J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 N o . 2 9

The end of Syria?

BeSa Center associates discuss the implications of Syria’s civil war and impending break-up

Thirty Years to the First Lebanon War

Pessimism about the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty

Sanctions or Strike on Iran?

Reforming and Strengthening Israel’s NSC

U.S.-Israel Relations in Obama’s Second Term

inSide

www.besacenter.org

2

For how long can this conflict persist?

Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum: This is most likely to be a long, protracted war, as long as the Russians and Iranians keep supplying Syrian president Bashar Assad. He is the only Russian ally left in the Middle East and the Mediterranean port of Tartus is important to Moscow. Don’t expect Moscow to support sanctions against Assad. Iran sees Syria as key to the Shi’ite anti-Sunni axis involving Iran, Syria, Hizballah, and Iraq. They will not give up easily on Assad either. As the conflict persists, it is possible that a Cold War-style proxy war could

develop, with the West supporting an amalgam of opposition forces, and the Russians and Iranians supporting Assad. Can assad and his alawite power-base win out and re-assert control over the country? Dr. Max Singer: It could be years before an outcome is determined in Syria. Nevertheless, an Alawite victory, with or without Assad, is possible because Iran is giving unlimited help to the Syrian government’s struggle to suppress the revolt. The minorities and the business community may be so afraid of a Sunni government led by Muslim Brotherhood figures and Salafis that they deprive the Sunnis of the support they need to defeat the government. While it is uncomfortable to be in any way supportive to a regime as nasty as Assad’s, it doesn’t seem likely that a Sunni regime would kill any fewer Syrians than Assad is capable of. All the minorities are afraid of the Sunnis, and with good cause. Prof. Efraim Inbar: Assad will not run out of ammunition due to Russian and Iranian military assistance. And in

contrast to the Egyptian army, Syrian military formations are not reluctant to shoot at civilians. Dr. Mordechai Kedar: Iran could yet send real troops to Syria to support Assad, passing through Iraq with official invitation of the Syrian regime and Iraqi consent, something like the Saudi invasion of Bahrain. This could change the entire regional picture, since Iranian troops might stay in Syria forever, and be “invited” by the Hizballah-dominated Lebanese government to extend their presence into Lebanon too.

BeSa Center associates: “Israel should stay out of the conflict but prepare for continued instability as Syria breaks up.”

Perhaps more than 50,000 Syrians have been killed in the almost two-year-long civil war raging just across Israel’s northern border, with no end in sight. The conflict threatens to spill over into neighboring countries. In this roundtable discussion, conducted in November, BESA Center research associates analyze the likely scenarios and their implications for Israel and the West. The bottom line: Israel should stay out of the conflict but prepare for continued instability as Syria breaks up.

Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum

Dr. Mordechai Kedar

iMPLiCaTionS of CiViL War in Syria

3

www.besacenter.org

Prof. Hillel Frisch: I very much doubt that Iran is going to move an army into Syria. The Iranians don’t have all that many troops, and if they did move, this would undoubtedly draw in NATO opposition. What is the likelihood that a stable Sunni-led government could emerge from the conflict?

Prof. Shmuel Sandler: A Sunni-led federal solution will not hold in Syria. For such a shared-rule solution, what is needed is a federal political culture – which does not exist in the Arab Middle East. Lebanon tried this and failed.

Dr. Max Singer: During the early stages of the revolt against Assad perhaps it would have been possible for the U.S. and others to have assisted in transition towards a non-Alawite regime capable of resisting Muslim Brotherhood control and positively-inclined towards accommodation among the minorities (instead of slaughtering and oppressing them). But the fighting has gone on for too long, and Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi elements of the opposition have grown too strong and prominent. So I

no longer see the possibility of a stable and moderate Sunni-led government emerging from the conflict. There is no Great Power to enforce the terms of a compromise power-sharing arrangement between the Sunnis and the minorities. Prof. Hillel Frisch: There is slight chance that the professional Syrian army could take control of things, with the aid of both the Sunni and Alawite communities and the bureaucratic officialdom to negotiate the preservation of the state. This, if only to salvage pension plans, savings, state-directed commerce and so on. But this possibility recedes with the passage of time. and the alternative to a stable Sunni-led government is what, anarchy? Prof. Shmuel Sandler: The first and increasingly-most-likely possibility is the emergence of a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship. Iran and Turkey would vie for influence and control over this state. The other possibility is that Syria disintegrates into several states or several warring fiefdoms. The de-facto partition

of Syria into several states is quite threatening to other Middle Eastern countries. I don’t see how the other Arab states could countenance this. This would be a threat to Turkey as well. Dr. Mordechai Kedar: It is clear to me that the most likely outcome of the civil war in Syria is the total collapse of all government and economic systems, and the emergence of hundreds of militias, including radical Islamic ones – meaning anarchy for years. Over the longer-term, I see the emergence of Kurdish, Alawi, and Druze districts, with fairly stable self-governance, perhaps even independent statehood. This may be the most stable and preferred outcome. Prof. Hillel Frisch: I disagree. States don’t disintegrate that quickly. Lebanon, for example, hasn’t really functioned as a unitary state for more than 15 years, yet it still exists as a country. I think that Syria will hold together in fragmented fashion, like Iraq does today. The Sunnis will be constantly challenged by the Kurds and Alawites, but the state will remain as one entity.

Dr. Max Singer

Prof. Shmuel Sandler

Prof. Hillel Frisch

www.besacenter.org

4

Dr. Max Singer: A de facto or formal division of the country – presumably among Sunni, Alawite, Kurdish, Druze, and possibly Christian areas – may seem like a reasonable way to resolve the deadly antagonisms between the groups. But my impression is that is impractical because the populations are too intermixed geographically. Also, I don’t see the dominant power, whether it be Alawite or Sunni, willing to accept autonomous minority areas.

Prof. Eytan Gilboa: The opposition to Assad remains highly divided. This means that, like Libya today, Syria will continue to suffer from frequent periods of violence and instability. Enormous resources will be needed to rebuild and reconstruct Syria, but there won’t be one guiding power to direct or elicit such assistance. This will provide many opportunities for external close powers such as Turkey and Iran, and others such as the West and China, to intervene in the shaping of the new regime or regimes. What are the implications for israel and the region of this continuing instability? Prof. Efraim Inbar: First of all, we can admit that Israel doesn’t mind that fact that its adversaries are bleeding themselves a bit. We have no love lost for Assad. Furthermore, the conflict is acerbating the Sunni-Shiite divide, and bringing Iran and Turkey into conflict

too. An outcome that reduces Russian and Iranian influence in Syria would be welcome, as well. Secondly, we should recognize that many national security issues in the eastern Mediterranean will be affected by the outcome in Syria, including the character of Cyprus, an island of great strategic importance. The eastern Mediterranean also holds enormous gas deposits that if properly developed can help Europe become less dependent on Russia and Turkey. The crisis in Syria is but a sideshow compared to the crisis over Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum: Obviously, the best result for both Israel and the West, regardless of who emerges on top, is a new regime that is concerned with internal development and that does not support Iran and Hizballah. An independent Kurdistan, involving Kurds in Iran, Syria, Iraq, and hopefully Turkey, would be a good development for Israel and the West as well. Dr. Eitan Shamir: Let’s not forget that the Syrian army is slowly crumbling and disintegrating. The Syrian Army was the last military on Israel’s borders that possessed full armored and infantry divisions, artillery and an air force. Assuming that Egypt and Jordan maintain their peace agreements with Israel, this means that

Israel has no direct threat from a conventional military on its borders.

Dr. Jonathan Rynhold: Nevertheless, prolongation of the civil war and contraction of the regime’s control over Syria’s borders are likely to have negative implications regarding Israel’s border with Syria on the Golan Heights. Jihadists and other elements looking to trigger widespread violence will seek to attack Israel from that border. While these do not pose a serious threat to Israel per se, changes in the region in general mean that relatively minor conflagrations can far more easily escalate to major confrontations dragging in other actors in the region. Thus, Israel will need to be more careful about its response than previously. The requirement of deterrence will need to be balanced against the need to prevent escalation. Dr. Eitan Shamir: Indeed, we may see the Golan border turning into ‘no-mans-land’, a safe haven for terror groups – similar to the current situation in Sinai. Or it could become a territory controlled by a one hostile, strong organization – such as is the case in south Lebanon and Gaza. Either scenario means trouble for Israel. Prof. Hillel Frisch: I see this as a low-risk possibility. Syrian land beyond the Golan is sparsely populated, making

Prof. Eytan Gilboa

Dr. Jonathan Rynhold

Dr. Eitan Shamir

iMPLiCaTionS of CiViL War in Syria

www.besacenter.org

it easy for Israel to monitor. And there are very few Israeli targets on the Golan itself. This is a manageable security environment. Prof. Eytan Gilboa: Israel and the West are in a lose-lose situation. Assad’s survival would be a victory for Iran and Hizballah. His weakness might help Iran to effectively take over the country and create a zone of influence which would include Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. A new regime might be dominated by extreme Islamic factions who would seek to destabilize the Syrian-Israeli border. Dr. Max Singer: In retrospect, one thing is very clear: Israel was wise not to deliver the Golan to Syria. Indeed, the case for keeping the Golan may grow even stronger as events unfold. It is becoming apparent that Syria is not a real country. Since its establishment, Syria ruled the Golan for only 22 years and it certainly is not entitled to receive it again now.

What will become of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons stocks? Dr. Dany Shoham: Israel has good reason to fear that Syria’s chemical and biological weapons arsenal could fall into the wrong hands – to terrorist elements within Syria, to an even more hostile Syrian regime, or to Hizballah and Iran. If Assad sees his demise as inevitable, he could decide to unmask

his ultimate weapons. While Iran has the greatest influence on Syria’s crisis management, it is not clear that Iranian leaders can control Assad, and anyway Iran is far from a pillar of stability in the eyes of the international community. The neutralization of Syria’s non-conventional weapons by an international force would be a blessing, but presently this seems a most unlikely scenario. Bombarding these arms stockpiles could result in significant environmental pollution. Consequently, Israel and the West hold limited options. Dr. Max Singer: Neither the U.S. nor Israel, probably the only countries with the ability to try to seize Syria’s chemical weapons, are likely to do this. Perhaps the only scenario that would protect against the diversion of Syrian chemical weapons (apart from an Assad victory in the civil war) is a situation in which the U.S. made a deal with the government to give it enough support against the rebels to win, in return for removal of the chemical weapons from Syria. But this is truly unlikely. So what can israel do in the current situation? Prof. Shmuel Sandler: The First Lebanon War taught Israel that it does not have the power to engineer political structures in the Arab world. Dr. Jonathan Rynhold: Indeed, the only circumstances in which Israel should get involved directly is if the regime looks like it is losing control of its chemical weapons or handing them to over to radical elements. Prof. Josh Teitelbaum: Israel should limit its involvement to intelligence gathering and preventing any leakage of the conflict onto the Golan Heights. The U.S. should identify liberal forces, if it can, and arm them. If it can’t, it should not arm anyone. A Western-imposed no-fly zone would be good,

if it could be done without escalating tensions with Russia.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar: As long as the picture in Syria is unclear, the world – including Israel – should stay out of there. Nobody should be arming the radical Islamic groups in Syria. These people will never accept the existence of Israel, and ultimately will turn their Western-supplied weapons against the West, just as Osama Bin Laden did.

Prof. Eytan Gilboa: Israel has to be prepared for new military challenges from Syria and Lebanon. But at this point, it should refrain from any intervention in words or actions. A long term strategy might be to help the Kurds in Syria, Turkey, and Iraq to fight for their independence. Dr. Max Singer: There is not much that Israel can do to affect the outcome of the civil war in Syria. All it can do is prepare to physically protect itself from the results, and to use the lessons of the war to increase understanding of what Israel faces. Prof. Efraim Inbar: While caution is needed, Israel also needs to establish deterrence by exacting a cost from those that shoot at Israeli targets on the Golan.

5

Dr. Dany Shoham

Prof. Efraim Inbar

www.besacenter.org

6At the conference, Golan said that Israel may need to use force to stop Syrian arms traffic, such as the transfer of advanced weaponry or chemical weapons from Syria to a terrorist organization like Hizballah. “Would it be wise to intercept such a transfer or would this be nonsense?” Golan asked, presenting the dilemma Israel might face. In the meantime, he said, the IDF was training for all eventualities. Golan also accused Iran of active warfare against Israel. “Iran is here. We are fighting a daily war indirectly against Iran from Islamic Jihad in Gaza to Hizballah in Lebanon. In Syria too, the Iranians are directly involved in supporting Bashar Assad in every way, both directly and via Hizballah.” Golan issued a direct threat to Hizballah and said that in the event of a third Lebanon war

the “IDF will deal Hizballah a fatal blow and defeat it. This defeat will be demonstrated by the capture and killing of Hizballah fighters, by the capture of their weapons, and by the destruction of their infrastructure,” he warned. “Israel will not again make the mistake of hitting only symbolic targets in Lebanon. We will not make the mistake of relying only on air power. We will hit them very, very hard. We will make sure to dampen Hizballah’s appetite for renewed warfare against us – for

a very long time. Hizballah won’t feel like engaging us again for many, many years.” Other conference speakers included Prof. Hillel Frisch, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Prof. Avi Kober, Mr. Amir Rapaport and Maj. Gen. (res.) Dr. Emanuel Sakal of the BESA Center, Dr. Udi Lebel of Ariel University Center, Prof. Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv U., and Prof. Moshe Arens, a former Minister of Defense and a BESA Center International Advisory Board member. The conference was co-

sponosred by BIU’s Argov Center for the Study of Israel and the Jewish People. Mr. Gideon Argov delivered greetings. (Mr. Argov’s late father was the Israeli ambassador in London in 1982, and a PLO attempt to assassinate him sparked the First Lebanon War).

Speaking at a BESA Center conference marking 30 years to the First Lebanon War, IDF OC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Yair Golan said that Syria was becoming an arena with no sovereign rule, and that it could become “the leading source for the export of terrorism and advanced weapons, including weapons of mass destruction” in the region. “Syria is becoming a warehouse of weapons for Islamist militants as it descends into chaos.”

IDF Northern Commander Maj Gen. Yair Golan: “Syria has become a failed state and terrorists already are flourishing in country… In the next war with Hizballah, the IDF will deal a ‘fatal blow’ to the organization and defeat it.”

Former Minister of Defense Moshe Arens

ConferenCe MarKS 30 yearS To The firST LeBanon War

7

www.besacenter.org

IDF OC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Yair Golan

www.besacenter.org

8At the conference, Dr. Liad Porat of the BESA Center said that Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Leader Dr. Mohammed Badi regularly speaks about the evils of Israel, and teaches that Jews and Israelis can never be trusted. Badi’s disciples will do everything possible in every international forum to make Israel’s life difficult, Porat said. Nevertheless, the Brotherhood has been cautious, Porat pointed out, and won’t necessarily abrogate the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty even if the Islamists in parliament gain control over Egypt’s foreign and defense policies (which are currently still controlled by the military).

Prof. Hillel Frisch was even more sanguine, arguing that Egypt’s dire economic situation will prevent the leadership from embarking on a military build-up or a war with Israel. Frisch noted that Egypt’s foreign currency reserves have fallen from $120 to $60 billion in the past year alone; GDP growth is down from five to one percent; and there are major shortages in some basic commodities. Clearly, Egypt cannot afford to spend billions on its military or risk a war, he argued. Moreover, Egypt’s

economic aspirations – to be a regional economic power like Turkey, Iran, Malaysia, or India – simply do not jive with re-militarization.

According to Frisch’s estimates, if Egypt went to war with Israel it would lose almost $4 billion in tourism revenues, $2 billion in U.S. aid, $1 billion in Suez Canal revenues, billions in gas sales, and more. No Middle East actor, including Iran, could possibly compensate Egypt for these losses. Therefore, Frisch concluded, war is not in the offing.

BESA Center director Prof. Efraim Inbar agreed with Porat that the Brotherhood has been cautious and with Frisch that there is a low probability of war with Egypt at any time in the foreseeable future. But, Inbar warned, the Islamist leaders of Egypt are new and inexperienced in foreign and defense matters, and may be prone to miscalculations. They view the demilitarization of Sinai, for example, as a national insult, and some Brotherhood leaders are agitating to change this. For Israel, this would be a red line, Inbar said. The demilitarization of Sinai is the very linchpin of the peace treaty!

Additionally, the continued “Somalization” of Sinai – the peninsula is becoming a lawless free-fire zone for terrorist groups of all types – could also trip Israel into war in the Sinai and with Egypt too, Inbar warned.

Taking a broader look around the Mediterranean basin, Inbar cautioned that the Mediterranean is in danger of becoming an Islamic sea. Islamic-oriented governments have come to power, or threaten to come to power, in Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey, he pointed out.

Inbar counseled caution and patience for Israel. “Jerusalem should do nothing to exacerbate an already-flammable situation, while re-building its defenses in the south of the country. This includes, perhaps, the building a new IDF division for defense of the south and the expansion of the Israeli navy – both of which are long-term and expensive projects. It also requires the IDF to be ready and trained for the possible recapture of Gaza and part of the Sinai,” Inbar said.

dr. Liad Porat of the BeSa Center:“Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Leader Dr. Mohammed Badi regularly speaks about the evils of Israel, and teaches that Jews and Israelis can never be trusted.”To mark the 33rd anniversary of the signing of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, the BESA Center and the Menachem Begin Heritage Center held a March conference in Jerusalem to ask the pertinent question: Will the peace treaty survive the current upheavals in Egypt? Assessments ranged from mild to downright pessimism.

PeSSiMiSM aBoUT The eGyPT-iSraeL PeaCe TreaTy

Dr. Liad Porat

9

www.besacenter.org

The elder statesman of Israel’s strategic community, Prof. Yehezkel Dror, argues in a study published by the BESA

Center that Israel must destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and simultaneously launch a comprehensive Middle East peace initiative.

“Israel cannot leave the future of its national security to decision by others. If Iranian advances towards nuclear weapon are not halted, Israel will have to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities while they are still vulnerable,” writes Dror. “A violent reaction by Iran is to be expected, but its maximum cost to Israel, the U.S. and all of the Middle East is considerably smaller than the long-term price we will all pay if Iran gains nuclear weapons. “But in order to bring about essential measures preventing the renewal of Iran’s nuclear efforts and change the trajectory of the Middle East as a whole for the better, Israel must combine an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities with presentation of a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement, relying in part on the Arab-Islamic Peace Initiative of ten years ago. Integrating an attack with a broad, multi-dimensional, credible peace initiative will multiply the benefits of both, whether or not there is an immediate favorable response from Arab states,” Dror concludes. In his study, “An Integrated Imperative: Attack Iran and Launch a Regional Peace Initiative,” Dror carefully considers and weighs the dangers posed by a nuclear

Iran, the multiplied dangers of a nuclear Middle East, the efficacy of diplomacy and sanctions in halting the Iranian nuclear effort, the role of the U.S., the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran, Iranian retaliation options, the launching of a new regional peace initiative, and the political and governmental feasibility of his proposals for Israeli action. Prof. Dror’s bottom line: “Either decision – to strike or not to strike – is a gamble, but an attempt to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities is a more reasonable gamble. Israel will probably have to strike Iran. But if you make war, follow with comprehensive peace.” Israel Prize laureate Yehezkel Dror is professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the dean of Israeli strategic thinkers. He served as founding president of the Jewish People Policy Institute, and was a member of the Israeli Committee of Investigation of the Second Lebanon War (known as the Winograd Committee). In 2009, the BESA Center published his study “Political-Security Statecraft for Israel“ (Hebrew), and later the seminal book Israeli Statecraft: National Security Challenges and Responses (BESA Studies in International Security/Routledge Press, 2011).

neW PUBLiCaTion

Prof. yehezkel dror: “Israel must destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and simultaneously launch a comprehensive Middle East peace initiative.”

Prof. Yehezkel Dror

Israeli Ambassador to Egypt Yitzhak Levanon, who was spirited out of Israel’s Cairo embassy in 2011 after rioters ransacked the premises, noted with sadness that the peace with Egypt can only be expected to get colder and colder. “I checked, and unlike Israel, no government or public organization in Egypt is holding even the smallest panel discussion or ceremony to mark the Egypt-Israel treaty anniversary this week. How sad!”

www.besacenter.org

10

Every semester, political scientist Prof. efraim inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, begins the first lesson in his war and strategy course by informing students that there are two significant factors that govern relations between states: who can hurt the other more; and who can withstand the pain more. He wants to apply these two equations to the Iran issue. “We need to ask ourselves, what goal have the Iranians chosen for themselves and what is the price in pain that they are willing to pay?” he said. “That is the only way we will be able to understand what it is they want to do tomorrow.” “The way to stop Iran is by means of a military assault,” Inbar said. “I don’t believe that sanctions will help. Officials in Tehran view the bomb as their regime’s insurance policy. Their opinion was reinforced by the West’s behavior toward the Libyan regime. The former ruler of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, gave up nuclear weapons and eventually was removed from power. If he would have developed nuclear weapons, it would be reasonable to assume that the West wouldn’t cause him any trouble. “If the Ayatollahs’ regime comes into possession of nuclear weapons, it will be very difficult to create an effective level of deterrence in the future,” he said. “I also don’t agree with assessments that a second strike is effective enough since this is a dynamic process that requires [Israel] to improve itself in relation

to the enemy’s capabilities. Iran’s development of the bomb would trigger a nuclear arms race. In a relatively compact region [like the Middle East], deterrent systems and short distances bear critical significance.” In fact, seven years ago, Inbar wrote a document whose bottom line could be summed up as advocating for Israel to attack Iran to stop it from attaining a nuclear capability. Inbar minces no words, in expressing his unequivocal view that Israel cannot trust the United States. The era of American deterrence in the region is over.

“States act according to their interests, and they are flexible,” Inbar said. “At the end of the day, you have to be realistic. The world wants quiet. The world wants oil at a reasonable price. If Israel disrupts this calm and upsets global economic stability, the international community will do everything to prevent us from launching a military attack. Another thing is that there are people who say the Iranians are rational. But what if the person who makes this assessment is 10 percent wrong? There is no reason to trust the Iranians. “We are realists, not just conservatives,” Inbar said. He reminds me that his colleagues at the strategic studies center were correct in their analyses of the Arab Spring, the proliferation of the arms race, the

peace process, and Turkey’s shift in policy. Prof. eytan Gilboa of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, who also teaches at Bar-Ilan University and whose area of expertise is U.S. policy in the Middle East as well as international diplomacy, believes the U.S. cannot afford to allow Iran to gain a nuclear bomb. “If Iran goes nuclear, the U.S. would for all intents and purposes lose its position in the Middle East and its hegemony on a global level,” he said. “The Americans are aware of this possibility, and that is why they are constantly declaring they won’t allow it to happen. “A nuclear Iran would mean that from now on, Iran is the actor that wields the most influence on governments in the Middle East, not the U.S.,” he said. “Obviously this would give a boost to all of the extremists in the region, which would result in damage to the global economy, the world’s energy markets, and the ability of states to monitor the spread of atomic weapons by way of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.” To boost his argument, Gilboa also cites America’s guiding principles. “The administration vows that it won’t allow Iran to go nuclear,” he said. “Here we are dealing with the credibility of the U.S. government. They say they will employ whatever means they have at their disposal. To me, this sounds more like an empty slogan. Many within the administration

Excerpts from a feature article published in the leading Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom. Can Israel trust the U.S. to confront Iran? Is the era of American deterrence in the region over?

roUndTaBLe diSCUSSion

Sanctions or strike? five BeSa Center experts Weigh in on iran

Written by Shlomo Cesana, published April 12, 2012

Professors Joshua Teitelbaum, Efraim Inbar, Ze’ev Maghen and Eytan Gilboa (Credit: Koko, Israel Hayom). Missing: Prof. Hillel Frisch.

11

www.besacenter.org

as well as those outside it say that it is impossible to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon. They say the price of a non-nuclear Iran would be higher than that of a nuclear Iran.” “In the event that Iran does go nuclear, there are two choices: Either halting the program and bolstering deterrence, or containment and deterrence,” he said. “On the surface, the Americans say that containment is not an option. But in the next breath they talk out of both sides of their mouth and begin leaking stories about how they won’t allow an attack on Israel and don’t support it. Officials in Washington don’t want to reach a fork in the road where they’ll have to decide between a nuclear Iran and a military operation. “At this stage, the Americans want to exhaust the option of negotiating with the Iranians, and the Iranians, for their part, are not ruling out talks,” Gilboa said. “The question remains:

What do you base the negotiations on? The Iranians want talks so that they can move forward with their nuclear program. The Americans want negotiations so that they can stop the nuclear program. And then you have people in Israel and abroad who say, ‘Give negotiations a chance.’ But why? Germany, the U.K., and France held talks with Iran for five years that went nowhere, and eventually they came to the conclusion that Iran was being deceptive in order to continue with its plans. So any attempt by the West to hold talks is playing into Iranian hands. “The sanctions and negotiations could work only if the threat of military action was hovering over the Iranians’ heads,” he said. “Since the Americans aren’t wielding this threat, the Iranians understand that while life may be a bit tougher with sanctions, and that’s it. They can still move forward with their nuclear program.”

Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum, an expert on the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia, is less optimistic. In his view, the Americans and the Israelis are both a long way away from understanding the reality in the Middle East. “Since 2003, when the Americans invaded Iraq, the Saudis have gradually lost faith in their most important ally, the U.S. The results of American policy in the Gulf have all proven detrimental to the Saudis,” he said. “The situation has gotten so bad in the wake of the Arab Spring that Saudi Arabia finds itself considerably weakened. Riyadh has understandably asked itself, ‘Is this how the U.S. supports its allies in the region? This is how Washington supports Hosni Mubarak? This is how it supports [deposed Tunisian president Zine El Abidine] Ben Ali? “The Saudis are worried about the Iranian nuclear issue, but they understand that the current administration in power in the U.S. is very limited in its capabilities,” he said.

www.besacenter.org

12

“One of the results of the failed U.S. policies in the region was the Shiite uprising in Bahrain that was staged by just 12 percent of the population that lives near a wealthy, oil-producing region. Saudi Arabia views Bahrain as a kind of protectorate, so the massive Iranian presence there is akin to deploying Soviet missiles in Cuba.” “The U.S. conduct there led them to the conclusion that they need to be more independent,” he said.

According to Prof. Ze’ev Maghen, an expert on Islam and modern Iran who currently sits as the chair of the Department of Middle Eastern History at Bar-Ilan and is an associate at the BESA Center, the West is suffering from a terrible case of ignorance on everything taking place in Iran as well as its relationship with the West and Israel. He was irked by President Shimon Peres’ speech in Washington in March, during which he called on the Iranian people to return to their illustrious past and abandon Islamization. “The ignorance is also evident in the intelligence assessments in the West as well as the attempt to search for a bomb,” he said. From his standpoint, one can clearly reach the conclusion that the Iranians are building a bomb just by listening to what they are saying.

“They have every reason in the world to build an atomic bomb,” he said. “If I were the president of Iran, I would also make sure my country would have a nuclear weapon. Iran is surrounded by traditional enemies, like Russia and the Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia. The Iranians are using Israel to try to unite the Muslim world under its leadership. “Since Mecca, which belongs to the anti-Sunni Wahhabi movement, cannot be the focal point of the Muslim world, there is one place that can unite all the aspirations of various sects in Islam, and that place

is Jerusalem,” he said. “That explains [the Muslim] desire to conquer it. We are speaking in completely different languages and our worldviews are also totally different. It is hard for us to understand what a theocracy really is. The West doesn’t understand this reality, one in which a country’s population views the Quran and holy scripture as the last word. “Here in Israel, people are always looking for the hidden meaning behind statements,” he said. “They ask, ‘Okay, but what is really happening? Is this a political issue? An economic issue?’ This is where we make the same mistake time and again. The same goes for our attempts to understand the process taking place in Egypt. There were those who interpreted the events in Egypt as an oppressed population that rose up to demand its rights. There are obviously masses of people there who want their rights protected, but what they really want is the deeper meaning of life that is predicated on Islam. This is the significance of what is taking place, and it is obvious, but people here can’t quite manage to understand this.

“From Egyptians’ standpoint, we in Israel have for a while now missed the gist,” he said. “There was a time when they referred to us as the ‘Zionist entity.’ Now they are calling us the ‘shopping mall entity.’ In other words, their reason for being is to take a trip to the shopping mall. They look at us and say, ‘They’ve lost it.’” Prof. hillel frisch is a political scientist and expert in Middle Eastern politics who teaches at Bar-Ilan University. He is a fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and the author of a book on security relations between Israel and the Palestinians. His main line of thinking is that over the last 20 years the violent struggle between Israelis and Palestinians has been replaced by an Arab cold war.

There is an ongoing struggle between the camp comprising Iran, Hizballah, Hamas and Syria, and the camp of moderate Arab states. “There is one dimension that is gaining steam all the time, and that is the Sunnis being pitted against the non-Sunnis,” he said.

According to Frisch’s theory, the Americans have adopted the view that empires fall at precisely the moment they have the upper hand, which means that they collapse from within. The sun never set on the British Empire, but the British Empire grew dark from within. According to Frisch, the Americans are preoccupied with battling another empire – China. Still, he notes: “We have the Iranian problem, which threatens to change the reality in the cold war between Sunnis and Shiites. The Americans know there is a tremendous gap between the economic might of the Saudis and their allies and their military capabilities. So they will continue to preserve their superiority.” Frisch diverges from his colleagues on this issue. “The Americans have an obligation,” he said. “People think that the U.S. is on the decline from the standpoint of being ready to act, but still they have the ability to do this. “The U.S. in the era following its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a country with significant power,” he said. “I believe that the U.S. will take care of the Iranian threat if necessary, and it wouldn’t be a difficult battle for the Americans. In my view, the Iranians understand the balance of power perfectly. Unfortunately for us, they are smart enough to get the U.S. not to attack.

roUndTaBLe diSCUSSion

Sanctions or strike? five BeSa Center experts Weigh in on iran

13

www.besacenter.orgwww.besacenter.org

Prof. Uzi Arad Amos Harel

In June 2012, the Israeli Comptroller General published a comprehensive review of the operations of Israel’s National Security Council (NSC). The review came in the wake of criticism over government handling of the Turkish flotilla incident (known the “Mavi Marmara” affair) of May 2010. The report praised the work practices and improvements in security and foreign policy decision-making brought about by the NSC under the chairmanship of Prof. Uzi Arad, but criticized the government for sidestepping the NSC at critical moments. The report also highlighted lingering turf battles between the NSC and the other Israeli intelligence and defense bodies. In late 2012, the BESA Center published a critique of the report by noted strategist Prof. Yehezkel Dror. He found that the report failed to adequately propose concrete ways in which to overcome the turf battles between the intelligence and defense bodies reporting to the prime minister and defense minister. Arad, was national security advisor and head of the NSC from 2009 to 2011, the prime minister’s foreign policy advisor from 1997 to 1999, and Mossad director of intelligence earlier in the nineties. At the BESA Center conference, he argued that during the Netanyahu administration the NSC had become a central player, growing significantly in size, professionalism, and areas of responsibility, and working in close proximity to the prime minister.

“Over the past three years, during my tenure as National Security Advisor (NSA) and head of the NSC under Prime Minister Netanyahu, and into the tenure of my successor, Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaacov Amidror, I believe that significant and irreversible progress has been made in turning the Israeli NSC into a permanent and indispensable fixture within the national security and foreign policy decision-making environment,” Arad said. “The NSC’s essential role is to broker integration of all national security system elements in the policy making process. To this end, it must ensure that decision-makers are presented with carefully-thought-through policy options, and that all relevant stakeholders are present and their views clarified before reaching the decision-makers’ table. And indeed, today the NSC sets the agenda and participants (with the approval of the prime minister) of all meetings of the National Security Cabinet as well as all other sub-cabinet forums. The NSC also prepares background material, briefing papers, and policy memos with multiple options for decisions when appropriate.” “Central to the progress in the role of the NSC in recent years has been the fact that the head of the NSC serves as the prime minister’s National Security Advisor (NSA) and, since 2009, as his main foreign policy advisor. I cannot stress enough how critical this is. In Israel’s foreign and defense relations, so much is

decided based on direct conversations between the prime minister and his counterparts abroad, including the President of the United States. The NSA must be a full participant in these conversations so that he has the full picture of activities and policies. His presence in the room alone drastically changes the reality of the situation and significantly increases coordination.” Arad also stressed the importance of proximity. “In order to fulfill other duties, the NSA and head of the NSC must also be situated in the closest proximity to the prime minister, within the “aquarium” – the inner sanctum of offices in the PMO.” Amos Harel of Haaretz agreed that the NSC is important, but warned that power struggles waged between the NSC and other agencies in the defense and security establishment hampered the policy process. “The NSC may have the authority and permission to act in a certain way, but such action is reliant on cooperation from the other military and intelligence agencies, which it does not always receive,” he said. “The other agencies do not necessarily view the NSC as the prime minister’s best option regarding defense and security matters. As a result, it doesn’t seem like the NSC is being utilized to its fullest potential.”

The BESA Center held an in-depth discussion on this topic with former NSC chairman Prof. Uzi Arad and Haaretz chief military correspondent Amos Harel.

deBaTe

reforming and Strengthening israel’s national Security Council

Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon holds court, as Efraim Inbar, Elliot Abrams, Zvi Rafiah and Abe Foxman listen

www.besacenter.org

14

Lt. Gen. (res.) Moshe Yaalon, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs gave the opening keynote address at this high-level conference on U.S.-Israel relations, followed by Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. Former Israel National Security Advisor Prof. Uzi Arad closed the conference with a discussion of the strategic ties between the two countries. Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon spoke about differences between the U.S. and Israel regarding Iran and the “Arab Spring,” about the explosive

situation in Syria, about Israel’s troubled relationship with Turkey, and BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) efforts aimed at -delegitimizing Israel. He made it clear that, if necessary, “Israel would bomb Iran, rather than face an Iranian bomb.” He also made clear his opposition to an “unwarranted” Israeli apology to Turkey over the flotilla affair. ADL director Abraham H. Foxman warned that “In order to maintain the mutual reliance and trust evident among Israelis and Americans we must back away from the increasingly shrill

tone of partisan political discourse which seems headed in a direction that breeds divisiveness – the tendency to see every issue as ’right or wrong,’ where every decision or policy pronouncement by a political opponent has no merit and the main tactic is to discredit that opponent with rhetoric demonizing her or him.” “The longstanding approach of the Jewish community in the U.S. has been to ensure that American support for Israel is seen and treated as a critical strategic issue that both political parties embrace. There can be, and are, disagreements about Israel and different U.S. policy approaches to the Middle East. But it is critically important for the American people and the rest of the world to know those disagreements or differences are raised in the context of rock solid deeply held support of the American people and their elected officials for Israel’s rights and her quest for peace and security. There is a danger that important message will be drowned out if American support for Israel becomes just another issue on the attack politics agenda.”

Tactical, strategic, and diplomatic coordination in American-Israeli relations were the focus of discussion at the Third ADL-BESA-CIC International Conference, at Bar-Ilan University in June 2012.

inTernaTionaL ConferenCe

Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon

ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman

adL national director abraham h. foxman:

“We must back away from an increasingly shrill tone of partisan political discourse in U.S.-Israel relations.”

15

www.besacenter.org

Prof. Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst, echoed Foxman’s warning. “The all-consuming partisanship that has taken root in America – on all issues, not just Israel – is very dangerous,” he said. Religion has become the great dividing force in American politics, he explained. And most Americans, he said, are “very reluctant warriors,” like Obama.

Former U.S. National Security Council Mideast Chief Elliott Abrams argued that that the U.S. should either covertly or openly be arming the opposition forces in Syria. He said that while the humanitarian imperative for bringing down Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime was obvious, the strategic case was equally clear and strong. “Iran, Russia, and Hizballah have to lose,” he said. “An outcome whereby Assad remains in power would send the completely wrong message to every authoritarian leader in the region. The message would be that deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak made a mistake by not shooting at his own people, because had he done so – like Assad – he would have remained in power. We don’t want that message to emerge.” The Syrian crisis, Abrams said, has proven hollow a working assumption widely accepted just two years ago: that Turkey was the rising, dominant

power in the region. Turkey’s inability to do anything about Syria has shown that “it has no capacity to lead,” Abrams said. “They are not providing any leadership there.” Abrams said he was not worried that jihadist elements would take control of post- Assad Syria, partly because those jihadists now involved in the struggle are not Syrians. Regarding the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood, he said the group’s influence in Syria should not be exaggerated and is not anywhere near the group’s impact in Egypt. Abrams rejected notions that American power in the Mideast was declining. “While the U.S. is pivoting to Asia, it will remain the dominant force in the Middle East. It’s only real challenger is Iran, and obviously the U.S. is going to have to meet that challenge.”

David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy engaged in a detailed analysis of U.S.-Israel agreements and disagreements regarding the looming confrontation with Iran. He said that the two countries were synchronized in their intelligence assessments, in their objectives, and in a shared strategy. The differences in approach

between the two countries, stem, he said, from their differing military capabilities. Israel also rejects any notion of an incremental deal with the Iranians, believing that the West cannot ease it sanctions against Iran until a comprehensive agreement is in place for the dismantlement of Iran’s military nuclear program. Makovsky called on the U.S. to articulate a clear “Plan B” for a military strike on Iran for the eventuality that diplomacy fails. And he called on the West to develop a strategy for the “day after” a military strike against Iran in order to ensure that the Iranians could not easily rebuild their nuclear effort. Other speakers included Leslie Mirchin of the AIPAC Israel Office, Prof. Paul Wachtel of NYU, Mr. Aharon Fogel of Migdal Insurance Co., Mr. Shmuel Rosner of the Jewish People Policy Institute, Dr. Daniel Doron of the Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress, Mr. Dan Halperin, Prof. Uzi Arad, and BESA Center research associates Yael Bloch, Hillel Frisch, Eytan Gilboa, and Jonathan Rynhold. Mr. Thomas Goldberger, Charge d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Israel, offered greetings. The conference was supported by the U.S. Embassy Public Affairs Office.

Former U.S. NSC Mideast director Elliott Abrams

CNN senior political analyst Prof. Bill Schneider

Washington Institute analyst David Makovsky

Vice Prime Minister Moshe yaalon:

“Iran is the primary challenge to both Israel and the U.S.”

former U.S. national Security Council Mideast Chief elliott abrams:

“The U.S. should be arming the opposition forces in Syria.”

16

These are among the findings of a comprehensive public opinion poll conducted in Israel in June 2012 by the BESA Center, the Bar-Ilan University Center for International Communication (CIC), and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The poll was a follow-up to the 2007 and 2009 BESA Center-ADL surveys on these issues. The full poll results are online at www.besacenter.org and www.adl.org “The bedrock of the U.S.-Israel relationship is found in the people of Israel and the people of the United States. Poll after poll shows broad support for Israel among Americans

and that Israelis just as broadly support America,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “That mutual reinforcement, based on shared values and interests, explains the historic and lasting alliance between the two countries. This latest poll is another affirmation of the strong ties that bind our two countries and the good will felt by many Israelis when asked about their nation’s unshakable alliance with America.” Prof. Eytan Gilboa, director of the BIU Center for International Communication who co-directed the poll, said that “the survey indicates

that despite occasional tensions between leaders, the Israeli public remains one of the most pro-American communities in the world. Overwhelming majorities, which have only grown since our first poll in 2007, view the U.S. and Israel as having similar strategic interests in the Middle East. They see the U.S. as Israel’s loyal ally, and as a friend that will come to Israel’s aid in times of trouble. At the same time, Israelis are clearly concerned about President Obama’s Middle East policies with regards to Israel-Palestinian affairs, the Arab uprisings, and Iran.”

The Israeli public has a strongly positive attitude toward the United States and continues to perceive the U.S. as a loyal ally of Israel. Nearly 70 percent of Israelis have a positive attitude toward the U.S. and just as many believe that it is and will remain a loyal and unwavering ally of Israel. More than 90 percent believe that in an existential crisis (“a moment of truth”), the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid.

PUBLiC oPinion PoLL

israeli Public Shows overwhelming appreciation for the U.S., But Mixed Views of President obama

Should Israel strike Iran if diplomacy fails?

66% Yes

Did the U.S. handle the “Arab Spring” well?

53% No

38% Has weakened

Even if the American government opposes an Israeli strike?

47% Yes

Your view of President Obama?

23% Positive

Your view of Obama policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

41% Dissatisfied

Will American Jews continue to be close to Israel?

60% Yes

Relations between the countries in a second Obama term will improve/worsen?

68% Will remain the same

Do American Jews have a right to freely and publicly criticize Israel and Israeli policies?

61% Yes

Has U.S. standing in the Middle East been affected by the "Arab Spring"?

38% Has weakened

www.besacenter.org

17

Prof. Ofira Seliktar of Gratz College lectured in December on “Evaluating Iran’s Nuclear Rationality: The Eye of the Beholder Problem.”

ambassador Thomas r. Pickering, former US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, lectured in November on “Global Developments and Their Influence on the Middle East.” He argued that military force should be the last resort taken by the U.S. in confronting Iran, and probably not at all.

dr. amin Tarzi of the Marine Corps University lectured in May on “Iran: The Domestic Scene.”

Uri rechav of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. lectured in July on “Was There a Military Revolution?”

Jean-Loup Samaan of the NATO Defense College lectured in January on “The Day after Iran Goes Nuclear: Implications for NATO.”

Mr. Uzi rubin, founder and director of the Israel Arrow missile program, lectured in December on "The Rocket War During Operation Pillar of Defense."

dr. Liad Porat of the BESA Center lectured in December on "The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: The New Landlord and its Attitude to Israel."

dr. Peter Krause of Boston College lectured in July on “The Effectiveness of Non-State Violence.”

LeCTUreS

BeSa PerSPeCTiVeS PaPerS

www.besacenter.org

18SToPPinG iran: STiLL Too MUCh noiSe and Too LiTTLe aCTion

Prof. Eytan Gilboa

Mixed messages are continuously being broadcast and international powers remain disunited on how to halt Iran’s nuclear program. It is unsurprising then that all of this “talk” has led to no action.

166india defieS oiL SanCTionS on iran

Prof. P. R. Kumaraswamy

American inability to provide effective leadership in the Middle East has resulted in India’s readiness to defy the oil sanctions against Iran. India seeks to assert an independent foreign policy.

168The oPPorTUniTy in GaZa

Prof. Efraim Inbar and Dr. Max Singer

Israel has to respond to the attacks from Gaza with a large-scale military operation. If no such action is taken, the attacks against Israel will surely increase.

167

STraTeGiC and eConoMiC roLeS of defenSe indUSTrieS in iSraeL

Dr. Yaacov Lifshitz

The Israeli defense industry is largely focused on arms exports to the global market, with insufficient attention paid to the IDF’s military technology and equipment needs.

164The rePUBLiCan PriMarieS and The iSraeL aCid TeST

Dr. Jonathan Rynhold

Support for Israel in the strategic sphere has become an acid test of presidential credibility on national security.

165

afTer ToULoUSe: CoMBaTTinG anTi-SeMiTiSM in franCe

Dr. Tsilla Hershco

France’s formal, coercive, educational, and correctional measures against anti-Semitism should not be underestimated, and have largely borne fruit. Yet the country’s unbalanced approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict has created an altogether too comfortable environment for the resurgence of anti-Semitic violence in France.

169

MiGhT The TUrKiSh MiLiTary inTerVene in Syria?

Dr. Can Kasapoglu

With Russia and China vetoing a UNSC resolution seeking an end to the violent repression in Syria, there are almost no options left for a negotiated end to the crisis. This may bring Turkey to consider military intervention in Syria.

163

˜

iS TUrKey GeTTinG draGGed inTo War WiTh Syria?

Dr. Can Kasapoglu

As the turmoil in Syria continues and the security environment of Turkey worsens, two factors might lead to unilateral Turkish military intervention in Syria: a refugee crisis that forces Ankara to establish a buffer zone within Syrian territory, or defensive military measures needed to stop PKK terrorism.

170

˜

The CoLd War BeTWeen TUrKey and iran

Dr. Can Kasapoglu

Syria and Iraq have become battlefields on influence between Turkey and Iran. In Syria, a proxy war is underway, with Iran supplying weapons to its Alawite client and Turkey actively arming the opposition. In Iraq, Turkey and Iran vie for political influence along Sunni-Shiite fault lines.

172

˜

inViSiBLe red Line: The fUTiLiTy of TryinG To ` deTeCT an iranian order To BUiLd The BoMB

Dr. Dany Shoham and Dr. Raphael Ofek

It is practically impossible and very unlikely that Western intelligence could detect an unambiguous order from Iranian leadership to build a nuclear bomb.

174

19

www.besacenter.org

The faTe of Syria’S CheMiCaL and BioLoGiCaL WeaPonS

Dr. Dany Shoham

Bombing Syrian CBW stockpiles could result in significant environmental pollution. If Assad falls, the West needs to ensure secure transposition of these arms to a stable, sane central authority.

177

iS There a fUTUre for iSraeL’S naTionaL SeCUriTy CoUnCiL?

Prof. Uzi Arad and Amos Harel

The NSC’s main achievement is the quiet integration of foreign affairs, defense, and intelligence inputs for the prime minister and the other top decision-makers in the government. But its effectiveness remains hampered by turf battles with other defense and intelligence bodies.

180

The LeVy rePorT: reinViGoraTinG The diSCUSSion of iSraeL’S riGhTS in The WeST BanK

Dr. Avi Bell

The Commission to Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria (the “Levy report”) reinvigorates the discussion of the legitimacy of Israel’s position regarding settlements under international law, after many years in which Israel has been silent about its legal rights.

176

iran’S neW STraTeGiC horiZonS aT Sea

Dr. Shaul Shay

Iran’s aggressive new naval strategy is clearly meant to intimidate the West from continuing its pressure on Tehran regarding the nuclear issue, to show that Iran is able to foment trouble in the region.

175iron doMe VS. Grad roCKeTS: dreSS rehearSaL for a fULL-SCaLe War

Uzi Rubin

If the appearance of Iron Dome on the battlefields of southern Israel was what compelled Palestinians to ratchet down the scope of their rocket fire, this would be a major strategic achievement of Israel’s newly deployed missile shield, and a resounding exoneration for the resources invested in it. (This is an updated version in English of Perspective Paper No. 171, which was published in Hebrew).

173

The fadinG LefT and iSraeL’S fLoUriShinG deMoCraCy

Prof. Shmuel Sandler and Prof. Efraim Inbar

Many of Israel’s detractors on the left argue that Israel’s democracy is in a state of decline. A closer look shows that Israeli democracy is thriving, with decentralization of political power, a strong judicial system, the end of party-affiliated journalism, more minorities in public positions, and a more professional and less-politicized army.

178

a STraTeGy for MaKinG PeaCe WiTh The PaLeSTinianS

Dr. Max Singer

The most important ways to work towards peace are: resettling the Palestinian refugees outside of Israel; speaking the truth to the Palestinians regarding the Jews’ ancient roots in the land; reducing the ability of Palestinian leaders to personally benefit from the conflict; and encouraging free debate in Palestinian society.

179

www.besacenter.org

20MorSi'S diCTaTorShiP and The GaZa CeaSefire

Prof. Hillel Frisch

Egyptian President Morsi is proving to be a dictator in the footsteps of his predecessor Hosni Mubarak.

187BroTherS in arMS: WoULd hiZBaLLah and haMaS Join iran in a War aGainST iSraeL?

Dr. Ehud Eilam

There is a prevalent view that in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran, Tehran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza – Hizballah and Hamas – would join in retaliation against Israel. A more likely scenario, however, is that those groups’ participation will be limited at best.

185oPeraTion PiLLar of defenSe: in SUPPorT of a GroUnd offenSiVe

Prof. Efraim Inbar and Dr. Max Singer

A strong Israeli response to Hamas rocket attacks is necessary to ensure Israel's ability to stand against the rising tide of Islamist militancy.

186

oPeraTion PiLLar of defenSe: an iniTiaL STraTeGiC and MiLiTary aSSeSSMenT

Dr. Eitan Shamir

The operation also proved Israel’s determination to act forcefully in the post “Arab Spring” environment. However, the lack of a ground offensive allowed Hamas to craft a victory narrative and gave it the potential to re-arm.

189iSraeL’S diLeMMa in GaZa

Prof. Shmuel Sandler

Israel’s reluctance to inflict a decisive defeat of Hamas in Operation Pillar of Defense indicates its desire for a new arrangement for the Gaza Strip. A preferred outcome would be an Egyptian role in Gaza, providing Israel with a real government with whom it could negotiate.

191

BeSa PerSPeCTiVeS PaPerS

The oSTriCh SyndroMe: UnderSTandinG The WorLd’S reLUCTanCe To TaKe aCTion aGainST iran

Prof. Efraim Inbar

The international community appears unlikely to take military action against the Iranian nuclear weapons program because of the “Ostrich Syndrome” – a reluctance to deal with difficult problems and a preference to ignore them.

183WiLL eGyPT Go nUCLear?

Dr. Shaul Shay

President Mursi says that Egypt wishes to create a civilian nuclear energy program. Leaders of Mursi’s party, the Muslim Brotherhood, have called for Egypt to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

182Mixed MeSSaGeS: The U.S.-iSraeL diSPUTe oVer iran

Prof. Eytan Gilboa

Israel and the U.S. must improve their lines of communication. The U.S. also ought to consider equipping Israel with enhanced military resources that would allow Israel to confront Iran at a later date – giving the West more time to pressure the Iranian regime.

181

BUiLdinG in JerUSaLeM: a STraTeGiC iMPeraTiVe

Prof. Efraim Inbar

Israel must follow up on its recent declaration to build in and around Jerusalem, particularly in Area E1, which connects the capital to the settlement of Maaleh Adumim. Creating continuous Jewish settlement in that area is necessary to enable Israel to have secure access to the strategic Jordan Valley.

190

dr. alon Levkowitz (Ph.d. hebrew University)

Specializes in East Asian security, the Korean peninsula (foreign, security, politics and history), Asian international organizations.

dr. Liad Porat (Ph.d. haifa University)

Expert in modern Sunni-Islamic movements, especially Egypt, and Middle Eastern history.

dr. eitan Shamir (Ph.d. Kings College)

Former head of the National Security Doctrine Department in the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Expert on insurgencies, Islamic terror groups, combat doctrine.

Mr. Uzi rubinPreeminent Israeli expert on missile defense. Founder and director of the Arrow defense program against long-range missiles in the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

21

www.besacenter.org

The BUddhiST-MUSLiM VioLenCe in MyanMar: a ThreaT To SoUTheaST aSia

Dr. Micha'el Tanchum

Myanmar's policies towards its minority Rohingya Muslims have sparked a rise in Islamist agitation against Buddhists in Indonesia and Malaysia.

188

The MUSLiM BroTherhood in eGyPT and iTS TrUe inTenTionS ToWardS iSraeL

Dr. Liad Porat

The Brotherhood sees Israel as a strategic threat and has aggressively lobbied Morsi to strengthen Egyptian military presence in Sinai. While a military conflict with Egypt is not likely in the near future, the anti-Israel rhetoric emanating from senior Brotherhood leaders must be taken seriously.

192

www.besacenter.org

SUnni SeCTarianiSM and The re-eMerGenCe of JihadiSM in indoneSia

Dr. Micha’el Tanchum

Recent events in Indonesia raise concern that the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation may be taking a turn toward hardline Islamism. The future of Indonesia’s tolerant Islam is being reassessed.

184

neW BeSa CenTer reSearCh aSSoCiaTeS

Amir Rapaport, Shmuel Meir, Prof. Efraim Inbar and Prof. Uzi Arad

22

www.besacenter.org

ConferenCeS

The British Academic Study Group on Israel and the Middle East together with the BESA Center held a seminar on counterinsurgency in February.

Participating were: Dr. David Betz, Dr. Bruno Reis, and Dr. Thomas Rid of King’s College London, Prof. Stephen Blank of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Shalini Chawla of the Centre for Air Power Studies in New Delhi, Prof. Beatrice Heuser of the University of Reading, Dr. Jim Storr of Cranfield University, Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, Israel’s former National Security Advisor, and Dr. Eitan Shamir of the BESA Center. American, Russian, Pakistani, British, French, and Israeli counterinsurgency tactics and experiences were compared. Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland

Comparing experiences in Counterinsurgency

nuclear Understandings between america and israel

Will U.S. President Barack Obama uphold his pledge to support Israel's right to defend itself by any means possible - by implication, even with nuclear weapons? A September conference raised concerns. Participants in the discussion were Mr. Amir Rapaport (editor-in-chief of Israel Defense magazine and a research associate at the BESA Center), Mr. Shmuel Meir (former head of arms control in the IDF), and Prof. Uzi Arad (former national security advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu).

23

Prof. P. R. Kumaraswamy of Jawaharlal Nehru U., and Mrs. Sharon Rapaport of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, discussed India-Israel, India-Arab and India-Iran relations at a May conference.

Prof. P. R. Kumaraswamy

Mrs. Sharon Rapaport

neW PUBLiCaTion

a Strategy for Peace with the PalestiniansDr. Max Singer

BESA Center senior research associate Dr. Max Singer suggests a new strategy for attaining a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. His approach highlights Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state and reluctance to drop its armed and ideological opposition to Israel’s existence. The author proposes a plan that the global community can adopt in order to help bring peace between the two parties, involving active opposition to Palestinian denial of Israel’s connection to the land; support for Israel’s legitimacy; resettling Palestinian refugees outside of Israel; a modification of aid programs to reduce Palestinian use of foreign money to teach hate and support terror; and encouragement of free speech and discussion in Palestinian society. The author argues that peace is unlikely to ensue unless these matters are dealt with now.

india and the Middle east

Beyad H

alashon C

om

municatio

ns / ww

w.m

esh.co.il

BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITYRAMAT GAN 52900 ISRAELTEL. 972-3-531-8959FAx 972-3-535-9195besa.center@mail.biu.ac.ilwww.besacenter.org

North American address:5485 Pare St., MontrealQuebec Canada H4P 1P7TEL: 514-735-1155FAx: 514-735-3361

www.besacenter.org

The BeSa Center

The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University seeks to contribute to the advancement of Middle East peace and security by conducting policy-relevant research on strategic subjects, particularly as they relate to the national security and foreign policy of Israel. Founded by Thomas O. Hecht, a Canadian Jewish community leader, the Center is a non-partisan and independent institute dedicated to the memory of the late Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and the late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat.

international advisory Board

Thomas O. Hecht Ph.D., Founder and Chairman

Saul Koschitzky, Vice Chairman

Prof. Moshe Arens, Marion Hecht, Robert Hecht, Hon. Shlomo Hillel, Sir Robert Rhodes James, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Mr. Robert K. Lifton, Maj. Gen. (res.) Daniel Matt, Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney, Maj. Gen. (res.) Ori Orr, Mr. Seymour D. Reich, Amb. Meir Rosenne, Greg Rosshandler, Hon. Yitzhak Shamir, Amb. Zalman Shoval, Amb. Norman Spector, Dr. Adolphe Steg, Mr. Muzi Wertheim.

international academic advisory Board

Prof. Desmond Ball, Australian National University Prof. Ian Beckett, University of Northampton Prof. Eliot Cohen, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University Air Commodore (ret.) Jasjit Singh, Centre for Strategic and International Studies Prof. Irwin Cotler, McGill University Prof. Steven R. David, Johns Hopkins University Prof. Yehezkel Dror, Hebrew University Prof. Lawrence Freedman, King’s College London Prof. Patrick James, University of Southern California Prof. Efraim Karsh, King’s College London Prof. Robert J. Lieber, Georgetown University Prof. Barry Posen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

executive Council

Prof. Eytan Gilboa (chairman), Prof. Elisha Haas, Dr. Thomas O. Hecht, Prof. Efraim Inbar, Prof. Moshe Kaveh, Prof. Daniel Levy, Prof. Zmira Mevorach, Prof. Amikam Nachmani, Prof. Shmuel Sandler, Prof. Chaim Teitelbaum

Center director

Prof. Efraim Inbar

director of Public affairs and Bulletin editor

David M. Weinberg

Program Coordinator

Hava Waxman Koen

Production editor (english)

Eitan Rapps

Production editor (hebrew)

Alona Briner Rozenman

More reCenT PUBLiCaTionS

india’s economic relations with israel and the arabsDr. Gil FeilerBESA Center senior research associate Dr. Gil Feiler discusses the bilateral relationships that India has with Israel and with Arab countries. He explores how India, the world’s second most-populous country, fits into the puzzle of the ever-changing Middle East, especially in light of the recent “Arab Spring.”

The national Security Council: Reflections upon the June 2012 israel ombudsman's report (Hebrew)

Prof. Yehezkel DrorThe doyen of Israel’s strategic community, Prof. Dror finds that the Israeli Ombudsman’s report on the operations of the NSC failed to adequately propose concrete ways in which to overcome the turf battles between the intelligence and defense bodies reporting to the prime minister and defense minister.

Turkish foreign Policy in the Twenty-first CenturyDr. Alexander MurinsonAn independent researcher with a degree from SOAS, Dr. Alexander Murinson explores the new foreign policy path undertaken by Turkey under Erdogan and the AKP. Bucking the trend of Turkey’s secular Kemalist legacy, Erdogan seeks to revive the glory of the Ottoman Empire and establish Turkey as a global power. The study examines the reasons behind Turkey’s shift in policy, discusses Turkey’s role in the “Arab Spring,” and assesses regional and global ramifications.

˘

˘