Impact of Arab Revolutions on Israel

[astralis]

BR,

A recent survey showed that something like 90% of Egyptians don't approve of peace with Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood has said that one of the first things they will do is put the peace treaty to a referendum.

Sadat was assassinated because he signed the treaty, and Mubarak has been ruling with an iron fist which has kept the peace alive. Once Mubarak is gone, things are open to change.

unfortunately this is why i think israeli foreign policy has been absolutely brain-dead the past few years. there was always going to be a period of instability when mubarak went, even if this was peacefully in his sleep some 10 years from now as uncontested ruler. now that mubarak is likely to wash out in a revolution, you can be sure that the period of instability will be prolonged. the end result will be an egypt that will not be half as friendly as mubarak's regime was-- and that's being optimistic.

israel did not negotiate when it was in an unparalleled position of strength, now it will face a significantly worse security situation. israeli defense expenditures will most certainly increase, as will deployments close to the sinai. depending on how the new egypt looks, this could range from uneasy continued adherence to the status quo (but without the proactive egyptian attempts at mediation, and certainly without the egyptian blockade of hamas) to latent hostility to open hostility/support for hamas (although i do not think it will be as bad as that).

this in turn will effect IDF training cycles. there's going to be a renewed focus on conventional warfare, which will impact counterinsurgency/counterterrorist training.

moreover the PA just promised some elections, that will introduce more uncertainty. i really hope israel can get its s**t together and for once stop pandering to the ultra-orthodox. if abbas and fayyad goes, and if king abdullah of jordan grows weaker, israel will be in its worst security situation since 1973.

friedman has an article on this today, i'll post it a bit later.

[snapper]

astralis Sir, do you therefore suggest that this may actualy encourage Israeli/Palestinian agreement?

[bigross86]

unfortunately this is why i think israeli foreign policy has been absolutely brain-dead the past few years.

No arguments here. That's why my friends and I are thinking up ways to shore up Israeli PR. PR is but one part of a comprehensive foreign polict which has been virtually non-existent for longer than I can remember.

israel did not negotiate when it was in an unparalleled position of strength, now it will face a significantly worse security situation. israeli defense expenditures will most certainly increase, as will deployments close to the sinai. depending on how the new egypt looks, this could range from uneasy continued adherence to the status quo (but without the proactive egyptian attempts at mediation, and certainly without the egyptian blockade of hamas) to latent hostility to open hostility/support for hamas (although i do not think it will be as bad as that).

With any luck, the Sinai will remain demilitarized for quite a while just because of the Status Quo. Egypt's support when it comes to Gaza and mediation in general will almost certainly be lost, though.

this in turn will effect IDF training cycles. there's going to be a renewed focus on conventional warfare, which will impact counterinsurgency/counterterrorist training.

This will impact training away from Counter terror back to conventional warfare (although for armor the focus is almost entirely conventional, anyway), but with luck, there won't need to be units posted on the Sinai border, since it's at least 200 km in a straight line from the Suez Canal to the Israeli border. If Israel steps up it's intel, we'll have a relatively decent warning if troops enter the Sinai, hopefully enough to get troops down to the border.

moreover the PA just promised some elections, that will introduce more uncertainty. i really hope israel can get its s**t together and for once stop pandering to the ultra-orthodox. if abbas and fayyad goes, and if king abdullah of jordan grows weaker, israel will be in its worst security situation since 1973.

Amen, brother! I've been fighting for that for a while now. Unfortunately, after the leaks last couple of weeks, it seems Abbas will almost definitely be out. I posted earlier in this thread how Israel hangs on a precarious thread, with even a potential 1 million EXTRA soldiers arrayed against us.

The main question here, if hostilities do break out, will be just like in 1973, resupply. In 1973, Nixon was decisive and Operation Nickel Grass came around in time. As someone that seems to be in the know in certain parts of DC, can you see Obama being as decisive and sending a resupply airlift right away? It's a well-known fact to both Israel and her enemies that our war-stocks are not that deep and will run out quickly, especially in a war on all fronts

[astralis]

snapper,

astralis Sir, do you therefore suggest that this may actualy encourage Israeli/Palestinian agreement?

with immense US pressure and in a short timeframe. israel must negotiate before any new government in egypt starts re-arranging security affairs. abbas must negotiate while he still has domestic power.

[astralis]

BR,

No arguments here. That's why my friends and I are thinking up ways to shore up Israeli PR. PR is but one part of a comprehensive foreign polict which has been virtually non-existent for longer than I can remember.

unfortunately, this requires more than PR work. this also requires substantive foreign policy decisions. most of the good decisions involve trade-offs that increase israel's short-medium term risk for a dramatic improvement on long-term risk.

israel has not been willing to make these trade-offs. if israel doesn't change course soon, your country will enter a prolonged period of heightened security risk.

If Israel steps up it's intel, we'll have a relatively decent warning if troops enter the Sinai, hopefully enough to get troops down to the border.

either way, israel will need to up its intel/defense spending.

Amen, brother! I've been fighting for that for a while now.

it really worries me, the extent that the ultra-orthodox can control israeli defense/domestic policies. israeli negotiation with abbas had broad support for -years- and nothing was done. it is one of those "can't believe i'd be saying this" moments, but ariel sharon was the last israeli politico who not only had a vision of the israeli future, but was willing to gamble politically to make it happen.

israel needs to reduce the palestinian issue as much as possible just so it will have the resources to handle a potential problem with egypt next door. quibbling about settlements is small beans by comparison.

As someone that seems to be in the know in certain parts of DC, can you see Obama being as decisive and sending a resupply airlift right away? It's a well-known fact to both Israel and her enemies that our war-stocks are not that deep and will run out quickly, especially in a war on all fronts

i don't foresee any cobbling together of the '67 or '73 alliances. the US these days is simply far too involved in the area for that to occur. regarding resupply, though, obama's foreign policy doesn't deviate from the mean in that he will provide for israeli self-defense. he'd do that anyway, even if he was dead-set against it-- if he didn't, his own party (let alone the republicans) would eat him alive.

note how quickly USAF scrambled to help israel in the lebanon war. we even gave strategic advice, although this was ignored, to the IDF's sorrow.

[bigross86]

BR,

unfortunately, this requires more than PR work. this also requires substantive foreign policy decisions. most of the good decisions involve trade-offs that increase israel's short-medium term risk for a dramatic improvement on long-term risk.

BR,israel has not been willing to make these trade-offs. if israel doesn't change course soon, your country will enter a prolonged period of heightened security risk.

The hope is that if the FM realizes that other people are doing their own work better than they are, they will try and do something to fix themselves. A sort of shot across the bow, as it were.

I am all for a lasting peace with the Palestinians, and the sooner we can get that, the better everyone's situation will be, especially Israel's, both foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, I'm not the PM, and I've got the feeling neither Israel nor the Palestinians would like my version of peace: Straighten up and fly right, or I'll make your life a living hell, I don't care whose side you're on.

BR,either way, israel will need to up its intel/defense spending.

I don't quite want to get into specifics here, but with the situation in Darfur and the influx of Sudanese refugees into Israel, our intel on the border won't need as much shoring up as you'd expect. Not only that, but we have cameras that can see the dust plume of a tank (or battalion of tanks) from quite some distance. Moreover, it should be plenty obvious to almost anyone looking if troops start crossing the Suez Canal.

Of course, this is all dependent on the Sinai remaining de-militarized. If it's not, things look entirely different, and yes, we will need to station troops by the border.

BR,it really worries me, the extent that the ultra-orthodox can control israeli defense/domestic policies. israeli negotiation with abbas had broad support for -years- and nothing was done. it is one of those "can't believe i'd be saying this" moments, but ariel sharon was the last israeli politico who not only had a vision of the israeli future, but was willing to gamble politically to make it happen.

This is true, and if he hadn't had a stroke the entire Middle East might look different today. Unfortunately, he did have a stroke, and after that came Olmert who was a total tool, and now we have Bibi. How ironic that given one Hawkish PM, the US now looks back with nostalgia to another Hawkish PM.

BR,israel needs to reduce the palestinian issue as much as possible just so it will have the resources to handle a potential problem with egypt next door. quibbling about settlements is small beans by comparison.

Unfortunately, fundamentalists are kind of hard to deal with, no matter whose side they're on...

BR,i don't foresee any cobbling together of the '67 or '73 alliances. the US these days is simply far too involved in the area for that to occur. regarding resupply, though, obama's foreign policy doesn't deviate from the mean in that he will provide for israeli self-defense. he'd do that anyway, even if he was dead-set against it-- if he didn't, his own party (let alone the republicans) would eat him alive.

If Egypt goes to the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think that a Lebanon-Syria-Egypt alliance is possible? Egypt still is the big boy in the Arab World, something Iran still refuses to admit. Do you think it's possible that Iran could swallow some of it's pride and agree to stage troops out of Syria and Lebanon to aid in the destruction of Israel, or are we actually more useful alive as a scapegoat and excuse to keep building nukes?

note how quickly USAF scrambled to help israel in the lebanon war. we even gave strategic advice, although this was ignored, to the IDF's sorrow.

I wouldn't know about all that, I was busy dealing with things on a very immediate and tactical level...

[rj1]

If Egypt goes to the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think that a Lebanon-Syria-Egypt alliance is possible? Egypt still is the big boy in the Arab World, something Iran still refuses to admit. Do you think it's possible that Iran could swallow some of it's pride and agree to stage troops out of Syria and Lebanon to aid in the destruction of Israel, or are we actually more useful alive as a scapegoat and excuse to keep building nukes?

Isn't a lot of the problem with the different Arab factions is they don't really get along with one another well to start with?

[astralis]

BR,

If Egypt goes to the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think that a Lebanon-Syria-Egypt alliance is possible? Egypt still is the big boy in the Arab World, something Iran still refuses to admit. Do you think it's possible that Iran could swallow some of it's pride and agree to stage troops out of Syria and Lebanon to aid in the destruction of Israel, or are we actually more useful alive as a scapegoat and excuse to keep building nukes?

i don't expect egypt going to the muslim brotherhood. they will have a voice but they won't be the only one. then there's the issue of a US-trained, US-armed military to contend with; if egypt violates any agreements they'll have to completely revamp their military from ground-up. that's no good for unit cohesion or logistics, to say the least; and if the egyptian military disagrees...

lebanon is too messed up to be worth much other than a staging ground. syria does not have the power to challenge israel, even in concert with other powers. syrians know this, too, because they said nothing when israeli jets bombed the beejeezus out of a syrian nuclear facility in 07.

iran won't do anything because iranian troops are too visible and would invite US retaliation. and they don't need to; they have hezbollah to do their dying for them.

the most immediate threat to israel is the possible proliferation of terrorist groups all along the periphery. the biggest potential threat is an openly hostile egypt, although this will probably take at least a decade to materialize fully.

it's a very bad strategic loss for israel, regardless. optimistically the strategic situation for israel has reverted to roughly 1979, pessimistically, to the end of the '73 war.

I wouldn't know about all that, I was busy dealing with things on a very immediate and tactical level...

it's open source now; we advised a simultaneous amphibious landing towards the north, trapping hezbollah in a vise. however, the IDF chief of the time was, IIRC, a rah-rah air force guy whom thought airpower alone was enough. the end result was that you guys pushed hezbollah slowly upward, hezbollah had more than enough fallback positions and time to create more positions as needed.

overall the US was quite unhappy with israel, not only did the US burn up a lot of stamps on the international stage buying the IDF time, we restocked the IDF and found our military advice ignored. it was one of those wars where no one was happy at the end, not the israelis, not the US, not the lebanese, not hezbollah.

[bigross86]

we advised a simultaneous amphibious landing towards the north, trapping hezbollah in a vise. however, the IDF chief of the time was, IIRC, a rah-rah air force guy whom thought airpower alone was enough. the end result was that you guys pushed hezbollah slowly upward, hezbollah had more than enough fallback positions and time to create more positions as needed.

I wonder how much amphibious capability Israel has.

Yes, Halutz was an airpower guy, which is why we had so many casualties, since he had now idea how to actually run a war.

In 1973 there was a tankie as CJCS. Hasn't been one since. Halutz was CJCS in Lebanon, there probably won't be another zoomie for a long time, either...

[rj1]

This is exactly the first thing that come up in my mind.
The revolution will bring change if they are able to maintain their momentum and make Mubarak step down though they are short of an opposition figure. Will this spread wider to the Arab world ie Jordan, Yemen is yet to be seen.
But this change is not necessarily a good thing for Israel, or the world, and i concur heavily on the fluffy fuzzy euphoria of figthing oppression for freedom and democracy. Like the case of Iran, many said if Ahmedinejad step down, Iran will not suddenly turn up to be a new good boy in the middle east and make friends with every one.
This incident and ongoing protests in Egypt have to be examined and watched closely by Israel, and if things indeed spread wider, prepare for a storm of change.

Israel, the US, and the western world (pardon the generalizing) are really short on trust in the Arab and muslim world. I am confident 7 out of 10 average Joe muslims here in my country (the so called moderate and democratic) will hate the US or Israel for no apparent reason or excuse (pardon the generalization again).

I believe that might also be the case in other muslim countries, just hope that i'm wrong

Don't really think your generalization is wrong. The problem is that if it's not wrong and what you state comes to its logical conclusion, who in the western world will come to Israel's aid? The Europeans sure as hell aren't. The UN won't. U.S. maybe but a lot of our electorate would be very antagonistic toward it.

[bigross86]

I think it's fairly safe to assume that there are no countries that will send troops to fight for Israel. However, just like in 1973, there will very likely be a mass influx of expatriates that will come to fight.

According to Astralis, an airlift is almost certain. The question is, what countries will fall in with the plan? In 1973, due to Soviet pressure, only Portugal allowed US planes to land. Should the shit hit the fan, how many countries will cave to oil embargo threats?

[rj1]

However, just like in 1973, there will very likely be a mass influx of expatriates that will come to fight.

1. How many of those are there?
2. How many of them view Israel as "their state" to "keep existing"?

World's a completely different place than it was in 1973. The younger generation of American Jews for example I don't see raising a finger because based on studies done they see themselves as Americans only and Israel as nothing special, and 60-year-olds can't fight.

According to Astralis, an airlift is almost certain. The question is, what countries will fall in with the plan? In 1973, due to Soviet pressure, only Portugal allowed US planes to land. Should the shit hit the fan, how many countries will cave to oil embargo threats?

Wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure a sub-Saharan African country (Ethiopia? Djibouti?) or Cyprus or Poland would allow U.S. airplanes to do an airlift operation.

[Double Edge]

No arguments here. That's why my friends and I are thinking up ways to shore up Israeli PR. PR is but one part of a comprehensive foreign polict which has been virtually non-existent for longer than I can remember.

But how are you going to overcome pre-existing biases when it comes to reporting on Israel. You can put out all the PR you want, the trick remains in getting various media outlets to actually run your PR as objective reporting rather than propaganda. Even if you stress what you did its just going to get ignored and they will concentrate on the damage you wrought and say how bad you are. It's difficult to change mindsets after so long

My way of getting the news is simple, interact with Israelis who have more than a passing interest to whats happening around them, but most will not bother.

[bigross86]

1. How many of those are there?
2. How many of them view Israel as "their state" to "keep existing"?

World's a completely different place than it was in 1973. The younger generation of American Jews for example I don't see raising a finger because based on studies done they see themselves as Americans only and Israel as nothing special, and 60-year-olds can't fight.

There are plenty expats that would come to fight, just like in 1973. There are a good couple thousand at least that are doing their after army trips (like I did to OZ/NZ) and many more that have emigrated for education/work. I've got at least a dozen friends that I can name right now that are in schools or jobs overseas. Another thing is that American Jews can't maintain their "I doante to Israel" piety if Israel isn't there anymore.

Wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure a sub-Saharan African country (Ethiopia? Djibouti?) or Cyprus or Poland would allow U.S. airplanes to do an airlift operation.

How hard would it be to get some folks close enough to an airfield to cause trouble and havoc with incoming/outoing traffic? Better to do it on a USAF base on the European continent, unless they aren't allowed to land on or overfly the continent. Interesting to see where Turkey will fall down on this one, if push comes to shove

But how are you going to overcome pre-existing biases when it comes to reporting on Israel. You can put out all the PR you want, the trick remains in getting various media outlets to actually run your PR as objective reporting rather than propaganda. Even if you stress what you did its just going to get ignored and they will concentrate on the damage you wrought and say how bad you are. It's difficult to change mindsets after so long

My way of getting the news is simple, interact with Israelis who have more than a passing interest to whats happening around them, but most will not bother.

The only real solution we have is to work harder and make sure we do our job right. If we do our job right, there will always be the undecided's that see what we write and will be swayed.

[rj1]

There are plenty expats that would come to fight, just like in 1973. There are a good couple thousand at least that are doing their after army trips (like I did to OZ/NZ) and many more that have emigrated for education/work.

A good couple thousand? Earlier you were pessimistic discussing the plight of the IDF because they were outnumbered by 900k. A couple thousand is a drop in the bucket.

Another thing is that American Jews can't maintain their "I doante to Israel" piety if Israel isn't there anymore.

It's one thing to donate 10 dollars to a cause. It's another to ask someone to shoot a gun and potentially die for it. The traditional notion of volunteering is completely absurd to most of the people that make up modern western civilization.

The only real solution we have is to work harder and make sure we do our job right. If we do our job right, there will always be the undecided's that see what we write and will be swayed.

Undecideds that are capable of being swayed are moderates and moderates in modern politics are always overwhelmed by the extremes.