Former Egyptian minister of state for foreign affairs Boutros Boutros-Ghali (later appointed UN secretary-general), coined the term “cold peace” to describe Israel-Egypt relations, a phrase that has identified the bilateral relations ever since. Others suggested the terms “negative peace” or “fragile peace.” These terms convey the idea that peace is made by governments and not by people; that the issues between the two countries have not yet been completely resolved (for example, the Palestinian issue); and that war continues to be an option, as reflected in Egyptian war plans in which Israel is seen as an enemy. Is this term still appropriate to describe the relationship between Israel and Egypt after 40 years?

An analysis of the treaty reveals that there are at least ten components that have ensured stability over the years: First and foremost, peace has never been in danger. Although Egypt has recalled its ambassador to Cairo several times during periods of crisis (such as the 1982 Lebanon War, the 2000 Al-Aqsa, or Second Intifada, etc.), it has never severed diplomatic relations, suspended or canceled peace. Even during the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood under Muhammad Morsi (2013-2012), Israel received clear signals that the agreement was not in danger.

Second, Egypt has always respected military agreements. Even when the number of Egyptian troops deployed in the Sinai violated the treaty, it was done with Israel’s permission. Third, the embassies, consulates and academic center continued to function even in periods of crisis (such as after the attack on the embassy in Cairo and its evacuation in September 2011). Fourth, Israeli ships sail through the Suez Canal. Fifth, the economic boycott of Israel was formally lifted. Sixth, Egypt is doing its best to prevent infiltrations or terrorist attacks from its territory into Israel. Seventh, between the countries, there are air, sea and land links. Eighth, there is minimal trade, which increased after the signing of the Qualified Industrial Zone in 2004. The $15 billion agreement to supply Israeli gas to Egypt over 10 years gave the commercial-economic relations a boost as well. However, the large gas reserves that Egypt recently found in its territory raises questions regarding the implementation of the agreement. In any event, Egypt recently established the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum with the participation of Israel.

Ninth, there is security and intelligence cooperation, which was strengthened after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi rose to power in 2013. Indeed, Sisi has recently confirmed that Israel is assisting Egypt in various ways in its war against jihadist Islamic organizations in the Sinai. The two countries also maintain dialogue and coordination on Gaza and the Hamas regime. In fact, the security coordination with Israel’s security and intelligence officials can be defined as “warm”. Finally, Israel and the Jewish organizations in the US lobbied Congress to ensure the continuation of the military aid to Egypt.

In contrast, the peace agreement suffers from several basic weaknesses: First, the hostile media attacks against Israel and its policies (which is legitimate in itself) sometimes reveal an anti-Semitic tone. TV series broadcast during Ramadan often recite negative stereotypes of Jew. The state, which controls media outlets, can prevent – or reduce – the frequency of these broadcasts, but it refrains from doing so in order to allow steam to be used against Israel instead of the regime. Second, the Egyptian parliament, trade unions and academia oppose any signs of normalization with Israel. For example, MP Tawfiq Okasha was expelled from parliament after meeting with Israeli Ambassador Haim Koren. Although there is an academic center in Cairo, there is no academic cooperation between Israeli and Egyptian universities. Moreover, there are 13 departments that teach Hebrew and Judaism in Egyptian universities, but except for occasional visits to the academic center for learning purposes, there is no institutional connection.

Third, most of the intellectuals in Egypt, regardless of their political or religious affiliation, vehemently criticize Israel. Over the years, there were some courageous intellectuals – such as Lutfi al-Khuli, Ali Salem and Saad Eddin Ibrahim – who were part of the Egyptian peace movement and even visited Israel. But they were harshly criticized. Fourth, Egypt indeed allows its citizens to visit Israel, but in practice it piles up many hurdles. Citizens who want to visit Israel are required to obtain special security permission. Finally, the Egyptian educational system continues to teach content that enhances the negative image of Jews and Israelis. Although the peace treaty was introduced into textbooks – which show that Israel is formally recognized – the historical narrative does not legitimize Israel’s existence, and its citizens are generally described negatively.

This analysis shows that if we use the metaphor of temperature to evaluate peace between Israel and Egypt, in certain areas, such as security and intelligence, we have “warm” peace. But in other areas, such as media, education, academia and civil society, peace is still “cold”. On balance, peace with Egypt can be described as “tepid.” However, if peace is measured by its degree of stability, it is far from being fragile. The hostility between Egypt and Israel – which included no less than five wars – prevailed for 25 years (1948-1973), whereas peace has existed for 40 years. Moreover, an in-depth examination of Egypt’s economic and social problems, especially the problems arising from its demographic growth (Egypt has a population of almost 100 million) prevent Egypt from seriously considering a war against Israel. In this respect, peace is not only an Egyptian need, but a necessity. This is therefore a durable and stable peace, even if it is mild in terms of temperature.

What else can be done to “warm up” peace? Israel must solve the Palestinian problem (which is in its interest anyway), so that the Egyptian regime and the public will not feel guilty about abandoning the Palestinian cause. Egypt, for its part, should deepen the foundations of peace through the media and education. Both countries should make increased use of their foreign offices – and not rely on the security and intelligence apparatuses – to deepen cooperation on the diplomatic and civic levels as well. The chances that such things will happen are not great, but it remains to be hoped that by the 50th anniversary of the peace agreement, we will see further improvement in Israeli-Egyptian relations.

Prof. Elie Podeh is a Board Member at the Mitvim Institute. He teaches Middle Eastern studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Stable but Tepid: The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty After 40 Years הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט Israel and Egypt: Strategic Partnership, Civil Remoteness? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט Egypt and Saudi Arabia: A Predictable Rapprochement הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט The Islamic State’s Sinai Attack: Commentary & Analysis הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The impetus to reconcile Israel and Syria crystallized after Ankara experienced a warming of ties upon the succession of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad by his son Bashar in 2004. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Davutoğlu hoped secret talks would convince Assad and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to engage in direct negotiations under the supervision of the U.S., which would serve Turkish strategic interests and score the Justice and Development Party (AKP) international accolades.

However, within six months negotiations had already stalled. With his country on the brink of open conflict with Hamas, Olmert visited Ankara in late December 2008. The two leaders sat in Erdoğan’s official residence and poured over details with Assad over the telephone. But four days later, Israel launched a military operation to curtail Hamas aggression, and the negotiations quickly came undone.

For Erdoğan, Olmert’s decision to visit Ankara, when he knew full well that the military operation would derail talks, was unforgivable. Rather than salvage the remains however, Erdoğan went on the offensive. Sitting on a panel with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 29 January 2009, Erdoğan excoriated Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Regardless of its dispute with Israel, Turkey remained a key player in the eyes of the Obama administration. Washington was convinced – perhaps because of Erdoğan’s previous offers – that Ankara could assist in containing Iran’s nuclear program, the dominant issue in American foreign policy. In October 2009, the Obama administration encouraged Erdoğan and Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to separately and discreetly engage in talks with Iran, as the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) proceeded to deliver a new sanctions resolution.

Instead of proving Turkey’s quality as a mediator, the resulting Tehran Declaration positioned Ankara and Washington at loggerheads. On June 9, 2010, the UNSC voted in favor of a sanctions regime. Turkey and Brazil were the only countries to oppose the measure. Some American analysts argued that the Obama administration should never have given such responsibility to a country so dependent on Iranian trade and energy: sanctions on Iran would negatively impact Turkey’s economy, and therefore it could not function as an impartial actor. Many characterized the Turkish-Brazilian initiative as simply naïve, while others even claimed that this was yet another example of Turkey trying to distance itself from the West.

There are two lessons than can be derived from these unsuccessful mediation efforts. First, the “zero problems” policy should have only been applied to Turkey’s relationship with its neighbors, not the relationships between Turkey’s neighbors or relations between various actors in neighboring states. Turkey possesses neither the carrots nor the sticks to be a suitable mediator in those scenarios. More importantly, the affairs of countries in Turkey’s immediate neighborhood have too critical an impact on Turkey’s own fortunes for it to be considered an unbiased third party. This overextension of Turkish diplomacy came at a serious price. Second, while conceptually the notion of Turkish exceptionalism has found a place in Western political hyperbole, in reality Turkey is ill suited to function as a mediator between Western and Middle Eastern interests. If Erdoğan and Davutoğlu are committed to reframing Turkey’s foreign policy, then settling their own country’s numerous international disputes must be prioritized over the dream of functioning as an arbitrator in global affairs.

(originally published in the Hurriyet Daily News)

הפוסט Turkey: The almost mediator state הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט Turkey: The Almost Mediator State הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט Mitvim Experts Weigh In On Egypt-Qatar Rapprochement הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

In a clear and loud voice, Mahmoud Abbas renounced the disgraceful crime of kidnapping three teens in Gush Etzion, and said in front of representatives of states which have no diplomatic relations with Israel that he was determined to continue the security coordination with it.

Abbas declared that the PA would do everything in its power to make sure that the kidnapped teens are located and returned safely to their families. He asserted that this was a Palestinian interest.

Abbas chose to face the populist atmosphere on the Palestinian street courageously. The criminal abduction was accepted by many groups there as a legitimate act. Campaigns celebrating the capture of “three new Gilad Shalits” began popping up on the social media. Not only in the Gaza Strip, but also at Birzeit University, the incident was marked by handing out candy to passersby.

Despicably, under false pretense, the Palestinian terror organizations even began claiming that “three Israeli soldiers” had been taken captive.

הפוסט By condemning abduction, Abbas proved he’s a statesman הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

This observation first emerged after the events of June 30, 2013, in which the masses that captured the city’s streets were once again assisted by the military establishment, which led a de facto coup against the regime of Mohamed Morsi, the president chosen by the Muslim Brotherhood.

It currently appears that many of the revolutionary goals have not been achieved.

It is difficult to define the revolution’s goals precisely because it fused social elements with a different, and possibly contradictory, agenda. In general, the revolutionaries’ main goals were to topple Hosni Mubarak; remove the authoritarian regime and replace it with a pluralistic political system; and improve economic conditions, especially employment.

Mubarak was indeed overthrown, but his regime – based on the state’s “deep-seated” institutions (such as the military, the civil courts, bureaucracy, and al-Azhar University) and political elites – remained in place.

The new political system failed to maintain stability or entrench itself after the dissolution of the parliament elected in January 2012. The economic situation in Egypt grew worse as political instability discouraged investors and led to the collapse of the tourist industry, which made it more difficult for the new regime to take action to improve the national economy.

The elements involved in the second “revolution” on June 30, 2013, emphatically claimed that they were redirecting the revolution to its original course, from which it had been deviated during Morsi’s term. However, events since have fanned widespread concerns that the revolutionary train is not yet back on track, for several reasons.

First, the military, which functioned as of the “guardian of the revolution,” has now become a party in the political struggle, with an unmistakable interest in maintaining the status quo. Second, Brotherhood activities were outlawed and its leaders thrown into prison. Third, human rights activists and media professionals who “crossed the line” by criticizing the ruler (whether Morsi or the army’s Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi) were thrown in jail or had their programs canceled. Fourth, Mubarak was acquitted and public funds probably smuggled out of the country were not recovered.

All these developments indicate that while Mubarak may have been deposed, Mubarakism is alive and well.

Disconcerting signs of the future of the Egyptian revolution are also expressed in its new constitution, to be ratified in a referendum in January. A 50-member council of experts (which markedly failed to include representatives of the Brotherhood) submitted a draft constitution to the provisional president, Adly Mansour. The new draft is more liberal and social than previous constitutions, but can hardly be called “revolutionary.”

It does protect the rights of children and of Jews and Christians (but not members of non-monotheistic religions), prohibits torture and discrimination against women, and assumes state responsibility for citizens’ health and education.

However, the constitution also reinforces and institutionalizes the autonomous status of the military establishment and the civil judiciary. For example, the military budget is determined according to the military’s needs, as defined by the National Defense Council, and is not subject to parliamentary review. The National Defense Council is also in charge of appointing the defense minister (for the next two presidential terms, at least). Moreover, the constitution permits military trials of civilians prosecuted for offenses in “military areas,” while the president of the Supreme Constitutional Court (which examines the constitutionality of all proposed legislation) will now be elected by the court rather than an external body.

The constitution remains vague in many places, leaving the final decision open to legislation, and dependent on the composition of the to-be elected parliament. In other words, as Nathan Brown and Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have stated, the new constitution appears to be a victory for the country’s “deep-seated” institutions.

After the June 30 revolution, the liberal-secular forces unexpectedly found themselves in an impossible situation: After joining forces with the military to oust the Brotherhood, they now see that the military has retained its authority in the political system and has reduced the potential for instituting changes in alignment with the original goals of the revolution.

Despite their deep ideological differences, the secularists and the Brotherhood now paradoxically have a common interest in reducing the military’s involvement in politics. Their collaboration recalls the early days of the revolution, when ideologically diverse groups came together to topple Mubarak, with a significant difference: Then, the military stood on the sidelines and did not intervene, but now the military is a major player with an unmistakable agenda of its own.

Three years after the January 25 revolution, the passions that characterized its protagonists appear to have been replaced by despair and frustration resulting from the understanding that a significant change in the foundations of the political system is difficult, if not impossible. In view of the strong desire to restore stability and safety on public streets, the recent personality cult surrounding Sisi is not surprising. This cult recalls the rituals surrounding mythological president Abdel Nasser.

Where, then, is Egypt headed? Is the January 25-June 30 Revolution, the continuation of the historical revolutionary process that began on January 25, or do the events of June 30 mark the beginning of the end of the revolutionary cycle? From the limited historical perspective available to us, it is difficult to decide with certainty, but the Egyptian revolution does appear to be “stuck.”

Armed with the lessons of their recent past, the masses may take to the streets once again to protest against military involvement in politics, but no civil alternative is visible on the horizon.

Under the current circumstances, the revolution will only proceed from the top down, and will be dependent on the goodwill of the military elite.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט The Egyptian revolution is stuck הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Two years later Erdoğan has become a persona non grata in Egypt. Following Morsi’s downfall, Erdoğan and other Turkish ministers lashed out at the Egyptian Army. Erdoğan considered Morsi’s ouster a blow to democracy and a betrayal of the popular will, and resolved that Turkey could not sit back as the violence in Egypt escalated.

Erdoğan sparks outrage in Egypt. He is perceived to be meddling in Egypt’s internal affairs and his conduct considered a breach of diplomatic protocol, aimed at further dividing Egyptian society.

As the tension mounted, Egypt also announced that it would deny Erdoğan access from its territory to the Gaza Strip. This supposed sanction may be a blessing in disguise for Erdoğan. Since 2011, Hamas leaders and residents of Gaza have been awaiting Erdoğan’s visit. Dates have been set, announcements made and plans approved – but the visit has yet to take place. Reasons vary, but Erdoğan’s inability to carry out his Gaza visit exemplifies the gap between Turkey’s foreign policy declarations and their implementation.

These recent tensions undermine one of the interesting post-Arab Spring coalitions. During Morsi’s term, Egypt and Turkey, two Western allies who, in the past, inhibited each other’s efforts to gain regional hegemony, began building an intimate relationship.

The rise of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was welcomed by Erdoğan. It was thus only natural for the AKP to invite Morsi to Turkey, as a guest of honor, at its September 2012 congress.

Turkey was delighted to lend a helping hand, promising Morsi’s Egypt unprecedented financial aid. The two nation’s militaries also began building closer relations. In November 2012, Erdoğan made another visit to Egypt; this time under the pretext of Israel’s operation; a crisis that also motivated Davutoğlu to visit Gaza while hostilities were still ongoing.

Davutoğlu coined the term “Axis of Democracy” to describe the emerging relationship between Turkey and Egypt. However, in a development evocative of the collapse of the strategic partnership between Erdoğan and Bashar al-Assad following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, the Turko-Egyptian partnership did not survive the upheaval in Egypt.

Erdoğan may have considered Morsi an ally, but he was not devoid of criticism of his policies. In his 2011 visit to Cairo, Erdoğan marked the path which he believed political Islam in Egypt should pursue, sparking resentment among Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. “I hope the new Egyptian regime will be secular”, he said, adding that while he personally was a Muslim, the nation which he headed was a secular one. “I recommend a secular constitution for Egypt,” declared Erdoğan, emphasizing that secularism was not an “enemy of religion.”

The roadmap that Erdoğan outlined was, in his opinion, the key to success, for a religious party aspiring to successfully rule over a country where the military establishment and a large portion of the public consider political Islam an enemy. Erdoğan’s attempt to do so in Turkey was successful. Morsi’s similar Egyptian endeavor was not.

In 2011, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood dismissed Erdoğan’s warning as an intervention in internal Egyptian affairs. “You cannot transfer the experience of other countries to Egypt,” responded the movement’s spokesman. Indeed, Erdoğan’s advice was not heeded and the policies Morsi implemented in its place contributed significantly to his ouster.

During his term as president, Morsi chose to follow in the footsteps of Necmettin Erbakan, Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister, who was overthrown in 1997 following a military ultimatum, after only one year in office. The perception of Morsi was that of a president with a decidedly Islamist agenda, who preferred to appoint members of the Muslim Brotherhood to key government positions and attempted to rapidly undermine the secular establishment.

Morsi was viewed as a president who had the Muslim Brotherhood’s interests and not those of the Egyptian people, at heart. This approach significantly contrasts that adopted by Erdoğan during his first years as prime minister. These days Erdoğan might miss Morsi, but he undoubtedly believes that had the Egyptian Prime Minister heeded his advice – his would have been a different fate.

(originally published in the Hurriyet Daily News)

הפוסט If only Morsi had listened to Erdoğan הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

In Tunisia, Egypt and Libya free democratic elections were held and brought to power Islamic regimes. But contrary to commentators’ alarming predictions, these regimes have been moderate or pragmatic in their domestic and foreign policies, including their attitudes to Israel and Jews. Nevertheless, several opposition groups in these countries are militant Salafists-Islamists and Jihadists, being both anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic. This is also the case in Syria, where various Islamic groups are still fighting against the Baathist rule of Bashar Assad.

Egypt – the most populous and influential Arab state (some 88 million people) – is the most significant case to focus in on. It is governed by the ideologically religious Muslim Brotherhood, but its new constitution provides, inter alia, for a pluralist “democratic system” with freedom of expression and media, and equality for all citizens, including Christians and Jews. They will also be granted religious and worship rights according to the values of “tolerance and moderation.”

Nevertheless, the new Islamic regime has attempted to control the media and the legislative system, encountering strong opposition. In regional matters it has also reflected moderate pragmatic policies by rejecting the overtures of Shiite Iran toward improving bilateral relations (an exception to this rejection was the agreement to renew bilateral flights, which were soon after halted), while tightening ties with Turkey, perhaps within a “new democratic axis of power” (the Turkish foreign minister’s phrase). Egypt has also come closer to Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states that are deeply concerned (alongside Israel and Turkey) by the Iranian threat, as well as by the survival of the pro-Iranian regime in Syria.

With regard to Israel, despite hostile expressions by Islamic militants, Egypt’s President Morsi has appointed a new ambassador to Israel, exchanged greetings with President Peres and cooperated with Israel in reaching an informal agreement with Hamas to end the IDF operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012.

To be sure, President Morsi has a vested interest to settle not only the Hamas-Israel conflict, but also the entire Palestinian-Israeli dispute. According to him, “The Palestinian issue is first priority for Egypt and the rest of the Arab and Muslim States,” as he stated at the Islamic Solidarity Conference held in Mecca in August 2012.

Hashim Kandil, Egypt’s Prime Minister, noted at the Davos conference this January that his country expected that the new Israeli government would renew the peace process with the Palestinians for the sake of its own interests, and the interests of Egypt and the entire region. Like all Arab states and most Muslim nations, Egypt has continued to support, up to the present, the Saudi/Arab League peace initiative of March 2002.

As is well-known, this initiative, which has been recently approved again, offers Israel peace, security and normalized relations with all Arab countries, in exchange for Israel agreeing to the erection of a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as settling the Palestinian refugees’ problem according to U.N. Resolution 194 (of December 1948). Israel has not yet accepted this unprecedented initiative, which has the potential to be a critical breakthrough in Arab-Israeli relations.

Indeed, Egypt and other new Islamic regimes in the Arab world have continued to support the Saudi/Arab peace initiative, while the Palestinian issue has gained great interest and solidarity among the Muslim masses, notably amongst militant groups. Simultaneously hatred for Israel and for Jews continues to increase among many Arabs and Muslims, because of the continued occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel, especially of East Jerusalem with its Muslim holy shrines.

Consequently it is in Israel’s vital interest to neutralize or decrease this negative sentiment while improving its image and position among moderate/pragmatic Muslim groups and governments. These goals can be achieved by accepting the Arab peace initiative and renewing the peace process with the Palestinians. Such crucial steps are likely to facilitate Israel’s potential alliance with Sunni Muslim states, notably Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf Emirates, vis-à-vis the common hazard emanating from Iran and its allies – Lebanese Hezbollah and the Alawi government in Syria.

Such an alliance must be coordinated by the U.S. with the tacit, gradual participation of Israel – provided Israel makes substantial progress in the peace negotiations with the Palestinians and simultaneously accepts the Arab Peace initiative. Alas, as during his previous government, the Netanyahu’s current cabinet is unlikely to assume such a pragmatic policy.

A significant change may occur only under U.S. pressure and with a reshuffle of the Israeli government, namely replacing Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party with the Labor party (and perhaps also Shas). The chances for this happening are slim; it is far more likely that Israel will continue to aggravate and intensify its regional and international isolation.

(originally published in Haaretz)

הפוסט Israel Is Choosing Regional Isolation, Not Alliances הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.