Game Over For Gaddafi

Just when I thought I had witnessed the most unexpected events in the Middle East, the story of Libya reveals itself to be more surprising than anything I have seen to date. The fact that the uprising that is sweeping the Middle East has reached Libya is not the surprise. Colonel Gaddafi's authoritarian style was always going to be under attack as soon as his people had sufficient support and confidence to rebel against him. What has been most shocking for me is the way in which some of Gaddafi's closest circle have rebelled against him without being pushed very hard.

First was the strange story of two Libyan Mirage fighter jets that arrived in Malta last week. We were led to understand that the pilots had defected from Libya with their planes after they were ordered to bomb protestors who had taken over Libya's second-largest city, Benghazi. Considering that pilots are regarded amongst the elite of the elite of the Libyan military and Libyan society in general, I would imagine that pilots are screened to ensure their loyalty to Gaddafi and his regime. As such, they should not necessarily have conisdered an order to bomb protestors who are threatening the overthrow of Gaddafi as being something out of the ordinary. And yet, their loyalty appeared not to be as strong as I had imagined it would be. It proved not to be any match for their feeling of revulsion at the prospect of bombing their own people.

This episode was superceded by the scenes that took place at the United Nations Security Council on Friday when Libyan ambassador Mohamed Shalgham stood up to criticise his leader and childhood friend. Earlier in the week, he had spoken out in defence of Gaddafi and against the protestors. By the end of the week, however, he could no longer defend the manner in which Gaddafi was attacking the protestors in defence of his regime. He called on the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on the Libyan regime. This must surely be a unique United Nations event, when the ambassador of a country speaks out against his own government in this international forum. The Security decided in a unanimous vote to impose sanctions on Libya, and to refer Libya to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

This was followed soon afterwards by scenes of the staff of the Libyan embassy in Washington taking down the Libyan flag, and replacing it with a flag that was in use prior to Gaddafi assuming power. Even Hollywood could not have written this script.

Amongst all the pieces of information spilling haphazardly out of Libya is the fact that Gaddafi was personally responsible for ordering the hit on Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. According to a Swedish newspaper, former Libyan justic minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil said that Gaddafi personally ordered the hit on the plane. This confirms long-held suspicions that Gaddafi was personally behind this ghastly act of international terrorism.

Despite the fact that his support system is crumbling before his eyes, Gaddafi is hanging on for dear life. He is clinging on to power in Tripoli while the demonstrators have succeeded in taking control of many other cities across the country. His calls for his supporters to come out in public to show their support for him, has resulted in more violence and bloodshed. The army's support for him is wavering, and the writing is surely now on the wall Gaddafi has his supporters.

Leaders like Gaddafi are well-known for clinging onto whatever they have, and never being prepared to give up their power. This spells disaster for the people of Libya whose lives are endangered by protesting against their leader who has long overstayed his welcome. Despite the physical danger endured by the protestors, they seem to be prepared to risk their lives in favour of working to oust Gaddafi. When the situation reaches this position, there can surely be no turning back for the Libyan leader. The time has come for him to leave. The only question that remains is whether he will agree to do this without more bloodshed and loss of life. The message that he is sending, is that he will continue to fight even when the situation is hopeless.

As this revoluation blows through the Middle East, I hope that the leaders of other countries who will undoubtedly be affected, will be prepared to spare the bloodshed and violence. One of the key characteristics of being a good leader, is knowing when it is not worth fighting. Gaddafi has failed this test miserably. Is it too much to hope that other leaders in the Middle East will avoid this tragic error?

Catastrophe in Christchurch

I was horrified to see the pictures of the effects of the devastating earthquake which took place in the New Zealand city of Christchurch earlier this week. And all this after having suffered a major earthquake only 5 months ago. In September last year, there was damage caused but no casualties. Unfortunately, this time Christchurch, has not been so lucky.

Casualties have mounted with almost 100 people reported dead and a few hundred still missing. The scenes of building collapses across the city of Christchurch are quite shocking to view, and the central feature of the cathedral of Christchurch remains barely a shadow of its former glory.

What is more shocking about these scenes, is the fact that New Zealand is a country which has paid a great deal of attention over the years to ensuring that buildings are built to special earthquake standards. The general public are trained to respond to earthquakes, and have frequent earthquake drills to prepare for moments like these. Despite this fact, the damage is widespread and there are likely to be many more deaths to add to the already mounting list. It could be said that the devastation would be much wider if these precautions had not been taken. Witness the impact on a country like Haiti, which had no earthquake preparations in place whatsoever. It lost hundreds of thousands of its citizens, and remains on its knees more than a year after the earthquake.

For me, this earthquake feels personal. I fondly remember the time that I spent in New Zealand and, particularly, my visit to Christchurch. I remember being entertained by the famous Wizard of Christchurch in the shadow of the cathedral that has now lost its steeple and its proud position of domination in the centre of the city. This was all part of a wonderful adventure that I had in New Zealand as an exchange student. Not only did I enjoy the beauty of the country, the people were so kind and welcoming and made me feel like I really belonged.

For now, the scene in Christchurch is covered by a black cloud. It is difficult to see past the death and damage which have been thrust upon this city over the past few days. I have no doubt, however, that the people of Christchurch will show a fighting spirit to overcome this tragedy, and will rebuild their city to be at least as good as it previously was. The people of New Zealand will ensure that this is achieved as soon as possible.

For now, my thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, who have been injured and who are concerned about missing friends and relatives. May they be granted the strength and the resilience to overcome this terrible tragedy. "God defend New Zealand".

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.

Analysing the "Palestine Papers" Leaks

The leak last week of confidential information regarding negotiations between representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the past decade has come as something of a surprise. The surprise is not in the fact that information has been leaked. We have already become accustomed to the publication of confidential government and diplomatic information, thanks to the recent revelations by Wikileaks. The surprise factor on this occasion surrounds the party responsible for the "Palileaks". Many have been surprised by the reaction in the Arab world, and by the Palestinians in particular, to the details published.

The so-called "Palestine Papers" have been made public by Qatar-based television station Al-Jazeera (AJ). It is not immediately obvious what interest AJ would have to publish this information. I can only speculate as to what I think may have driven AJ to take this step. It is a news station that has succeeded in joining the ranks of the most recognised 24-hour news stations around the world over the past few years, along with the likes of BBC, Sky, Fox and CNN. With the increased attention of international news-watchers to events taking place in the Arab world and the Middle East, and particularly how they affect events in western countries, AJ has brought an angle that many other of the international news stations have been unable to cover. It is recognised as an Arab news station, with access to Arab news and news-makers that other stations do not have. AJ has, however, been very careful not to become the protector of Arab points of view. In this sense, the station has had no problem in "betraying" the Arab world if the news item demands this. Those Arabs who thought that AJ would be some sort of propaganda tool to promote the views of the Arab world will be gravely disappointed by the news station that AJ has become. It appears as if it is more important for AJ to be regarded as a worthy, reliable and independent news broadcaster by its peers and audience outside of the Arab world, than it was for the station to be seen as a mouthpiece for the views of the Arabs. As the owner of AJ, the emir of Qatar is closely associated with the views that the broadcaster expresses. We are told that he was personally involved in the decision to publish details of the Palestine Papers. This decision has been true to AJ's desire to be regarded, first and foremost, as a station that reports newsworthy items, even if this may be at the expense of the Arab world.

The details of the Palestine Papers has come as a surprise to some, while reinforcing what others thought was already out there in the public domain. The contents have been presented in the international press as showing the Palestinians to be more accommodating in their negotiating position than they have been given credit for. This has led the left-wing press to accuse Israel of intransigence, and of not being willing to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. For the liberals, this has proven that Israel does have a "partner for peace", which is contrary to the views expressed by a number of Israeli prime ministers over the years from both the right and the left of the political spectrum. For some, this proves that Israel has not wished to take the opportunity for peace when the Palestinians have been willing to do so.

I have viewed the revelations in a different way. For me, it has reinforced how complex the issues in the negotiations really are. In particular, it is clear that trying to find a "package" that address all the issues and that both parties can agree to is almost impossible. The so-called concessions that have come out of the Palestine Papers, and that the Palestinian side has been given credit for, have not been offered for free. It is easy to show willingness to compromise on critical issues if the price that you ask in return is one that will never fly. Under these circumstances, the concession offered is no compromise at all, but it can be dressed up to look like one. The "concession" that seems to have been most written about, is the fact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has acknowledged that it is not realistic to expect Israel to allow 5 million Palestinian refugees to be accommodated within Israel. What a shock! How could there ever have been an expectation that a country of 7 million people would admit 5 million new citizens? So why does the Arab world not make a move to find permanent alternative arrangements for these people, who have been housed under awful conditions for the best part of 60 years. They were not expelled from their homes by Israel but left of their own accord despite the nascent state's government inviting them to stay. Now, the issue of the refugees needs to be addressed by the Arab world, and removed as a threat from the peace negotiations. It does not take a nuclear scientist to work out that Israel can never accommodate this volume of new citizens, even with the best will in the world. As such, it should not be a point for negotiation at all.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for some people has been the reaction of the Palestinian street to the revelation of the Palestine Papers. Whereas the international press has painted the Palestinians as the good guys and surprisingly willing to compromise in the interests of reaching a peace agreement, the Palestinian reaction has been negative. The Palestinian leadership responded immediately to the revelations by AJ by being concerned for their own safety. They denied that the compromises were their compromises, and accused AJ of mixing up the Israeli positions for their own. The man on the street believed this for a while.

The Palestinian leadership understood that their constituency would not like the details of what was made public. But why is this the case? Are the Palestinian people not interested in reaching a final status agreement that would allow them to live in peace in their own state alongside Israel? Apparently, the Palestinians are more concerned about being sold out, than they are about reaching a peace agreement. The Palestinian leadership was concerned that the Palestinian people would regard them as a traitors for offering concessions that went further than the Palestinian public is ready for. When it finally dawned on the man in the street that AJ had indeed published truths, demonstrations across the West Bank ensued while the members of the negotiating team lay low to try to deflect the risk that they and their families were under.

I was reminded of the situation that then-prime minister Ehud Barak found himself in, when he returned from Camp David after making wide-sweeping concessions to Yasser Arafat on the status of Jerusalem. The Israeli public was obviously not ready for the extent of these concessions and clearly did not approve. Despite this fact, there were no demonstrations and there was no threat to Barak's life. At the occasion of the next general election, he was unceremoniously dumped from power which ended that episode.

The leaks of the Palestine Papers has demonstrated the difficulty that faces the parties to the peace negotiations. Positions which give the parties credibility in the international community serve to weaken their support in their home constituencies, and vice versa. This reality applies as much to the Israeli team as it does to the Palestinians. Any compromise on land in the West Bank offered by the Israeli team will be met with massive opposition from the settler movement. This realisation serves as a source of great pessimism regarding the prospects for any success in the negotiations.

The leaks of the Palestine Papers has caused anguish and anger in the Palestinian community while giving the Palestinian negotiators positive press abroad. While it seems to have achieved nothing in progressing the peace talks, I believe that it has probably not done any lasting damage either. As with the Wikileaks which set the precedent for the Palileaks, once the initial surprise factor has been overcome, people seem to get back to their everyday business quite quickly. The revelations have not moved the course of international politics in one direction or another. Nobody has been forced to resign over the information revealed, and nobody has been physically attacked as a result. All it does is provide a more comprehensive backdrop for the events which follow, and allows the greater public a better understanding of the secret interactions.

The big winner out of the whole Palileaks affair is AJ. Whether they are loved or hated, they have certainly been the name on everybody's lips over the past few days. It has been said that even bad publicity is publicity, and this has been the case for AJ. Their offices were closed down in the West Bank and Gaza, but I am sure that this will be a temporary situation. The Palestinians understand the value of stations like AJ keeping the Palestinian issue in the news headlines.

As an afterthought, it has been interesting that the current two issues which are preventing the continuation of the peace talks were not covered in the Palestine Papers in any major depth. Israel's demands for the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state remain unanswered. The Palestinians demands for Israel to freeze construction have not been agreed to. Could it be that these two issues were left out on purpose? Maybe even those revealing the innermost secrets have limits that they adhere to. It does give some food for thought.

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.