Israel, a country without any geographical strategic depth,
had always relied on its military superiority for deterrence, and on its
nuclear capability. However, with the fast and rapid changes in military
technology, especially missile technology, military power deterrence became a
two-edged sword with potential harm to Israel; therefore, a shift in strategic
thinking happened there, aiming at creating client political entities and
states, or perhaps, friendly states in the region.
اضافة اعلان
However, when it comes to its ontological mirror image,
Israel remains ambiguous. On the one hand, Israel politicians say that Israel
is part of the Middle East, in a politically correct manner, and wish that its
Arab neighbors would accept it as part of the region, while on the other hand,
Israel sees itself culturally and economically closer to Europe and North
America.
It is this particular ambiguity that became the backbone of
the post-Oslo agreements. Israel’s idea of peace in the Middle East was based
on economics; economic integration, the thinking goes, transcends borders. It
was the logical assessment emanating from the process of globalization taking
place in Europe and the US, which erases boundaries and cultural zones. But in
this particular case, it ignores the most important factor in the Arab-Israeli
conflict, the question of occupation and Palestinian national rights, but then
again, part of the Israeli mirror image ambiguity is seeing itself as the
eastern edge of Europe and the US.
In effect, post-Oslo provided Israel with the illusion of
opportunity to achieve what it could not throughout the years of conflict with
the Arab world, and that is to demonstrate its economic superiority. I say
illusion, because this led to a popular Arab backlash, in fear of
neo-colonialism, irrespective of any outcome of the peace negotiations between
the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Currently, the old Arab rhetoric about Israel being similar
to the crusader states of distant history is long gone, and with it the notion
of Israel being an external entity to the Middle East, yet realpolitik keeps
taking one step forward and two steps backward.
The Israeli ambiguity, which sees itself as part of the
Middle East, at least rhetorically, while emphasizing its national identity,
has given rise to an image of Israel as isolated and in a unique position, not
only in the region but also in the global order.
The setbacks or the slow-pace of realpolitik in the region
are always associated with the conundrum of the Middle East, but this is not
true; the silence in the region, which one has to listen to, usually Arab
silence, speaks louder than anything said or the tone in which it is said,
usually for local consumption.
The Israeli ontological ambiguity is similar to the notion
of democracy in the world, which sees the replacement of liberal democracy with
authoritarian democracy, and that may well bring it closer to the values of its
authoritarian Arab neighbors, as the more Israel becomes heterogeneous the more
its governments will become more authoritarian, bringing about a modus vivendi
with its Arab neighbors, or clients, or friendly states, that overarches the
Palestinian problem.
The writer is former private adviser to HRH Prince El Hassan
bin Talal.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
.jpg)
.jpg)
