The Future of Arab-Israeli Relations: A Middle East Common Market?

Israeli-Palestinian relations remain contentious.  Recent demonstrations held by Palestinians who celebrate Ramadan at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem each year resulted after  who police erected fences in part of the area.  Clashes broke out with the police, and an anti-Arab youth group affiliated with a far-right party joined the fray.  Hamas followed the clashes with rocket attacks on southern Israel eliciting an Israeli bombing of the launch sites.  

 

This past week, Human Rights Watch Report criticizing Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.  The Israeli government was accused on imposing an Apartheid system on Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem and the Palestine National Authority (West Bank). 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/world/middleeast/israel-apartheid-palestinians-hrw.html?searchResultPosition=1 

 

Viewed from afar, these events suggest that, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli relations, tous ca change, tous c’est le meme chose.  However, an event which has been given relatively little attention may suggest a way forward for these relations to improve.  Despite a disastrous and largely incoherent foreign policy, one positive step by the Trump administration was fostering the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

It is noteworthy that, soon after relations were in place, large numbers of Israelis boarded airplanes to visit the UAE.  What they discovered was a well-run and prosperous country where local Emiratis welcomed them.  The Emirates and Bahrain’s authoritarian political systems notwithstanding, the following question arises: what might the impact be of expanded ties between Arab states and Israel?  

 

I am particularly interested in exploring the impact of these new relations on Israel’s domestic politics and its impact on its Palestinian Israeli minority. It is often forgotten that one of very 5 Israeli citizens is of Palestinian Arab heritage.  

 

Discrimination notwithstanding, many Palestinian Israelis have been able to benefit from Israel’s excellent university system. A not insignificant segment of young Palestinian Israelis have prospered and developed their own start-ups and entrepreneurial ventures.  Others have been trained in important professions such as engineering and computer science. 

 

As economic ties increase between the UAE, Bahrain and other Arab Gulf states, these Arab youth can look to a more promising future.  Having the professional and business skills, and the advantage of Arabic language fluency and the understanding of Arab culture, Palestinian Israelis can expect that the emerging economic ties between Israel and the Arab Gulf will bring greater financial benefits to Israel’s Arab minority.   What might these benefits look like and could they impact Israeli politics? 

 

One likely impact of the ties Israel has gradually been establishing with Arab countries, especially the UAE, is to bring more financial investments and resources to the Palestinian Israeli community.  If Arab businesses can expand their ventures, then they would be able to hire larger numbers of Palestinian Israelis. With the new diplomatic ties in place, Israel’s Arab citizens are now able to export and sell products in the UAE.

 How might such economic developments affect the political landscape in Israel?  During Israel’s March 2021 elections we saw something quite remarkable take place.  Benjamin Netanyahu, who in the past has used fear of Arab voters supporting center-left parties to mobilize voters on the right, had found himself embroiled in a series of elections, none of which has allowed him to form a stable government.   

 

Thus, it was highly significant that he turned to an Arab party – Islamist no less – in his effort (still ongoing as of this writing) to reach the magic number of 61 seats in the Israeli Knesset which would allow him to remain as prime minister. The very fact that the Arab party in question has indicated that to would be willing to join a Likud government indicates that Palestinian Israelis have realized that remaining on the political sidelines will not bring them improvements in their lives which they seek. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/world/middleeast/israel-election-raam.html?searchResultPosition=10 

 

In other words, Arab legitimation of participating in coalitions with Jewish political parties in Israel has also made it easier for Palestinian Israeli businessmen to work across the Arab world, even though many Palestinian Israelis entertain ambiguous feelings about how they might be betraying their fellow Palestinians beyond Israel.  

Perhaps, most important, the willingness of Israelis Palestinian minority to become partners in an Israeli government and the interaction of Israelis with Arabs in the UAE and the Gulf has the possibility to undermine the fear-mongering of the Likud and far right parties which manipulate a notion of Israel as a “garrison state.”  Thus, the establishment of ties with an increasing number of Arab states has the potential to break the Israeli right-wing’s grip on power and open the way for a center-left government to take office. 

 

The reemergence of the center-left in Israeli politics would be much less supportive of building new settlements or expanding existing ones. With a center-left government in power would be much less apt to seize Palestinian land in the Palestine National Authority.  

 

The larger context for the possible changes which might come about is the development of an economic common market in the Middle East.  If we take the example of France and Germany, which fought each other in two brutal world wars, today we obviously see them working together to continue to institutionalize the European Union, not just for their own benefit but for the other 25 members as well. 

 

The idea of a common market in the MENA region is not a new one.  In my study, Challenging Colonialism: Bank Misr and Egyptian Industrialization, 1920-1941, I examine the efforts of Muhammad Tal’at Harb, the founder of the Bank Misr (Bank of Egypt), which established 22 companies between 1920 and 1941 to promote regional economic integration during the 1930s. 

 Modest in outcomes, Harb’s vision was nevertheless a revolutionary idea for its time, especially in the context of a global depression.  Harb argued that the only way to bring progress to the Arab world and larger Middle East was though economic integration (al-takamul al-iqtisadi).  He proposed developing economic ties between Arab countries during the 1920s and 1930s.  

 

For example, Egypt Air, which today is Egypt’s premier airline, was founded in 1932 and developed the first Arab airline route between Cairo, Jaffa, Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad.  During the 1930s, Egypt Air also established a route for Muslim pilgrims between Jedda and Mecca.  The Bank Misr Transportation Company carried pilgrims from Port Sa'id at the southern mouth of the Suez Canal to Jedda.

Purifying the wells along the pilgrims' land route between Jedda and Mecca, e.g., Kawthar and Zamzam,  Harb significantly reduced the number of pilgrims' deaths from cholera.  To underscore his commitment to improving the pilgrimage - al-hajj - obligatory for all able bodied Muslims, Harb named the Misr Transportation Company two main ships, Kawthar and Zamzam 

 

 

 

Youth and Social Entrepreneurship: A Path Forward for the Generation in Waiting الشباب وريادة الأعمال الاجتماعية: طريق إلى الأمام لـ الجيل المنتظر

YSESD "Demo Day" participants - March 6, 2021

While there has been considerable success in reducing global poverty, much of this effort has been undermined by the spread of the Covid-19 virus. This is especially in LDCs on the Global South whose health systems were ill prepared for the  pandemic. Even without the pandemic, many developing countries suffer from widespread corruption and nepotism and state run industries where there is little incentive by those who manage them to improve their performance. 

With slow economic growth, many countries face the problem of large numbers of youth entering the labor market each year only to find that there are no jobs beyond menial work.  This is especially disheartening for youth who have received a college degree but cannot use the skills they learned through their education.  For all too many youth, the outcome is feelings of disillusionment and lack of hope in the future.   

 

In countries where youth are a large demographic, in certain cases 70% of the population under age 30, this presents a dangerous situation. Crime, violence, and joining extremist groups present an ongoing threat. What can be done to address the problem of youth who see little opportunity for developing a meaningful career? 

 

Unfortunately, youth continue to be largely ignored by those who rule.  Rather than viewing them as important human capital, youth are often viewed with suspicion because they frequently challenge traditional norms and ways of doing things in society.  These rulers fail to comprehend that putting youth to work would not only enhance economic growth, but promote greater social and political stability while training the next generation of leaders in all areas of society at the same time. 

The lack of opportunities available to youth in LDCs, and the potential problems which lack of hope in the future can produce, are key reasons why a group of colleagues and I established the Youth, Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development project (YSESD).  

The goal of the project is to establish an international network of youth social entrepreneurs who will have access to a “talent platform” where they will be able to exchange ideas about potential start-ups or established social entrepreneurial ventures with colleagues, receive mentoring from successful social entrepreneurs, and pitch their projects to potential investors through “shark tank” style competitions. 

 

With a grant from the Rutgers University Research Council, the project began to take shape in a workshop held at the university’s Eagleton Institute of politics in August 2019.  Following the Rutgers workshop, we organized a Core Team to direct the YSESD.  

The Core Team is comprised of Dr. Eric Davis, YSESD Director, Dr. Yass Alkafaji, who directs the Iraq Leadership and Public Policy Program (IPLP) and teaches business administration at the American University of Sharjah, Dr. Abid Ali, a social entrepreneurship specialist and engineer at Dataiku and an instructor at the University of Chicago and Northwestern university, and Mr. Berat Kjamili, CEO of migport.com (“migration portal”) which teaches refugees in Turkey how to become successful social entrepreneurs. 

Youth and Building the New Iraq: the Iraq Public Policy and Leadership Program

In 2020, the YSESD received a grant from the Hollings Center for International Dialogue, which is located in Istanbul and funded by the Office of Economic and Cultural Affairs at the US Department of State.  This grant enabled the YSESD to organize a Workshop on promoting youth social entrepreneurship which included a series of 5 sessions that began in December 2020 and ended in the beginning of March 2021. 

 

The YSESD Workshop represents the culmination of Phase 1 of the project. Its purpose was to begin work in 3 countries - Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey - in which the YSESD Core Team has extensive contacts with the goal of developing a pilot project which could later be applied in other regions of the world.  

YSESD second Workshop session - December 11, 2020

The December 2020 through March 2021 Workshop included youth social entrepreneurs from Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey, as well as mentors, social entrepreneurship venture capitalists, and academics interested in the topic of youth and social entrepreneurship. A group of teams were organized around the YSEDS’s 5 thematic foci.  Each team concentrated on developing projects aligned with one or more of these themes, since the themes obviously overlap. 

 

It was especially unique and exciting that the Workshop teams include social entrepreneurs and mentors from Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey.  The Core Team choose to establish10 Teams which were organized along cross-national lines, and gender balanced. The teams’ organization of was to help the YSESD better assess how youth social entrepreneurs can work together coming from different economic, social and cultural contexts. Thus the goal was to ascertain what types of synergies could be developed using a cross national/cultural social entrepreneurship model instead of a country based one and one with mixed genders. 

 

The youth social entrepreneurs enjoyed meeting their counterparts from other countries.  It was also the first time they had the opportunity to share ideas with youth working on social entrepreneurship in other countries. As we had hoped, many participants discovered new ideas and approaches to problems they had experienced with their social entrepreneurial ventures by discussing them with colleagues in other countries. 

 

As the Workshop sessions progressed, participants learned about how to develop and pitch their social entrepreneurial ideas, The business models they used were able to be refined by the mentoring them received from successful social entrepreneurs.  Most important of all, they were able to develop projects which could be implemented in the future across national boundaries. 

During "Demo Day", the final workshop session held on March 6, 2021, many excellent projects were presented.  These included innovative recycling ventures, ventures to reduce food waste and convert it to fertilizer, public health assessments in urban and rural areas which lack adequate access to health care, electric waste The December 2020 through March 2021 Workshop included youth social entrepreneurs from Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey, as well as mentors, social entrepreneurship venture capitalists, and academics interested in the topic of youth and social entrepreneurship. A group of teams were organized around the YSEDS’s 5 thematic foci.  Each team concentrated on developing projects aligned with one or more of these themes, since the themes obviously overlap. 

 

It was especially unique and exciting that the Workshop teams include social entrepreneurs and mentors from Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey.  The Core Team choose to establish10 Teams which were organized along cross-national lines, and gender balanced. The teams’ organization of was to help the YSESD better assess how youth social entrepreneurs can work together coming from different economic, social and cultural contexts. Thus the goal was to ascertain what types of synergies could be developed using a cross national/cultural social entrepreneurship model instead of a country based one and one with mixed genders. 

 

The youth social entrepreneurs enjoyed meeting their counterparts from other countries.  It was also the first time they had the opportunity to share ideas with youth working on social entrepreneurship in other countries. As we had hoped, many participants discovered new ideas and approaches to problems they had experienced with their social entrepreneurial ventures by discussing them with colleagues in other countries. 

 

As the Workshop sessions progressed, participants learned about how to develop and pitch their social entrepreneurial ideas, The business models they used were able to be refined by the mentoring them received from successful social entrepreneurs.  Most important of all, they were able to develop projects which could be implemented in the future across national boundaries. electric waste reduction in homes, an employment agency to place women university graduates in private sector firms, a venture which offer psychological services to refugee families and their children, and a very successful venture which reduces agricultural product loss through air drying fruits and vegetables to extend their shelf life.

The YSESD is now entering Phase 2 where it will complete the building of its platform - both a public information site and a "talent"  platform where youth social entrepreneurs can benefit from the services described above.  Most important will be the YSESD's efforts to obtain investment funds for project start-ups and established ventures which seek to scale up their efforts. 

If you are interested in the YSESD, please contact Dr. Eric Davis at davis@polisci.rutgers.edu 

 

10 Years After the Arab Spring Uprisings: How can Autocratic Regimes Be Constrained?

Donald Trump boasts of US arms sales to KSA, March 2018

This is the first in a series of posts on suggested initiatives which the West should develop to establish a new forward-looking foreign policy in the MENA region designed to meet the interests of citizens, not despotic and corrupt political and economic elites. 

It has been 10 years since the Arab Spring uprisings sent shock waves throughout the Arab world and the larger Middle East.  Expectations were high that the beginning of democratic governance was just around the corner, especially after the ease with which President Zain al-Din Ben 'Ali was toppled in Tunisia in early 2011.  The fall of Husni Mubarak in Egypt, and later Mu’ammar al-Qaddafi in Libya and 'Ali 'Abdallah Salih in Yemen, raised hopes still further that autocratic regimes might be relegated to the dustbin of history. 

 

A cursory survey of the Arab Spring in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Tunisia shows that only the latter has been able to establish some form of democratic rule.  More recent developments in Iraq, Lebanon and Algeria have witnessed youth uprisings which have forced the country’s leader to resign.  In the Sudan, the genocidal dictator, General 'Umar al-Bashir, was deposed by widespread national demonstrations. al-Bashir is on trial for crimes against humanity, and a military-civilian committee has been tasked with implementing a 3 year transition to democracy.   

 

Nevertheless, autocratic rule is still the norm in the Middle East which raises the question: Is the MENA region doomed to remain under the control of autocrats?  What can be done to curtail the power and repression of these regimes?  This post argues that the West can begin by ending arm sales to the MENA region. 

 

As many are aware, arguments have been proffered that Islam is intrinsically anti-democratic and fosters authoritarian rule. Interestingly, a similar argument once plagued American Roman Catholics who were said by American Protestants to be under the Pope control and voted according to his directives (e.g., see Paul Blanchard’s American Freedom and Catholic Power).   The problem with religion as antithetical to democracy is that public opinion polls demonstrate otherwise.  Muslims are as supportive of democracy as members of other world religions. 

 

To understand the stubborn persistence of autocratic rule in the Middle East, we have to look not at culture but at the origins of the regimes in which authoritarian rule has prevailed.  Pan-Arabism, which spread in the Arab world during the 1950s and 1960s was based in a corporatist model of society in which political divisions were not only forbidden but viewed as treasonous to society and the body politics.  

 

According to the Pan-Arab mantra, all Arabs are part of “One Arab nation, endowed with an immortal mission” (umma ‘Arabiya wahida, ma’ risala khalida).  Of course, Pan Arabism slogan of “unity, freedom and socialism” led to exact opposite of what autocratic rulers like Jamal Abd al-Nasir, Hafiz al-Asad, his son Bashar, and Saddam Husayn actually practiced. 

 

Western colonialism and the Cold War turned the MENA region into a battlefield between the US and the Soviet Union.  Pan Arab regimes, such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya, and other corporatist regimes such as Algeria, were supported by the Soviet Union.  MENA region monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, the Arab Gulf states, Jordan and Morocco, sided with the United States.  In this Cold War struggle,  arms flooded the region as both global powers worked to strengthen their proxies. 

Report to Congress on Middle East Arms Sales 

 

Beginning in 1948, a series of wars between Israel and its neighboring states destabilized the region, making the Israeli-Palestinian dispute a permanent fixture of Middle East politics.  The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War spelled the death knell for Pan-Arabism.  Its effects continue to be felt today as Palestinians still do not possess an independent country of their own. The 1973 October War in which Egypt attacked Israel to dislodge it from the Sinai Peninsula almost led to a nuclear confrontation between the US and the USSR.  In the 21^st century, with Israel possessing nuclear weapons and Iran on track to develop them, the threat of nuclear war still hangs as a cloud over the MENA region. 

To address the MENA region instability and curtail autocratic power, the key first step is for the Biden administration and the European Union to stop selling technologically advanced weapons systems to autocratic regimes in the Middle East.  Curtailing arms sales will both reduce the amount of conflict in the region while undermining autocracy as well.  Saudi Arabia and Egypt should be the the first candidates to no longer receive such arms from the West.   

 

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has used US supplied weapons to bomb Yemen, often indiscreetly.  The Saudi air war has killed thousands of civilians, and destroyed hospitals, schools, markets and homes.  According to the UN, the situation today in Yemen constitutes  what it calls “the worst human rights disaster in the world.”  Fortunately, the Biden administration has ended arms sales to Saudi Arabia’s ruler, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS), as well as logistical support for Saudi military efforts in Yemen. 

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are among top 3 arms importers

Like Saudi Arabia, Egypt has no need for additional advanced weapons systems.  The greatest security threat it faces is not the possibility of a conventional war but terrorist organizations, like the Da’ish affiliate in the Sinai Peninsula – the so-called Islamic State – Sinai Province (originally known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis) - and non-state militias, which have flooded Libya as a result of a failed state following the Qaddafi regime’s collapse in 2011. 

Sophisticated Western arms, such as high speed jet fighters, do not serve Egypt’s security needs.  Rather these weapons serve as a symbol of President 'Abd al-Fatah al-Sisi’s power within the Egyptian military, which controls an estimated 30-40% of the national budget (a matter of such sensitivity that it’s illegal to discuss it in Egypt).  It also sends a message to the Egyptian people not to challenge the regime’s prerogatives and authority because it has the might of the United States behind it. 

 http://new-middle-east.blogspot.com/2013/08/egyptian-armed-forces-inc-middle-easts.html  

 

Within American military, intelligence and diplomatic circles, it has been argued that arms sales help to maintain a close relationship between Egypt and the USA and constitute a “reward” for the regional intelligence Egypt supplies the US and the joint US-Egyptian military exercise conducted in the country.  But does the US really need Egyptian intelligence assistance in an era of cyber warfare when digital communications can provide the necessary intelligence to meet the US’ needs? 

 

Offsetting these purported benefits that the US derive from arm sales to the MENA region – as well as European countries which sell arms in the MENA region -  is maintaining close ties to the recipient country and an ability to influence it to pursue policies favorable to the West.  However, as a recent RAND report noted – making a point which is clear to even the most casual observer – the rise in conflict in the Middle East is an ever increasing danger.  Selling more arms to the region’s autocratic regimes only adds oil to an already hot fire. 

Reimagining U.S. Strategy in the Middle East: Middle East: Strategic Partnerships, Sustainable Investments

In the case of Egypt, there is the possibility of war breaking out between Egypt and Ethiopia, which has built the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile to increase irrigation and hydroelectric power.  Egypt views the dam as a mortal threat to its water supply provided by the Nile and has threatened to attack Ethiopia if it doesn’t refrain from operationalizing it.  

Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam 

With Ethiopia currently embroiled in a bloody civil war taking place in its northern Tigre region, its ability to defend itself from an Egyptian air and special forces attack on the dam would seem to be limited.  Providing Egypt with more technologically advanced weaponry, especially fighter bombers, the US and European arms sales only encourage a military response to this conflict rather than encouraging a negotiated solution. 

The argument that weapon sales foster influence and good ties with allies in the MENA region is belied by Turkey, a NATO member, where the increasingly authoritarian regime of President Recip Tayyip Erdoğan has turned to Russia for arms.  Despite US protests against Turkey’s purchase of a Russian surface-to-air missile system, Erdogan went ahead with the purchase anyway.   

 

Further, the Erdoğan regime has become one of the most destabilizing elements in the MENA region.  Its intervention in Libya has only upped the ante by adding troops and weapons to an already highly volatile civil war.  Its efforts to control natural gas production in the eastern Mediterranean threaten conflict with Greece.  Worst of all, its treatment of its own Kurdish citizens and the Syrian Democratic forces, comprised primarily of Kurds from north eastern Syria, which the US military has pointed to as playing a critical role in defeating the Da’ish terrorists, has destabilized northern and eastern Syria.   

 

At home, Erdoğan’s régime has the dubious distinction of having the highest per capita number of journalists in prison.  Meanwhile, Turkish schoolteachers and university faculty, who are not considered supportive of Erdoğan’s policy of Islamizing Turkish society, are removed from their posts.  Erdoğan jails opposition political figures and has removed democratically elected mayors of Kurdish towns in Turkey from office.  

The disastrous consequences of arms proliferation in the MENA region can be seen in Libya where warehouse filled with arms were seized by competing tribes, militias and terrorist groups, such as the Da’ish, to engage in what now has become a highly volatile, violent and debilitatingly conflict.  In Iraq, weapons have proliferated, especially after the Intifada of March 1991 which involved an effort, almost successful had it not been for US allowing Saddam’s helicopter gunships to take to the air, to topple the Ba’thist regime.  Of course, the US invasion of 2003, and the insurgency and lawlessness that followed the chaotic Bush administration’s occupation policies, increased the number of weapons still further. 

 

In Syria, the civil war which emerged from the Arab Spring uprising of 2011 likewise has resulted in an huge influx of weapons, especially across its border from Turkey.  many of these weapons were captured by terrorist organizations by groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and then the so-called Islamic State (Da’ish).  The easy access to weapons means that any small group can use them to pursue extremist or criminal activity 

 

One of the most important policies which could developed by the Western alliance would be to ban the sales weapons systems to MENA region states.  Not only are they not needed by these states, but they only encourage autocrats to believe they can act with impunity because they have the support of the West as reflected in arms sales. 

 

Further, whenever the United State sells advanced weapons systems to Arab states, such as the 50 F-35 fighters it recently sold to the UAE, Israel demands that it receive the same or more advanced weapons so as not to “fall behind” other Arab countries.  This process, which has been consistent since the late 1950s, adds more arms to the MENA region. Meanwhile, Israel, with the most powerful military in the region, and its own arms industry, doesn’t need these weapons systems. 

US plans sale of F-35 fighter to UAE in $23 arms deal 

In other words, the US and Western countries should end arm sales to the Middle East and limited their military involvement to training and professionalizing local military forces. Suppressing terrorist organizations constitutes the main threat to MENA region regimes.   

 

Finally, we hear the cry of the lost jobs in the US and Europe as corporations which develop and build weapons systems are sudden lose markets.  A failed state, or semi-failed state, will not be able to

purchase arms.  Thus, by contributing to conflict in the region, Western arms producers are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

By diverting MENA region countries resources away from the development of human capital through the purchase of arms, these countries’ economic growth shrinks and they become poor markets for Western investments and goods.  Selling large amounts expensive weapons systems may be lucrative financially in the short-term, but self-defeating at the end of the day if such sales exacerbate local conflict and political instability.   

 

The next post in this series analyzes how the West can promote sustainable development in the MENA region which can benefit both foreign and local interests.