The uprising for Egypt; New threat for Israel

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had previously recommended the bombardment of the Aswan dam in Egypt. He wanted Mubarak to “go to hell” three years ago in the Israeli parliament (Knesset). But now that Mubarak is on the verge of going where Lieberman had wished, the Israeli foreign minister is scrambling to contact Israeli ambassadors across the world to convey a hopeless message to world leaders that they must “try for the stability of the Egyptian regime and rein in open criticism against Mubarak.”

A paragraph from the Israeli Ha’aretz newspaper shows the worried confusion in Israel over the recent developments in Egypt.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to convince its public that Israel continues to be the powerful and that the recent developments show Israel is an “island of stability” in a turbulent sea. Such statements merely show how concerned Israeli politicians and society are. The intifada of the Egyptian people has not only awakened Cairo but has wiped sleep off Israel’s face.

The Ha’aretz writes Israeli leaders have not spoken about Iran since the Egyptian revolution began 10 days ago; instead they speak of the dangers Egypt imposes.

Talal Salman, editor in Chief of Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, believes the youth movement in Egypt has changed the dynamics of the region and has wiped out some imminent dangers of the region. He believes those who had predicted conflicts between Shia and Sunnis do not get the chance to say a word. Nobody speaks of the internal turmoil in Lebanon, the US-backed special Hariri tribunal is not the main topic of the region and the new Lebanese government is calmly shaping.

A Ha’aretz writer by the name of Ari Shavit says “the Arab revolution” is a sign of the collapse of the West. He says the fall of Arab regimes is similar to the fall of the Soviet Union and reflects the weakness of Western dictators.

Without considering the main reasons behind the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, he adds, “[former US President Jimmy] Carter’s betrayal of the Shah brought us the ayatollahs, and will soon bring us ayatollahs with nuclear arms. The consequences of the West’s betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It’s not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It’s a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West’s word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.”

Dov Weisglass, former Israeli Prime Minister Areal Sharon’s advisor, wrote in an articles published in the Yediot Aharonot newspaper about Tel Aviv’s concern about the behavior of the United States toward Mubarak. He stated that America’s stance regarding the recent developments in Egypt is strange and harmful. Even if the US believes Mubarak’s era of rule is over, to officially state it does not make political sense, he said.

Weisglass went on to say that the damage that was inflicted on Mubarak showed the tougher face of Washington and how it abandons its friends in hard times. No doubt other leaders will reluctant to tie the fate of their nations to that of the United States.

Like many other Israeli politicians Weisglass admitted that the fall of the Egyptian dictator, holding free elections, and the empowerment of Islamic groups in Egypt creates a dangerous situation for Israel.

He wrote that abandoning Mubarak, encouraging free elections in Egypt, and accepting radical Islam threatens the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. This is a tragedy for Israel and the entire region. It seems that a hasty US has overlooked this concern and questions its commitment to Israel’s security. In other words, the United States should have thought about Israel before hastily asking Mubarak to leave.

What worries Israel is the impact of Egypt developments on it and on the future of the neighboring countries. For the first time after three decades, the issue of reviving “the Southern Front” is raised again. Considering Israel’s rising concern about “the Northern Front,” the new issue becomes more important and makes Israel more concerned about regional and global issues.

Signing the peace treaty with Egypt and then with Jordan, and the Oslo Agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization changed Israel’s security doctrine, so that in confrontation with its immediate enemies, it gets farther from its neighbors’ circle.

Not worrying about Egypt’s threat and with the surrounding fronts moving out of a state of alert, Israel has been allowed to get rid of the “transferring war to the enemy’s land” doctrine and feel the real threat in a region far from itself.

This development progressed even in a way that now Israel is considered as an effective factor in maintaining the stability of the conservative Arab states in the region and their allies, when it comes to confronting the existing threats in the Middle East.

In other words, neutralization of Egypt’s threat and then those of Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization led to the closeness between Israel and “moderation axis” governments in the Arab World and altered the Middle East equations.

It is clear that Israel’s concern is not just limited to the manner of facing and interacting with a new Egypt, because Tel Aviv is urgently asking the West to back Hosni Mubarak and prevent the collapse of his regime.

Some Israeli analysts consider the West’s approach in not supporting Mubarak as a betrayal that may repeat again in the future; but this time against other regimes and even Israel.

MS/MSD/ASH/MRS/MGH