« Manvotech ! » Chronique d’une historienne en campagne
by Malika Rahal
The legislative elections of 10 May 2012 in Algeria.
Despite participation in the legislative elections officially rating above 40% - an unrealistic figure - the number of... more Despite participation in the legislative elections officially rating above 40% - an unrealistic figure - the number of people who refused to vote is high. They all used the same expression which sounded like a political slogan by the end of the end: "I'm not voting", "Manvotech".
Escalation of Social Conflict during Popular Upheavals: Evidence from Bahrain
Central European Journal of Political Science
18 views
Seen by:
Download (.pdf) 
Turning up the Heat - Yemen Enters the Arab Summer
by Tobias Thiel
June 2011, LSE Ideas!
The current political crisis in Yemen poses the fiercest challenge to the regime of President Saleh to date. As he... more The current political crisis in Yemen poses the fiercest challenge to the regime of President Saleh to date. As he continues to hold on to power, Yemen is heading towards a humanitarian catastrophe. With Mr Saleh under medical treatment in Saudi Arabia, the international community should engage the opposition and quickly move towards a political transition.
Yemen’s Arab Spring: From Youth Revolution to Fragile Political Transition
by Tobias Thiel
LSE Ideas Special Report: After the Arab Spring: Power Shift in the Middle East?
In February 2012, Yemen’s revolutionary movement achieved its first victory: the removal of President Ali Abdullah... more In February 2012, Yemen’s revolutionary movement achieved its first victory: the removal of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. However, the co-option of the movement by Yemen’s key powerbrokers, regional insurgencies and daunting economic challenges threaten to squander the opportunity to repair Yemen’s failing social contract. Stabilisation efforts, though indispensible, must not come at the expense of a democratic and civic state.
The Revolutions Will Not Be Globalized?
by Sinan Erensü
A TSP roundtable discussion on the world-historical importance of the uprisings of 2011. Participants: Mohammed Bamyeh, Michael Kazin, James Jasper, Francesca Polletta.
(Please check out the link - http://thesocietypages.org/roundtables/global-uprising)
The Arab Spring, Greek riots. Protests in Wisconsin and Indignados in Spain. The Chilean education conflict, rural... more The Arab Spring, Greek riots. Protests in Wisconsin and Indignados in Spain. The Chilean education conflict, rural uprisings in China, and the Occupy Movement. 2011 was a year of social uprisings. As we leave their anniversaries behind, we asked some of the top social movements scholars to reflect on these events and what we can learn from them.
108 views
Seen by:
Den Uforudsigelige Revolution
A Danish essay reflecting on the unpredictability of revolutionary change and in particular the Tunesian uprising of december 2010 - Published in the antology "Alkvantor III - Revolutions"
1 views
Seen by:
Marseille Espérance: The model of EU's migration policy
The Arab Spring and its additional consequences represent a new challenge and a new perspective for Europe. In this... more The Arab Spring and its additional consequences represent a new challenge and a new perspective for Europe. In this situation, the old continent has to prove that the often-mentioned solidarity, the commitment to democratic values, and the protection of human rights mean much more than big words. In order to handle the mass of immigrants effectively and successfully, a better understanding of different Arab communities' thinking and ambitions is needed over and above the classical bureaucratic methods. It is important to analyze how national and local policy supports or hinders the participation of foreign communities in political, social, and economic life. Regarding the problem of immigration, Marseille, a destination preferred by people arrived from Maghreb countries, has changed significantly in recent years. Marseille is a good example showing how to be much stronger the EU's commitment to an "open society", in a social environment characterized by ethnical and religious diversity.
12 views
"Pedagogy of Unrest: Education Struggles and the Prospect of an Autonomous University" [A Roundtable]
by David Hugill
Featuring contributions by Gigi Roggero, Emma Dowling, Merijn Oudenampsen and Vassilis Christophides.
Students and education workers have been at the forefront of the mass mobilizations that have swept across Europe over... more Students and education workers have been at the forefront of the mass mobilizations that have swept across Europe over the past 18 months. As these movements have developed, their transnational character has become increasingly evident. Student movements have begun to draw connections between their own national contexts and the broader struggles against austerity that have emerged in a wide range of locales, including North America. There are numerous lessons that North American students and workers can draw from the practices, projects, and critiques advanced by European education activists, particularly around issues of organizing and what it means to draw on legacies of struggle. As European universities become subject to increasing homogenization through the adoption of “North American” systems of organization, and as the neoliberal process of university transformation becomes increasingly international, the overt links between our struggles become stronger. At a recent meeting in Paris called to build bridges between student movements from around the world, élise Thorburn and David Hugill spoke with activists from the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, and the Netherlands in order to uncover what North Americans can learn from the battles currently underway in Europe.
2 views
Seen by:
Turkey-Israel Relations in the Shadow of the Arab Spring: The Need For A New Paradigm by Emrah Usta*
by Emrah Usta
Turkey-Israel Relations in the Shadow of the Arap Spring:
The Need For A New Paradigm
By Emrah... more
Turkey-Israel Relations in the Shadow of the Arap Spring:
The Need For A New Paradigm
By Emrah Usta*
Abstract
Unemployment, corruption, political degeneration, freedom of speech and appalling living conditions has led to a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests occurring in the Arab world, particularly North Africa and the Middle East. Commencing with a Tunasian street vendor, Mohammed Bouzazi, setting himself on fire and causing a domino effect in the Arab Spring, preparing the ground for the destruction of the old order of the Camp David. The Arab Spring, which has contributed the countries to review their security and democratic paradigms, gives the oppurtunity to be included in the inward intervention with the power of the social media network against the dictators, while increasing the solidarity and self-confidence between the people. The Davos Summit, and the positively changing image of Turkey in the Arab world after the attack on the Mavi Marmara makes it indispensable for a new paradigm in Turkish – Israeli relations.
Key Words: Turkey-Israel, Mavi Marmara, Arab Spring’s Effects on Turkish-Israeli Relations
Search for a New Paradigm after the Palmer Report
The state of Israel, on which numerous commentaries have been made, began creating an earthquake effect on the conscience of nations with its implemented policies. The frozen relations after the raid on the Mavi Marmara and the Palmer Report being leaked in the following period stretched the relations with Turkey and left deep wounds in the conscience of the international community. The basis of these deteriorated relations advancing poorly is Turkey’s demands, including compensation, official apology and breaking the siege on Gaza. Israeli state coalition, on the other hand, remains as the main cause. The attitude of different viewpoints in the coalition has been influential in the developing process. Nevertheless, the attitude of Knesset, consisting of 120 people, 12 party and the 6-party coalition inside indicate Israel’s need for a new paradigm about Turkey. The news concerning a meeting held in New York has left the Israeli government in an arduous situation thereafter the unsuccessful negotiations in Haifa common diplomacy followed by the Geneva meeting. Particularly during the last summer months, Channel 2 television commentator Amnon Abramovich, referring to the Mavi Marmara Operation dedicated to the meeting held in collaboration with The Israeli Armed Forces, the Israeli Ministry of Defence law departments and the Israeli Ministry of Justice, in this regard, public institutions have reached a joint consensus on the request for an 'apology' and declared to provide a report to the Israeli government concerning the issue. Despite these statements were widely discussed in the Israeli press, the government’s attitude on not giving a clear response had left question marks in minds. During the mid July, the Israeli Foreign Affairs spokesman Yigal Palmor stated that 'He may be inconvenient to the lawsuits filed to the army and the officers, but this is not going to be the official opinion of the army and defense ministry'. This statement eventuated in focusing on the attitude of army-military in Israel. Turkey could have taken more serious steps about the raid, seeing the discomfort of the officers subsequent to the Mavi Marmara event. Turkey, taking a different attitude towards the Israeli army, beware of lawsuits that can be filed to the Israeli soldiers, especially in the international arena, could have taken a different channel of communication regarding the apology issue. The hesitation of the players to arrive to Istanbul for the Besiktas – Tel Aviv match is a concrete example of the attitude in the Israeli Ministry of Defence and the Army. Being undesirous of taking the players, soldiers at the same time, to the football game can be considered as a substantiation of the case. The Israeli authorities, at first considering a scenario of a possible arrest, subsequently changed their attitudes and brough the players to Turkey. Considering the precise attitude of Turkey, the Israeli Defence Ministry did not permit any cracking sounds in the army, suggesting different hesitations to the soldiers, who are players at the same time, which shows the significance attached to the seriousness of the issue. After the attack on the Mavi Marmara, Turkey took action on all of the relevant UN tables in earlier than 24 hours, the UN Security Council accepting the event with a presidential statement (S/PRST/2010/9) ,which ended up condemning Israel for its actions to the death of 9 people. The UN Secretary-General decided to create a commission in accordance with this call. Joseph Ciechanover from the Israeli side and Ozden Sanberk, a former ambassador, from the Turkish side were elected by president of this commision, Palmer, and vice chairman Uribe. Another disadvantage of the Commision was not referring to the statement of the victims of the attack. While the Turkish side presenting the concrete data they have in hands, the efforts of the Israeli side, concerning to stop the functioning of the Commision, can be said to be effective until January. While there are claims about the Israeli helicopters making a ground firing during the attack, and Turkey, claming most of its deceased citizens unfortunately had been killed from the back and from a close distance, shows there are mutually unhealty information in the preparation of the report, concerning the allegations.
On the other hand, Palmer and Uribe suggested in the report that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is a legitimate. From its nature, the acceptance of this issue is not possible. There are published reports and adopted resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council, concerning the unlawful blockade of Gaza. These decisions are approved by the UN General Assembly and has become a part of international customary law. The UN Security Council clearly criticizes the blockade. The international community converge in the illegal blockade of Gaza. Common sense and conscience tells us that this blockade is illegal. In so doing, Palmer and Uribe emerging with such a controversial thesis, of course, brings to mind that they are approaching the issue with political considerations rather than legal considerations. Turkey did not become a part of this picture. Since the end of April, when Palmer and Uribe gave a draft of the report, it was recorded that Turkey would not participate in such a qualitative study any more. The report was given to the Secretary –General, only reflecting the personal opinions of Palmer and Uribe, and were only signed by the two. The representative of Israel did not sign the report, as in consequence of the clearly identified crimes committed by the Israeli soldiers. From this context, it is clear to reveal that the report does not have any binding side. To the public opinion, the common view to be provided with fleets of freedom is that there is no doubt on the crimes committed by Israel and the attack carried out could not be accepted. In this axis, the implementation of pre-conditions strictly expressed by Turkey, could prevent the isolation of Israel in public revolutions churning with Arab Spring and could lead the relations with Turkey to a better level. The policies put into practice by Turkey, churning with impact and military tutelage over years, did not make an effect on Israel and the international public opinion. On the other hand, it is inevitable to say a different image of Turkey is created in the Middle East, in face of the public movements. In the Middle East, after the Palmer Report, an alternative public diplomacy is essential to the roadmap by the UN, makes it indispensable of the applicable policies for Turkey's insistence for the actualization on the pre-conditions.
Effect of the Arab Spring in Turkey-Israel Relations
With no doubt, we can say that the Israeli-Turkish relations are having its hardest period of the history. It would not be wrong to say that the Camp David period has come to an end with the shaping of the Middle East by the Arab Spring. After the Davos Summit, the Mavi Marmara raid left a wound in the relations that has never happened in history and led Turkey, in all conscience, to be the voice of Arabs in the international community.
After the Arab-Israeli wars, the fear of Israeli taboos injected to the people by the dictators for years, were broken with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Arabs in all of the conflict areas, primarily in Palestine, approached with sympathy towards Turkey. The Arab people, waiting for the upright posture against Israel for years, seeked to determine a more stable political stance in their own internal policies, in the face of the attitude of Turkey. Beginning with public movements and elections held wtihin the period, discussions were headed towards Turkey as a model country, and falling regimes conducted anaylis on the subject. The Turkish Model discussions, 'The Turkish Perception in the Middle East 2010' sub-titled report of Mensur Akgun within TESEV, conducted a survey between 2,267 people, including Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, where 66% of the people provided a postive feedback to the Turkish Model and 18% of the voters did not believe it would be possible. Israel, not being able to prevent the increasingly powerful image of Turkey in the face of this perception, having its hands tied in the Apology and Compensation issue, does not make any improvement in the relations and nor creates a zone of influence that could provide mobility. The disappearance of Egypt, after the normalization of elite-based relations brought by order of the Camp David, is particularly dangerous for Israel in the Sinai. Radical Islamic groups, in particular, make possible accedings with elections in those countries, which would mean danger for Israel in its presence in the region. In this context, Turkey freezing all ties and relations with Israel is one of the essential issues that has to be considered for the terms of the legitimacy of the Arab-Israeli relations in the region. However, in this view, this does not mean Israel-Turkey relations among Arab perspective are going to be broken off altogether. Especially the blockade on Gaza and Israel's attitude of apology are going to be effective on the Turkish-Israeli relations in the following months. To be realistic, Turkey's relations with Israel does not seem possible to be completely removed to rack. This is due to both the delicate balance on which Turkey is located and the mediating role that may arise from possible crisis centers in the Middle East, providing opportunities for Turkey to intervene in. It is possible for Turkey to maintain its relations with Israel at a certain level but, in the long term, it does not seem convenient to do it at the lowest level. Turkey, coming down to the Middle East alone is not among the possible contingencies as Islamic countries have such a stableness in the Palestenian state. Having poor relations with Israel at the lower levels, one of Turkey's ally in the Middle East seems to be Egypt. However, the perception of Egypt on Turkey, and the collapse in the guardianship system concerning democratization in the military does not make it possible. On the other hand, Turkey’s common sense that may be posed in defiance to the perception in the region and Islamic world might turn this heroic adventure into a tragedy. Although the policies and the processes pursued by Turkey, with the forming of the new order, seem to be parallel with the U.S., the road often intersects with Israel.
During this period, where the U.S. was caught unprepared for the Arab spring, Turkey’s (except for the first quarter NATO intervention in Libya) attitude turned into an appropriate standing and a direct susceptive on the people. In this context, Turkey, clarified its not going to be a guarantor nor a model to the democracies, and is crisscrossed paths with Israel once again. Turkey wants to maintain its relations with Israel at a certain distance, but also sees it appropriate to keep the equation for its own political interests. Turkey, benefiting from the lack of common stand in in the coalition of the Israeli state and determining its own position in the Arab Spring, forces Israel to a new paradigm, who wishes to evaluate its security once again with Camp David. This paradigm will be conductive to further expansion of commercial viability of economic integration between Turkish-Arab people.
The impact on 'Double-Sided Trade' between the AKP-Israeli Relations
Israel and Turkey, being potential markets for each other, are two important feet of the international trade. Justice and Development Party government, acceding two years after the 2001 financial crisis, made various reforms in the economy, freed the burden of serious debt to IMF and declared no stand-by agreements would be done. Subsequently, the change in monetary policy rates and the rapid increase in exports, gave oppurtunity to open out with Turkey's economy, thereby, both inside and outside Turkey was enriched. The foreign trade capacity with Israel in 2009 was realized as 2.5 billion dollars, by 2010 this number exceeded $ 3 billion in the first 11-month period. Another data described by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics shows there is according to a 26% growth for the year 2010. Israeli exports to Turkey increased by 22% to $ 1,309 billion, while imports increased by 29% in Turkey, which amounted to U.S. $ 1,799 billion. Iron and steel products, motor vehicles, mineral fuels and mineral oils and copper generate the most important export items of our exports, while in imports, mineral fuels, organic and inorganic chemical products and electrical machinery are the most imported items. On the other hand, certain food, construction, and human labor force work in Israel. Turkey-Israel free trade agreement, Commercial Economic Industrial Technical and Scientific Cooperation Treaty, the Treaty of Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments and the Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaty, the Turkish-Israeli trade form the basis of a number of treaties. There are Turkish firms and corporations that invest in specific areas in Israel. Some of them, especially in construction of skyscrapers, power plants, water treatment plants, modern and formal housing, infrastructure facilities done by Yilmazlar Construction Group. Yilmazlar Construction Group is a Turkish company that has a serious reputation in Israel. Since 1993, especially in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Yılmazlar Construction Group, showing intensive activities in the fields of construction and infrastructure, is one of the companies that was recently awarded the Turkish-Israeli Businessmen's Council Award. Delivering investments on time, in both public sector and private sector, gained them a great confidence in Israel. Yilmazlar Construction Group Chairman Ahmet Yilmaz Reyiz was awarded Businessman of the Year in 2005 from among 400 Israeli businessmen. Other than in Israel, the company has investments in eastern Europe, and spread over a large region in Israel with 31 construction sites. Around 1000 Turkish employees are working on these construction sites, and around 700 Israeli workers are also employed. Yilmazlar Group is among the top 10 firms in Israel. In addition to the construction sector, comes Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and Hamidiye Water Company., curing one of the most important wounds of Isael. There is no any direct investment made by Hamidiye Water Co. in Israel. However, meets the water needs in the region with dealerships by different investors. On the other hand, another major Turkish company in the region is Sabanci Holding. Sabanci Holding, in Israel, works in educational, social and cultural life, support, and in construction sector. Despite all these investments, the Mavi Marmara crisis, in a commercial sense, caused Turkey to break its relation unilaterally. After the bloody raid on Gaza aid ship, the crisis between the two countries effected the large-scale companies and the medium-sized grocery products in the region also suffered. Blue Square announced they are not going to import flour and pasta from Turkey anymore. On the other hand, Israel's Channel 10 television claimed that in last August, Turkey's loss in only chain of supermarkets is approximately 94 million dollars. Rafi Scheffer, CEO of Brand For You with the big supermarket chain Super Sol, expressed the view that the loss of Turkish goods in Israel is bad for economic relations and declared they are not going to break off relations with Turkey. On the other hand, the agricultural activities of MASHAV, constituting the foundation of Kibbutzim, is an important source of income for Israel's economy compared to other companies. The commercial ventures with Israel during the Justice and Development Party period, is of course not limited with these. The following are among the companies that invest in Israel; Carmel Carpets, who owns a 51% of Atlas Carpet that created a special carpet for Masjid al-Aqsa, Calik Group, who helped the port of Haifa, Solad Energy which aids power lines and the Zorlu Group, who signed an agreement to work in the occupied Palestenian territority with a great devotion. The Turkish pharmaceutical companies faced various challenges during the shipments of the medicine to the region, provided by TIKA after the attack on Gaza. Before the AKP era, particularly during the Erbakan period, claims of investment in the area remains up to date. The main point of delusion is due to the coalition of the Refah Yol (Welfare Road) power during that period. Tansu Ciller is thought to have a big impact in relations with Israel during the period. There has been a tension in the meeting held on 8/04/1997 between Erbakan and Danit Levy, Israel’s foreign minister, concerning Palestine and Al-Aqsa Mosque, which did not make these relationships possible for the Refah Yol. For this reason, relations with Israel in this period, have continued with high-level visits by Ciller-TSK (Turkish Armed Forces).
*Emrah Usta is a fellow at the Center for Strategic Research at Suleyman Sah University in Istanbul.
America: An Empire In Decline (Part 3)
by Devon DB
Current foreign policy under the Obama administration is examined (from the Cheonan incident to the Arab Spring) and... more Current foreign policy under the Obama administration is examined (from the Cheonan incident to the Arab Spring) and there is a brief examination of what may lay in store for America's future.
The Role of Religion in the Public Domain in Egypt After the January 25 Revolution
by Abed Ayyad
What role does religion play in Egypt following the Revolution on 25 January, 2011? Khalil Al Anani from Durham writes for the ACRPS.
The role of religion in the public domain represents one of the main features of the Egyptian post-revolutionary... more
The role of religion in the public domain represents one of the main features of the Egyptian post-revolutionary phase. This aroused some concern, not only because it has led to disagreement and tension between Islamic groups and the liberal and secular groups, but also because some view it as a setback, undermining the gains made by the civil revolution, which expected an increase in secularity at the expense of the religious in the political and social spheres. According to some, this may disrupt the process of democratization in Egypt. Others believe that the fall of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime and the end of the dominance of his ruling party, the National Democratic Party (NDP), have led to the emergence of greater diversity in the political life of Egypt and the influence of players. Since Mubarak stepped down, many new political parties and forces that belong to differing intellectual and ideological movements have appeared. The most prominent shift was represented by the fragmentation that affected the Islamic movements and parties' map after the revolution. The number of political parties that were based on religious tenets exceeded fifteen, with the possibility of this number increasing if the current state of political openness continues.
This study argues that religion will have an important role in determining the form and nature of the democratic transition in Egypt during its next phase. It also demonstrates that there is no longer a dominant Islamic force in the public domain. Instead, some kind of fragmentation has occurred within the Islamic movement. The study shows that the more Egypt moves toward democracy, the more there is a shift in the rhetoric of new and old Islamic parties and movements, and diversity in their ideologies and practices.
Israeli-American relations after AIPAC Summit: Opportunities in 2013 and Iran
by Emrah Usta
15 April 2012 / Emrah Usta,
The annual summit held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one... more
15 April 2012 / Emrah Usta,
The annual summit held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most influential lobbying institutions in the US, has attracted attention because of speeches delivered by US President Barak Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In his speech, Netanyahu who addressed the Jewish community in the US said Israel has taken measure of the Iranian nuclear threat, and cannot remain indifferent about its security concerns; his remark calling Iran a “nuclear duck” is interesting.
In addition to strong statements by Netanyahu, various arguments were raised in the summit. One of the arguments stressed that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would encourage other countries in the region including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to develop their own nuclear arsenal, and in case of nuclear proliferation in the region, the world’s most fragile area would turn into a nuclear bomb ready to be detonated. On the other hand, remarks by Netanyahu saying that he would not risk the security of the Israeli state revealed Israel’s true stance on Iran.
But why does Israel send messages indicating an impending war to Iran? Is Israeli security in the region at risk? These are questions that need to be answered. The recent upheaval in the Middle East, popularly known as the Arab Spring, which destroyed the “Camp David” order in the region, has further impacts upon the relations between the states. Israel and Iran are two leading regional powers, which need to redefine their security identities in consideration of their new roles in the region. Remarks made by Obama at the AIPAC Summit meeting such as, “the US will be supporting Israel when it comes to security of the Israelis” did not address all of the Israeli concerns. Even though the US and Israel have a common approach regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions they pursue different policies. The Obama administration, which realizes that Israel is insistent on addressing the Iranian issue through military means, tends to adopt a diplomatic approach due to some realistic reasons. Withdrawal from Iraq and the announced schedule for complete withdrawal from Afghanistan by Obama sends the message that he does not want another war before the presidential elections in Nov. 2012. Obama’s approach has given domestic voters a sense of relief, and it has sent a signal to American allies. Panetta’s statement that Washington prefers diplomatic means to address the Iranian nuclear crisis confirms this.
Panetta, who stressed that pressure on Iran should be increased, added that US military aid to Israel has increased from $2.5 billion in 2009 to $3.1 billion in 2012, and he also recalled that the US pledged to allocate $30 billion in the form of military aid to the Israeli state in a decade. Despite these statements, Israel does not seem to be pleased. Calls for a war by hawkish politicians in both Washington and Tel Aviv force all relevant actors including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the White House to think about this issue. A column by David Ignatius in the Washington Post noted that Panetta said Israel might attack Iran in May or June; this statement has raised tension between the US and Israel. The column, which also noted that Obama warned Israel not to consider such a strike, argued Panetta underlined that Tel Aviv would undertake a military operation in order to prevent Iran from making a nuclear bomb. CNN news has verified the contents of Ignatius’ column with the US authorities. The subsequent developments are pretty interesting. Particularly the statements by Israeli authorities regarding the Iranian nuclear issue raise serious concerns. Yoram Cohen, chief of Israel Security Service, (Shin-Bet), announced that Iran would begin attacking Israeli targets around the world, and in addition, the Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, in his Friday sermon, strongly criticized US and Israel, which further deteriorated relations between the relevant parties.
Khamanei who recalled that going to war with Iran would be detrimental to American interests also said: “The Zionist Israeli regime is a cancer cell and it must be removed. God willing, it will be indeed. We will be supportive of all who are against the Zionist regime.” This statement raised tensions. On the other hand, remarks by Aaron David Miller in a piece, “Six big lies about how Jerusalem runs Washington,” that appeared in Foreign Policy Magazine could have serious impacts upon the bilateral relations between the US and Israel. In his analysis on the current state of bilateral relations between the US and Israel, Miller makes the following points:
1- The American-Israeli relations are based on mutually agreed values and principles.
2- Obama holds full control over whether a war is necessary against Iran in the election year.
3- Obama is not completely supportive of Israel; like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama is just a pro-Israeli president. This analysis means that those who are spending efforts to draft policies in support of Tel Aviv should not raise their expectations.
Will Israel really attack Iran?
Even though the Middle East, where the “Camp David” order has been destroyed by the Arab Spring, is experiencing some difficulties, it appears that Islamic groups are becoming more influential in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Israeli decision-makers who are concerned about the strong re-emergence of Islamic parties in these countries are attempting to develop political arguments that would seek to preserve the current state of affairs in other countries in the region including Iran.
However, Iran’s insistence to continue its work on its nuclear program despite international sanctions is pushing Israel to the edge. The race between the Republicans and Democrats in the US is being influenced by lobbying groups. In response to AIPAC, which asks for a more hawkish stance from the US, the J Street movement (a pro-Israel group that supports a two state solution) offers an alternative discourse. The Obama administration, on the eve of the upcoming presidential elections, may take action to ensure that this movement becomes more influential. The J Street Group which favors more peaceful policies in the Palestinian-Israeli issue is one of the groups that the Obama administration could rely on to advance diplomatic solutions in respect to the Iranian issue. It is not possible for the Obama administration to be successful in the upcoming elections if it wavers between the two groups. It is also likely that relations between the US and Israel will become more tense after 2013.
In 2013, the US, which is reluctant to take action for a military operation against Iran in 2012, will have to address the stronger Israeli stance and policies. It is certain that Israel, which sees the nuclear capacity of Iran as a threat to its security and national integrity is not satisfied that Washington’s policies see diplomatic negotiations as a necessity.
Israel’s basic concern at this point is that Iran’s existing nuclear policy could advance. For Iran, which will likely become successful in its nuclear program, the Israeli weapons and missile systems will not be harmful to its nuclear arsenal. In addition to the probable repercussions of the Arab Spring, the Israeli predicament is further affected by the democratization efforts and demands in the region. This is one of the reasons why Israel, after losing its allies and friends in the region after the Arab Spring, views Iran as the only enemy.
A probable Israeli-Iran conflict in 2013 can become a turning point for the current policies of the US vis-à-vis Israel. This could dramatically affect Israeli-American relations in the aftermath of 2013. However, the probable attitude of Turkey as a rising star that assumes lead roles in NATO, in a potential Israeli-Iranian conflict is not reviewed or evaluated in the 2013 American policies. Turkey’s growing role is shown by the fact that a possible Israeli attack against Iran in 2013 is as tied to the NATO Anti-missile Sheild System in Kürecik as it is to American elections.
Bahraini Women and the Revolution: Challenges, Successes and Hopes
Presented at Gender and Women’s Studies in the Arab Region Conference, The American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE, 7-9 March, 2012.
The Past Decade in Syria: The Dialectic of Stagnation and Reform
by Abed Ayyad
Discussion of the socioeconomic transformations within Syria which are driving the present unrest and disenchantment within the country.
Since February 2011, protests and demonstrations have erupted in Syria, some of them organized by young activists who... more
Since February 2011, protests and demonstrations have erupted in Syria, some of them organized by young activists who have used various tools, such as local contacts or social media networks, while others were spontaneous rallies. These events have taken place in small towns of about 100,000 inhabitants and in some large urban centers in both coastal and inland areas, while the largest cities, those with more than 1 million inhabitants, have remained untouched by the unrest.
The most violent episodes have taken place in peripheral cities, such as Deraa, then Douma, which suffer primarily, especially Deraa and the cities in Rif Dimashq, from multidimensional marginalization, oppression by local authorities, and repression by an arbitrary central government, with limited benefits from economic growth. These cities suffer low human development indicators, high rates of unemployment and poverty, and high age-dependency.
However, the common feature that these protests share with Damascus youth movements is that the people involved are in the 15-24 age group, or the extended 15-35 age group, who are the most vulnerable groups and take initiatives more than any other. These groups suffer the highest unemployment rates, and include new youth groups which interact with "the winds of revolution" sweeping other Arab countries.