Syrian - FSU
Military Cooperation
Ze'ev Wolfson
The following analysis of Syria-FSU military
cooperation is based mainly on Russian, Ukrainian and other CIS sources
which are not generally used by western researchers. The analysis
clarifies that the Syrians have managed to make good use of the
disintegration of the Soviet Union and of the “gray” market for arms,
which was “blooming” in Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia etc. in the early
1990s.
By
“shopping” in that way, Syria was able to solve some of its army's most
urgent problems, such as supplying it with ammunition and spare parts, and
it could also refresh its arsenal of light and anti-tank weaponry. There
is no indication that Damascus will abandon in the future the ramifying
and good relations that it established in these countries Syria plays a
very important role in Russia’s plans and aspirations to return to the
Middle East and Damascus does not even pay its debts and bargains on
making very modest scaled arms orders. It knows Moscow needs it both for
strategic and commercial objectives.
back to
top
The
Refugee Issue and the Demographic Aspect
Atalia Ben-Meir
The problem of the Palestinian refugees will
overshadow the next stage in the talks between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority. Substantial pressure will be exerted on Israel to comply with
the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” of the Palestinian
refugees, the consensus being that peace in the Middle East will not
endure without resolving the refugee question.
For 50 years the Arabs have set the ground rules for
the discourse on the Palestinian refugees. They have taken control of
nearly all the international “playing fields”, arrogating the right to
fabricate the facts. Their contentions have become axiomatic in every
debate on the resolution of the problem, thus constituting the framework
within which diplomats, politicians and academics operate. They have made
the plight of the refugees a potent weapon in their arsenal to
delegitimize the State of Israel. In contrast, the world has been
impervious to the trauma undergone by the Jewish refugees from Arab
countries.
This was evident in the proceedings of the Regional
Work Group, set up within the parameters of the Madrid conference. In the
course of the deliberations of the Second Plenary (in Ottawa, November
1992), the Israelis proposed treating the problem of final status of the
Palestinian refugee problem in the context of population exchange: the
Palestinian refugees had been replaced by the influx of Jewish refugees
from the Arab countries. The Palestinian delegation countered this notion
of “exchange” by contending that the Jewish immigrants to Israel had come
voluntarily, while the Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their
homes.
However, in dealing with
the “right of return” it should never be forgotten that the bulk of the
Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine were “new immigrants” (Between
1922 and 1939 Arab immigration swelled, attracted by the prosperity of the
“Zionist” economy. The Arab population during these 17 years increased by
216% in Haifa, by 134% in Jaffa and 97% in Jerusalem)
whereas the Jews had resided in the Arab countries for millennia. Whereas
the Palestinian Arabs were relegated to the margins of society, Jewish
refugees underwent a long and difficult process of adaptation and
integration into Israeli society.
Perhaps in recognition of this, the preamble to the
Madrid Declaration mentions UN Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which
refrain from making a direct reference to Palestinian refugees but rather
refer to refugees as a generic term.
The
parameters of the debate on resolving the problem of the Palestinian
refugees should not revolve around the refugees; this transforms the means
to an end. The axis around which the debate should revolve is the
imperative of an enduring peace. Peace will endure only if the security of
Israel is guaranteed throughout the peace process and afterwards. This
begs the question of whether, in the pursuit of peace, concessions will be
made that could compromise the Jewish state.
back to
top
Germany, “Historikerstreit”
and The “Goldhagen Debate”
Susanne Urban-Fahr
Since 1945 (West) Germany had to deal with the
question of how to create the remembrance for the victims of the Shoah
who were murdered by Germans and the other executioners who helped them in
the occupied countries. While East Germany tried to do it in a dogmatic
way – to manifest that the GDR is “anti-Nazism” and therefore the question
about guilt and responsibility does not exist! – West Germany was clothed
in silence. After the 1970s there were some media like films and books
which broke this silence. A widespread culture of remembrance was built up
by official institutions and by some individual initiatives and beside the
“normal” anti-Semitism the outstanding face of Germany showed the will to
remember. Then there was in 1987 the “Historikerstreit” and after this the
“Goldhagen debate” in 1996 and in 1998 the “Walser-Bubis-Debate” – the
last one between the German author Martin Walser and the head of the
German Jews who are unified in the “Zentralrat”, Ignatz Bubis (who died in
autumn 1999). All the debates were dealing with the need to remember and
the question if the Shoah was really a unique genocide in the
history of mankind. So it could be summarized that for nearly 15 years
there has been a tendency not only to compare the Shoah to other
crimes against humanity or even to the life of the Germans between 1933
and 1945, but to put this period, like any one period, into the whole of
German history, so that these twelve years have their significance
minimized in the long run. This tendency is growing and even in the
official institutions in which remembrance is “created”, it exists more
and more. Because of this, an end cannot really be seen to the rapid and
intensive – and, for Jews, often hurtful – debates: they will continue –
in a way which will show more and more indifference towards the victims.
back to
top
"Where - O Israel?"
Hillel Weiss
The phenomenon of the absence of the Jewish people or
of the Jew from the “peace process”, or from reality altogether, is
largely an absence of representations. Does the Jewish people exist in the
representations of its literature, culture, and art in any way that is not
a mockery? Does the Jewish people exist in law, in representation through
judicial rulings, in society and in economic life, in a non-sectorial
media?
In actuality, there is no real Jewish people and it
has no spokesman. Thus the Jewish people has no right to
self-determination and no claim to sovereignty. And in fact, virtually no
one is seeking it or claiming it.
The Jewish people exists only in remembering the
Holocaust. It has become an “imaginary people”.
This problem forms the subject of the article, which
seeks to characterize the global mood that today is called postmodernism,
its manifestations, and its contribution to the deconstruction of the
concept of nationalism in general and of the Jewish people in particular.
Why does the Jew fear
himself and flee from existence to nonexistence? What are the
contributions of technological metaphors based on real inventions, which
contribute their metaphors to the destruction of identity? What harm is
caused by the only partially accurate expression “The medium is the
message?” The article considers the destruction of values, such as the
concept of democracy, human dignity, and so on; as well as the domination
of the world by the “global administration”. It points to phenomena of
attrition and self-deception that, instead of bolstering the national
existence, weaken it, such as the war against Holocaust denial and the
harm that this causes. This war is a psychological refuge from a new
Holocaust, as if the non-denial of the Holocaust that has already occurred
could produce a defense against anti-Semitism when the internal
anti-Semitism is stronger than the external kind.
The article deals with the
damage to academic discourse; the concepts of “imaginary”, “virtual
imaginary communities”, “discourse”, and “multiculturalism”, and
counterpoises to them the need for a renewal of the national essentiality,
arguing in favor of the building of the Temple and the establishment of
the Sanhedrin.
back to
top
The
Rule of Law in the Palestinian Authority
Ilan Berman
In the years since its creation as a result of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Palestinian Authority has exhibited
serious deficiencies in governance and lawmaking. Instances of graft and
corruption are widespread, with losses of governmental funding and
international aid estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Similarly, monopolization and unfair practices dominate the Palestinian
economy, stifling foreign investment and creating rampant unemployment and
stagnation. Violations of human rights and individual freedoms, ranging
from unjust imprisonment to torture have also become commonplace.
These trends have been perpetuated and promoted by
the governmental structure of the PA itself. The lack of independence in
the judiciary and legislature has created a political vacuum. Laws
providing basic individual freedoms and a separation of powers between the
different branches of government are strikingly absent, making the
Authority unable to impose the rule of law substantively. At the same
time, Chairman Yasser Arafat and his Cabinet have failed to respond to
growing calls for reform from the population and members of the
government. As a result, popular support for Arafat and his Cabinet has
waned, while radical Islamic contingents within the Palestinian body
politic have begun to gather force. The absence of the rule of law thus
represents a major threat to normalized relations between Israel and the
Palestinians, movements toward democracy on the part of the Palestinians,
and perhaps even the peace process itself.
The paper looks at the current state of democracy and
the rule of law within the Palestinian Authority, including:
-
A study of the structure of Palestinian government,
including the scope and powers of the Palestinian Legislative Council
and judiciary;
-
An examination of current human rights practices
and instances of corruption and graft within the Palestinian government
and ministries;
-
An analysis of monopolies and unfair practices
within the Palestinian economy; and
-
An assessment of current deficiencies in
transparency and judicial independence within the PA.
Given these trends, this paper will also seek to
identify the major challenges to the Palestinian rule of law and long-term
stability. Among these trends is the lack of a clear line of succession
within the PA cabinet and the challenge to the Palestinian Authority posed
by radical Islamic organizations. Finally, the paper will examine
prospects for strengthening democracy and the rule of law within the
Palestinian Authority.
back to
top
Between a
Nation's Charity and the Vision of Independence
Aharon Ben-Ami A historical paradox by which the US has been
considered a friend and ally of the State of Israel, while, in fact, it
has consistently undermined Israel’s chances of securing defensible
boundaries vis-à-vis the Arab world, is discussed in this article
stage by stage.
Since the War of Independence in 1948, through the
wars of 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982 (including constant terrorism and
attrition between wars) the same pattern of appeasement of the Arab
aggressors and forcing precarious territorial conditions upon Israel has
repeated itself. The present situation seems like a form of servitude
under the guise of alliance, which, in fact, becomes more and more
detrimental to a stable peace in the Middle East.
The climax of Israel’s predicament is now reflected
in the so-called “peace process” by which Israel is being pushed back to
its vulnerable borderlines of June 1967. Yet instead of Jordan as its
eastern neighbor, we now have the PLO (with the US as a sponsor and
arbiter) that by its very raison d’être
is disposed once again to ignite the entire Middle East by cries to
liberate the holy city of Jerusalem, etc. Thus, although Israel and the
PLO have reached an agreement of mutual recognition and partition by
themselves in Oslo, the two sides have noted and agreed since then, as
obedient vassals depending on their over-lord in Washington, to draw the
final lines of a new partition of this tiny land.
back to
top
Conventional Warfare and the Israeli Military Doctrine towards the 21st
Century
Ehud Eilam
Israel has always relied on conventional warfare to
survive in the Middle East. The IDF’s victories in the wars enabled Israel
to remain an independent state. This article examines the various aspects
of conventional warfare in the Middle East during the past 50 years,
focusing on the Yom Kippur War. It will attempt to demonstrate the
particular importance of this war for Israel’s military doctrine, and its
bearing on possible future wars.
The battlefield has gradually become more crowded
with forces and weapons. This limited the ability of an army that relied
on maneuver, such as the IDF, to destroy the enemy. One of the chief
problems was the increase in the range and penetration of different
missiles and cannons. This caused the battlefield to expand, but at the
same time restricted it by complicating its advance, as the Yom Kippur War
shows.
Other key factors to conventional warfare were the
importance of logistics, and the improvement of the main weapon systems,
in most of the armies in the area.
The direction of conventional warfare in the coming
times is not clear.
Possibly firepower will neutralize attacks of an
army, certainly adding to its cost. The situation of World War I may
repeat itself, i.e., no side will be able to strike decisively. Wars may
turn into wars of attrition, bringing the states in the Middle East to
consider using non-conventional weapons, so conventional war may,
paradoxically perhaps, not deteriorate. In order to prevent mass
destruction in the Middle East, Israel may choose to fight “the old way”.
In this case, the lessons of the 1973 (Yom Kippur)
War, along with others learned from military history and the art of war,
will continue to be vital to Israel’s military doctrine.
back to
top |