he was not prepared to allow anybody to be close to him. Ultimately, he was shown that even this did not safeguard his position. More of a disaster for Egypt is that no successor or succession plan was put in place. One of the hallmarks of a true leader is that the ensure that they have succession. They should have either a person, or a process to select a person, that can replace them in the event of a disaster or through the logical flow of events. Even though leaders like Mubarak think that they are irreplaceable, cemeteries around the world bear testimony to the fact that nobody is irreplaceable.

The Egyptians are left with military rule as this was Mubarak's only option in view of the vacuum that he has left in his wake. For now, the people are happy - anything is better than Mubarak. It is clear clear, however, that military rule cannot and will not satisfy their demands and expectations in the longer term. Military rule is generally associated with a rule by decree and a distinct lack of democracy. I feel sure that the military rule in Egypt will not be any different. This will only be acceptable if the military government moves quickly to call general elections, and allows itself to be rapidly replaced by a leader and government that is chosen by a majority of the people. The protest movement has made this clear by an announcement of its intention to hold a protest each Friday in Tahrir Square until democratic elections are called.

There are times in life when people know that they don't like what they have, but have no real alternative plan that represents what they DO really want. I have the impression that this is the situation in Egypt. The protest was against Hosni Mubarak, but the protest organisers and opposition movement never came up with an alternative plan to fill the gap once they succeeded in achieving their objectives. This can be compared with protests in a country like Poland which rallied behind Lech Walesa, or in South Africa where Mandela was the man that the opposition wished to see replace the rulers. In Egypt, they had no replacement in mind to be somebody who would represent new Egypt that protesters have been dreaming of. Under these circumstances, the new Egypt may turn out to disappoint those who so fervently fought for it during nearly three weeks in Tahrir Square. People are sometimes advised to be careful what they wish for, as they may get their wishes. I believe that this may turn out to be the case in Egypt.

Democracy has not yet proved itself as a success in the Arab world. Democracy incorporates some principles which have yet to manifest themselves in this region. The main issue with democracy is that it requires those who are defeated to acknowledge that they are in the minority, and to respect the will of the majority. For residents of the Arab Middle East, this point has yet to be successfully implemented. Examples like Iraq and Lebanon come to mind, where violence and murder are the order of the day due to the fact that the minorities cannot accept the will of the majority. Ahmadinejad in Iran went to inordinate lengths to rig the most recent general election to ensure that he was returned to power. Then, he moved to silence the majority in the most brutal manner to secure his term of office. It seems like the only stable governments in the Middle East (except for Israel) are those where the rule is absolute and no opposition is tolerated. In other cases, violence and chaos reign while minority groups attempt to assert their domination. Compare this to the general election in the USA in 2000 when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by a hair's breadth. The Gore camp was not happy with the outcome, and did not agree with the supreme court's ruling which prevented a third count of the votes cast in the deciding state of Florida. The decision was, however, accepted without violence and recriminations. This is the real meaning of democracy.

As much as I know that the people of Egypt have been protesting in favour of democracy for their country, I am yet to be convinced that Egypt is ready for this. It is difficult for me to see how organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda will allow the likes of Mohamed El-Baradei or Amr Moussa to take over rule in Egypt in the event that they are democratically elected as leader. These proved to be destructive forces under the autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, so their activities in a democratic environment are likely to be even more disruptive and destabilising.

Despite all of the negative implications of Mubarak's rule (of which there were more than a few), he did succeed in maintaining stability in Egypt for the duration of his rule. This, in turn, contributed to greater stability in the Middle East during a period which included significant lack of stability in other parts of the region and the world. The importance and significance of Egypt in the region should not be underestimated. Lack of stability in Egypt will clearly have a negative impact across the region, and possibly across the world.

For Israel, this means greater risk which manifests itself in a number of different ways. Any change on her borders, even a change that is ultimately for the better, forces Israel to make internal changes to the way that she handles her security arrangements. After becoming accustomed to certain realities and having put relevant responses in place to handle a particular situation, any change to that situation requires changes to Israel's military activities. This creates risk and uncertainty. In the case of the changes in Egypt, the risk and uncertainty is not limited only to Israel's southern border and the Camp David peace treaty. There is every prospect that the Egyptian border to the Gaza Strip will be opened, allowing free flow of weapons into the strip which presents a huge security risk to Israel. It is not inconceivable that the Egyptian uprising may reach countries such as Jordan and Syria which creates uncertainty along Israel's eastern and northern borders. While Israel is an eager support of democracy and democratic principles (as evidenced by her own system of government), she is forced to view her own security as a higher priority. Until such time as the full impact of the Egyptian revolution is digested and understood, Israel's defence establishment will be on the highest alert.

We will all be watching carefully as Egypt treads the uncertain path towards democracy. We hope that the experiment will prove to be a success, and will contribute towards greater stability in a region that desperately requires security. In particular, the Israeli government will be watching nervously as the new Egypt reveals itself.

Does the Uprising in Egypt Open the Floodgates for Other Countries in the Middle East?

President Hosni Mubarak is clinging on to power in Egypt by his fingernails. But this is clearly only a temporary situation, and an attempt for him to retain some element of dignity. His political career has been brought to an abrupt end and, with it, any aspirations that his son Gamal may have had to succeed him. The rule of this modern-day Pharaoh and his family is finally over.

Mubarak's rule over Egypt for the past thirty years has been difficult to characterise. He assumed power from the assassinated Anwar Sadat soon after Egypt was practically excommunicated from the Arab world for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Mubarak had the job of stabilising Egypt after the murder of its president, while also seeking out friends to use as a leg for its foreign policy. He has maintained cordial relations with Israel which have served to preserve the peace agreement between the countries. He has engaged with the USA and other western countries which has ensured that Egypt has had trading partners, has been at the centre of peace negotiations and has been the recipient of generous military aid packages. Internally, Mubarak has chosen to rule Egypt under the constant threat of the provisions of the state of emergency, and while ensuring that all opposition to his rule has been firmly stamped out. This has brought benefits to Israel and other western countries because he has been sure to crush the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which presents a real threat along with Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist organisations.

It is my assessment that the people of Egypt have enjoyed a fairly good existence during Mubarak's rule. As long as they were prepared to toe the line and support the regime, they could have enjoyed a fairly acceptable lifestyle and standard of living. Egypt has enjoyed economic success via its policy of engaging the west. It has been the destination for millions of western tourists with the economic benefits that tourist industry brings. It has established itself as a telecommunications crossing point with many telecommunication cable systems crossing Egypt undersea and overland in a link between Europe and the Far East. The western military aid packages have served to boost the Egyptian army and, with it, the military support for Mubarak's regime. For the average Egyptian, however, it seems that even this has not been enough. Mubarak's unwillingness to provide a political environment allowing Egyptians the freedom to determine their own political destiny has directly contributed to the current uprising. It is noticeable how the demonstrations in Egypt have been spontaneous expressions of frustration by people on the street, and not driven by political opponents. Ironically, the political opposition was extremely ill-prepared for this uprising, and has been unable to capitalise upon it. The Muslim Brotherhood have been virtually invisible throughout the past two weeks of protests, and opposition figure Mohammed El-Baradei was forced to hurry back to Egypt having been away from the country when the protests began.

It is clear that the prospects of political stability and economic prosperity that may have satisfied citizens of Middle Eastern countries in the past, are no longer enough to keep their rulers in power. Engagement of the west has proved to be a double-edged sword. In exchange for the economic benefits that the west has provided, Middle Eastern rulers should have been prepared for the export of democratic ideas and principles to their citizens. Even those countries which have not engaged the west to the same extent are finding that the new Internet age has facilitated the globalisation of democracy. It is for this reason that I suggest that the uprising in Egypt is just the start of similar uprisings in other countries and across the region.

We have already seen the overthrow of the Tunisian government. Protests have been held on the streets of Sana'a in Yemen and Amman in Jordan. Syrian President Bashar El-Assad is clearly thinking about the implications for his country as he has announced that he does not believe that this uprising will reach the streets of Damascus. I think that this is more wishful thinking than firm belief. Syria is clearly a candidate country for a similar uprising in protest against Assad's autocratic rule. The Iranian government is bracing itself for possible protests in Tehran. We may recall that Mir Hossein Mousavi fairly won the previous election, but was denied the office by Ahmadinejad and his thugs. He is now regrouping the opposition parties, and they seem ready to use the current climate to renew their own attempts to assert democracy. It is difficult to rule out possible protests in the Gulf countries and in Saudi Arabia where the monarchs' rule has been absolute. Substantial economic prosperity in these countries arising from oil revenues cannot entirely rule out the possibility of an uprising against their autocratic political regimes.

Indications are that 2011 will represent a major turning point in the Middle Eastern political landscape. Rulers were once able to isolate their citizens from developments elsewhere in the world to secure their own political situation. The Internet and other globalisation tools have changed all of that. People are now able to identify what they are missing out on, and are no longer happy to accept this fact. Those who maintain that western democracy cannot simply be transplanted into all environments, especially those in the Middle East, may well be correct. It is true that many Middle Eastern countries may not be able to successfully apply these principles to their own environments. But now, it is too late for such contentions. The wheel is turning, and its momentum seems unstoppable.

Violence Sweeps the Arab World

The winds of change seem to be blowing through the Middle East. Demonstrations which began in Tunisia during December have now reached Yemen and Egypt, the Middle East's most populous country. Whereas many of these countries have previously seen demonstrations, this time the unrest is different. Demonstrations in the past have usually been directed against western countries and non-Muslims. The current outbreak is directed against the leaders and governments of Arab countries. When considering the stability of the Middle East and particularly from Israel's perspective, the fact that the unrest has reached Egypt represents a substantial risk.

Most Arab countries have been governed in a distinctly undemocratic way. Even those that have held elections, have given only token representation to democratic principles. Egypt has previously held elections in which Mubarak was the only candidate. This seems to be the limit of democracy across the Arab world. Many Arab countries are ruled by royal dynasties such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Emirates, or by family succession such as Syria and Mubarak's attempts to introduce his son to succeed his rule. It is not unusual for rulers in the Arab world to be around for lengthy periods of time. The thirty years that Mubarak's rule in Egypt has lasted is not an unusual occurrence in this part of the world. There are numerous other examples of leaders outstaying their welcome in the interests of clinging to power.

The unrest over the past couple of months has come unexpectedly, and it is unusual in that it has succeeded in ousting at least one leader from power so far. Events in Egypt indicate that President Hosni Mubarak may well be the next casualty. It would have been almost impossible to predict these events 12 months ago, or even 6 months ago. Traditionally, Arab leaders rule their countries in an autocratic type of way, and tolerate absolutely no opposition or threat to their authority. Despite this fact, the demonstrations in Tunisia which overthrew the rule of President Zine El Abiden Ben Ali, seem to have emboldened opposition movements in Yemen and Egypt. Under these circumstances, it is likely that these demonstrations may spread to other countries and it is difficult to know where this will end.

It is evident that the citizens of these Arab countries have had enough of their political aspirations being suppressed. Until now, they have been afraid to express their opposition to the ruling government. Having witnessed the success achieved in Tunisia, however, opposition movements have gained confidence in their ability to make their views known. The success achieved in Egypt will give even further momentum to those in other countries who wish to oppose their ruling governments. Until today, I would not have dared to bet against Mubarak surviving this attack on his regime. At the current moment, with Omar Suleiman installed as Egypt's first vice president in 3o years, Mubarak's hold on power is looking extremely shaky.

From an Israeli perspective, Mubarak's rule has proved to be good. He has cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood movement which presented as much of a threat to Israel's safety as it did to the Mubarak regime. He has also placed a fairly tight control on the Gaza border which has made it more difficult for Hamas to smuggle arms into the Gaza Strip, which are then used to threaten Israel. If Egypt descends into a state uncertainty as a result of Mubarak being ousted from power, it is expected that Israel will not be immediately threatened. After all, the focus of all the parties is currently on internal political issues. In due course, however, Mubarak's successor will need to get down to the issue of foreign policy and, in particular, policy to be followed regarding Israel and the Hamas state of Gaza. No matter who replaces Mubarak, it is almost certain that Israel will be much more nervous about security on its Egyptian border, and on the border with Gaza.

Even if Mubarak survives the next few days and weeks, it is most likely that he will no longer be in power by the end of 2011. Indications are that the winds of change blowing through the Middle East will see that 2011 is a year of dramatic changes in the Arab world. For Israel, this brings a period of uncertainty and an element of nervousness. Even though Israel is always on heightened alert, the past 30 years have allowed her to be less concerned about events on the Egyptian border. This may be about to change.

Who Will Succeed the Pharaoh?

The reports last week of the return to Egypt by former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, caught my attention. During his 12 years as the head of the IAEA, he was a public figure and, particularly in connection with his work on the Iranian nuclear program, captured many world headlines. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 added to his international standing. There is the impression that certain elements of Egyptian society have been waiting for his triumphant return to his homeland for some time. ElBaradei has been mooted as a possible future president of Egypt, something which ElBaradei himself appears willing to contemplate. But how realistic is this possibility?

The current Pharaoh of Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for almost 30 years. He assumed the presidency of the Arab Republic of Egypt in 1981 following the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He was "re-elected" in 1987,1993, 1999. These "elections" involved being elected by the Peoples' Assembly (which is controlled by his National Democratic Party) , and then confirmed by a national referendum. The Egyptian constitution, which was in place at the time, restricted anyone from running against the president in the referendum. In 2005, a constitutional change was passed which allowed for multi-candidate presidential elections. The election held in 2005 saw Mubarak use every state tool and trick in the book available to him (legitimate and otherwise) to secure himself victory in a "democratic" election. According to the official results, Mubarak gained almost 90% of the votes cast with a voter turnout of little more than 20%. The runner-up in the election, Dr. Ayman Nour, was arrested after the vote and sentenced to five years hard labour after being convicted of forgery.

Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt by presidential decree for 29 years. The state of emergency, which was declared following Sadat's assassination, has never been lifted. As president, Mubarak appoints the prime minister and cabinet. If there is dissatisfaction, or if things are not undertaken to the president's liking, he will accept the resignation of the prime minister and cabinet, and appoint a replacement. By convention, it is the president who controls defence and foreign affairs policy and the prime minister manages day-to-day affairs including the economy. During the time of Mubarak's presidency, he has appointed 7 prime ministers. Even though the position does exist, Mubarak has never appointed a deputy president.

Mubarak and his family have become entangled in corruption scandals. It is reputed that his sons Alaa and Gamal have been favoured with government tenders and privatisations. Political corruption appears widespread, with imprisonments and detentions without trial commonplace. It is charged that the Interior Ministry is an engine that has been constructed to support the continuation of the Mubarak presidency in Egypt. Transparency International, an organisation addressing corruption around the world awarded Egypt a Corruption Perceptions Index score of 2.8 out of a possible 10 awarded to clean countries, giving Egypt the 115th position out of 180 countries in their report.

The Pharaoh is now 81 years old, and even though he will continue to hang on to power for as long as he can, even he cannot continue in the job forever. Inevitably, attention has turned to speculating about who his successor could be. Mubarak's elder son, Alaa, left the political scene in 2000 which was the same time that younger son, Gamal, began making his presence in the National Democratic Party felt. This has resulted in the accusation that Mubarak is grooming Gamal to take over the presidency from his father. Although this has been denied by both father and son, it is difficult to escape the feeling that this is the case.

When Mohammed ElBaradei returned home last week after more than 20 years of living abroad, the succession discussion was instantly reignited. Due to having lived outside of Egypt for so long, he is untainted by the widespread corruption that dogs the Egyptian political scene. He is viewed as the saviour of Egypt by the democratic movement. In his first televised interview since returning to Egypt, ElBaradei criticised Mubarak by saying that Egypt has stagnated under his presidency, and that corruption is rife.

Examining this situation from an Israeli angle changes the view somewhat. Israel's relations with its Arab neighbours are considered in fairly black and white terms. With some neighbours, Israel has peace and with others not. In these terms, Israel has peace with Egypt and no conflicts of any significance have arisen between Egypt and Israel during the period of Mubarak's presidency. The peace treaty signed by his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, has held. Even though it would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that trade between the two countries has blossomed or that tourism between the two countries has multiplied, sometimes less is more. In Israeli terms, a peaceful border is more than we could have expected, and this is considered as successful as can be anticipated. In addition, there has been increasing cooperation between Egypt and Israel on the important matter of the Gaza Strip. Gaza, with a lengthy Egyptian border and numerous tunnels that have been dug under the Egyptian border fence for the supply of arms and domestic goods, presents almost as much of a challenge to Egypt as it does to Israel. Although Egypt has not succeeded in putting an entire stop to anti-Israel activities in Gaza, there have been efforts on Egypt's behalf to assist Israel where possible.

So how does Israel view the possible successors to the Pharaoh? Israel has already experienced situations of family successions, of sons succeeding their fathers, amongst its neighbours. In Jordan, Abdullah took over after the death of his father Hussein, and Bashar is ruling Syria after the death of his father Hafez. In both cases, the sons concentrated their first efforts on strengthening their ruling position in the country before addressing other issues. In both cases, the sons continued their fathers' policies towards Israel. If Gamal was to succeed Hosni and continue the current Egyptian policy towards Israel, this represents a level of stability for Israel's relations with Egypt, and this would be welcome.

If, however, ElBaradei or another democratic candidate was to succeed Mubarak, the implications for Israel would be less clear. In his role at the International Atomic Energy Agency, I never really got the impression that ElBaradei had a great deal of time for Israel. Even when the agency was discovering new Iranian nuclear facilities and was not gaining much cooperation from Iran in allowing further international investigation, somehow ElBaradei always appeared unwilling to address or acknowledge the threat that this presents to Israel. It was only right at the end of his tenure, when the facts were so overwhelming, did we finally see ElBaradei make a clearer stand on this matter. Perhaps he knew that he was leaving his job, and did not care about the consequences of such a stand? It is hard to know.

Although I am a supporter of democracy, it feels strange for me to be saying that I am not such a great supporter of democracy for Egypt. The reason is not that I am anti-democracy, not even for the long-suffering Egyptians who may not be quite ready to confront this style of government. The reason is simply because of the uncertainty that the introduction of democracy in Egypt would bring to Israel. This is especially true if somebody like ElBaradei is crowned the new Pharaoh. At this time, when Israel is already fighting a war on two borders, a democratic Egypt is a scary prospect.

Egypt and Hezbollah

The recent military action by Egypt against Hezbollah cells in Egypt has come as something of a surprise to many people. This is especially true when considering the comments published by Cairo's official state media calling Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah a "monkey Sheik". There are those amongst us who view the Arab world as a single autonomous group. But, with a population numbering approximately 350 million and covering a region that includes the Gulf, the Middle East and North Africa, the Arab world is a highly fractured collection of people. The actions by Egypt against Hezbollah represent another chapter in an ongoing saga of Arab disunity stretching back many years.

The Arab world is considered to include those people who originate from the Arabian peninsula and who speak Arabic. This is distinct from the Islamic world (people who follow Islam as a religion), where Arabic is part of the people's culture rather than the vernacular. So, despite having a population of approximately 70 million Muslims and its geographical proximity to Arab countries, Iran is not part of the Arab world. Iran's population is largely of Persian ancestry, and the official language of the country is Farsi. Despite Iran not being part of the Arab world, it does have a significant influence on events in the Arab world.

Conflicts between Arab peoples and nations have traditionally been caused by cracks along religious, political, geographical and commercial lines. In religious terms, the Islamic world is divided between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, approximately 80-85% are Sunni Muslims. Large numbers of Shiite Muslims are found in Iraq and Iran. Iran's ruling Ayatollahs are Shiite Muslims, as are about 90% of the Muslims in Iran. The Sunni-Shiite divide is a conflict which dates back to the 7th century. Shiites believe that the Prophet Muhammad's daughter Fatima and son-in-law Ali were denied their divinely ordained leadership role to succeed her father. This injustice still forms the basis of their faith and writings. The focus of conflicts between the two sects has largely played itself out in Iraq and Lebanon, countries with significant populations of both Sunnis and Shiites. Iraq's population is 60-65% Shiite, but was under the rule of Sunni Muslims for significant periods of time. Lebanon has an almost equal split of Sunni, Shiite and Christians across its population with a resulting battle for supremacy. Conflicts have also arisen in Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia where Shiites were often treated as infidels.

There seems to be a growing fear amongst Sunni Muslims that there is a greater level of aggression arising from Shiites, which is perceived to be accompanied by an attempt to convert Sunnis to Shiism. This perception may be fuelled to some degree by changes in the political balance of power across the region. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, was deposed by the USA, giving rise to a Shiite government in Iraq. Iran's political strength, together with the Shiite influence, is on the ascent. Hezbollah, a Shiite group backed by Iran also finds itself in a more prominent position following the successes of its 2006 war against Israel. So, the Shiite minority is gaining in prominence and political strength across the Islamic world.

Egypt is the Arab world's largest Sunni Muslim country. Approximately 90% of its 80 million inhabitants are Sunni Muslims. Egypt has enjoyed a precarious relationship with other countries in the Arab world following certain controversial political actions on its part. In particular, Egypt's decision to sign a peace agreement with Israel and its decision to host the Shah of Iran after he fled Tehran during the 1976 Iranian Revolution have brought it into conflict with its colleagues in the Arab world. It has also brought Egypt into conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran that arose following the overthrow of the Shah. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 for his role in securing a peace agreement with Israel. The fact that only one Arab head of state (Sudan) attended his funeral, demonstrated the contempt with which he was regarded by the Arab world.

Hezbollah and Hamas, a Sunni Muslim organisation, appear unlikely friends except for their common enemy, Israel. The hate of this common enemy has been sufficient to create strong cooperation between the two organisations. This cooperation stretches to Iran by definition in its role as Hezbollah's benefactor, and this has created the imperative to open a route via Egypt to ship weapons into Hamas' Gaza stronghold. This has been done without any due consideration to Egypt on the part of Hezbollah and Iran. In fact, they would have no qualms in undermining Egyptian sovereignty where possible given the contempt with which Egypt is still generally regarded in the Arab world. This action has led to Egypt's military response to Hezbollah's activities on its soil. It is this contempt that has caused Hezbollah to admit openly to its operations on Egyptian soil in attempt to embarrass Egypt.

A number of articles have been written hailing the Egyptian actions as being "in the best interests of Israel". Whilst this may indeed be a by-product of Egypt's response to Hezbollah, let us not fool ourselves for one minute into believing that they were acting in Israel's defence. Each entity involved is acting in its own best interests only. Israel would be best advised, as always, to keep a careful watch on developments lest they give Egypt reason to act in a way that may not benefit Israel.

The above background is an attempt to put Egypt's response against Hezbollah into context, and to briefly touch upon the complex subject of inter-Arab relations. Continuing disunity in the Arab world was recently reinforced when Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi went on a tirade against the Saudi king at an Arab League meeting in Qatar. He was criticising the Saudi king's strong links to western countries. Although the two were reportedly later reconciled, the fractured nature of the Arab world is unlikely to be healed any time soon.