Jerusalem Post editor warns Israel's 'concrete strategic assumptions liquefied almost overnight'
- guardian.co.uk,
- Article history
 
           Binyamin Netanyahu has said Israel will  review its security arrangements if Egypt reneges on the two  countries' peace treaty. Photograph: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters
      As pro-democracy demonstrations continue in Egypt, Israel's  reaction has been of rising panic, as typified by Jerusalem Post editor  David Horovitz. He today warned that Israel's "concrete strategic  assumptions were liquefied almost overnight", representing a "colossal  psychological blow" and a reminder that Israel is "territorially and  demographically dwarfed by the seething entities arrayed around us".
Israel has been following events in Egypt and across the Middle East  with mounting concern, as entrenched positions look set to shift,  destabilising a status quo that has long been taken for granted.
"The  Israeli government is freaking out," said Dr Shmuel Bachar, at the  Israel Institute for Policy and Strategy. "For the past 30 years we have  depended on Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Now, suddenly, we have  rediscovered the existence of something called an Egyptian public, the  existence of which we've vigorously tried to ignore."
Israel has  been troubled by sight of masses of Egyptian people on the streets  calling for democratic rights, freedoms and the ousting of Hosni  Mubarak. Last week senior officials reported that a dozen key Israeli  embassies were urged by the foreign ministry to stress the importance of  Egyptian stability to host countries. Several Israeli commentators have  expressed anger at US criticism of Mubarak, arguing that is not in US  or Israeli interests. In a poll published by mass-circulation daily  Yediot Ahronot, 65% of Israelis think Mubarak's removal from office  would be a bad thing for Israel.
Of primary concern are fears that  the Muslim Brotherhood, perceived as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic,  could take control and reverse relations with Israel. The treaty signed  with Egypt in 1979 brought about a frosty sort of peace in practice, but  it had dramatic benefits. Significantly, Israel has for decades  budgeted on the assumption that it will not have to fight a war on the  Egyptian front, according to Giora Eiland, a retired general and former  head of the army's planning branch.
"The defence budget was more  than 30% of the gross domestic product before 1979 and went down to 7%  after the peace treaty," he said. "One reason for Israel's economic  prosperity is that it could decrease the defence budget for all those  years."
Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, signalled  potential budgetary changes last week when he said that, should Egypt  renege on the peace treaty, Israeli would "protect it with security  arrangements of the ground". Several analysts point out that, in such a  scenario, Israel would face an Egyptian enemy that has been the  beneficiary of advanced US weaponry.
But Eiland sees other  strategic worries over developments in Egypt. "If the Muslim Brotherhood  takes control, there could be an immediate reaction in Palestinian  society, where Hamas, the Palestinian wing of the Brotherhood, could be  encouraged to take control of the West Bank."
The Palestinian  Authority in the West Bank has shut down recent demonstrations in  solidarity with the pro-democracy protesters in Egypt.
As well as  fears over the smuggling of weapons from Egypt into Gaza, Israel is  worried about potential ruptures in Jordan, resulting in a scenario  whereby Israel is, according to Eiland "surrounded only by enemies,  which would be a strategic change".
Although many Israeli  commentators are rehearsing these fears about Islamist politics, some  have questioned these reactions. "There are no religious slogans in  Tahrir square, but still we look upon the Muslim Brotherhood as though  it is the greatest threat," says Zvi Bar'el, veteran middle eastern  affairs analyst for Haaretz newspaper. "This is how we are educated by  the government and media, to see Islam as a symbol of evil."
Bar'el  adds that Israelis do not register the contradiction of claiming to  support democracy, but only on condition that Islamic parties such as  the Palestinian Hamas or Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are not elected.  "It has no meaning if you attach these terms," he says, adding that  Israel's position is: "We support democracy, as long as you keep the  dictatorial regimes in place."
Dr Bachar at the IPS says that  Israeli policy is based on the assumption that there are only two  alternatives in the Middle East: "a dictator that can be worked with –  or chaos." He cautions that Israel "needs to change the record, insert a  new disc".
 
       
     
