Beneath western praise for the Egyptian people’s stunning victory over autocratic rule runs a deep concern about how these events will impact America’s and Britain’s most treasured ally in the region; Israel. From Washington to Whitehall, pro-Israeli pundits have already begun sowing seeds of anxiety, warning that Egypt could tear up its peace treaty with Israel and/ or go the way of Iran and embrace clerical rule.

It’s time for a little perspective.

It is far from certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will be voted into power (indeed, it’s a wide-open question whether the military government will even allow elections). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Muslim Brotherhood is swept into office by popular vote. It is unlikely that they will follow in Iran’s footsteps because the Brotherhood is not compromised primarily of clerics but professional men who embrace a profitable business climate as much as the Koran.

The yearning among Egyptians religious and secular for a more prosperous future is likely to ensure the peace treaty with Israel will continue to be honoured. Egypt has nothing to gain from invading Israel—the Sinai was returned after all. Moreover, the first whiff of aggression toward Israel would invite at best crippling economic sanctions and at worst, bombs. And don’t forget who’s been supplying Egypt’s armed forces. Most of their hardware and software is American. If it chooses, Washington can shut down the Egyptian military machine with a flip of the proverbial switch.

Of course, none of what I’ve written so far is terribly insightful. Even casual observers of Middle East affairs are familiar with these facts. So why all the scare mongering about clerics and broken treaties? The answer is simple. Israel does face a serious threat from Egypt’s revolution, but not the one the hawks in Tel Aviv would have us believe.

For six decades, Israel’s powerful propaganda machine has portrayed Arabs as violent, irrational and therefore incapable of summoning the civility and restraint a functioning liberal democracy requires. As the last line of defence against these lesser evolved societies, Israel demanded blanket support for any actions taken in the name of security. The events in Egypt this week have blown this myth wide open. The revolution launched by the young protestors in Tahrir Square was largely peaceful. If the military transition does midwife free and fair elections, Tel Aviv will lose its claim to being the only nation in the region that shares western liberal values — especially if Egypt elects a secular minded leader. Not only would Cairo emerge as the civil and moral equal of Tel Aviv, it would have the political clout to pursue what has eluded the greatest powers on earth for decades; a credible Middle East Peace solution.

This is the real threat to Israel. Hosni Mubarak supported Israel’s apartheid policies toward the Palestinians out of deference to his American pay masters and fear of Hamas emboldening Egyptian Muslim groups. A democratically elected Egyptian government would not have such constraints. Indeed it is far more likely to reflect the will of its people. I would not be surprised if a civil government in Cairo were to fully restore the flow of goods and services over the Rafah border crossing thereby ending Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

Israel would no doubt raise the alarm and ask America to support maintaining the blockade. In the past, that would happen without question. But Egypt’s revolution is altering the rules of the game. It would be unwise of Washington to alienate a democratic Egypt in order to defend an Israeli policy that is illegal under international law. And if other Arab nations follow in Egypt’s footsteps, the US will face even greater pressure to end its blind endorsement of Israel’s colonialist policies. Imagine if Oman embraces democracy. The Straits of Hormuz are of far greater strategic importance to America than any slice of real estate in Israel.

The US and Britain need to break with the past and prove they are capable of being fair brokers in the Middle East. Failure to do so will risk ceding influence to a new hegemonic power. Remember, China already controls the port at Gwadar, Pakistan on the Arabian Sea—an asset it gained through diplomacy and economic incentives. Washington and Whitehall should put real pressure on Israel to pull back settlements that encroach on Palestinian lands (a suspension of credit lines should do the trick), appoint a credible envoy the Arabs can trust (Tony Blair’s appointment was tantamount to making Osama bin Laden mayor of New York City, in my view) and insist that Israel free jailed Palestinian political figures capable of uniting the West Bank and Gaza. Marwan Barghouti, Palestine’s Nelson Mandela, comes to mind.

Israel will probably resist any significant changes in US Middle East policy. Perhaps that’s the biggest threat of all posed by Egypt’s revolution. Old-style hawkishness can no longer guarantee Israel’s security and indeed, could run counter to it. In the new Middle East, a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is the best way to ensure the Jewish state survives.

—Bob Shepherd

Remember when the Israeli Defense Force was regarded as one of the finest militaries in the world? That myth was finally laid to rest this week by the disastrous assault on the flotilla ferrying aid to the Gaza strip. The raid by Israeli commandos in international waters which left at least nine peace activists dead was just the latest IDF operation condemned for its ‘disproportionate use of force.’

Having witnessed the IDF in action in the West Bank and Gaza, I can’t say I’m surprised, though I confess there was a time when I bought into the IDF mythology. Back when I was a young soldier with the British military, the Israelis conducted the legendary counter-terror operation on Entebbe Airport in Uganda. The raid on Entebbe left me and many others with the impression that the IDF was a first-class military. I admired them greatly until 2002 — when I began advising media clients in the West Bank and Gaza.

Seeing the IDF operate at ground level was one of the biggest wake-up calls of my adult life. Over a period of fourteen months, I watched members of the IDF conduct themselves more like thugs than professional soldiers. The heavy handed tactics employed not only against Palestinian civilians but members of the media attempting to cover the conflict saddened and sickened me in equal measure. I personally was on the receiving end of a completely unwarranted and unprovoked assault by IDF bullies who shoved an assault rifle into my forehead even though I was unarmed. My crime? They didn’t like what my clients were reporting. The soldiers let me go with a few broken fingers.

What I saw in the West Bank and Gaza was not a first-class fighting force but something much scarier — a third-class military with first-class technology. Some will argue, and rightly so, that every military suffers from isolated incidents of unprofessional behaviour. But the IDF has demonstrated a clear pattern of resorting to disproportionate force when it encounters resistance. This cannot be explained away as a ‘few bad apples in the ranks.’ The rot is from the top on down.

You only have to look at the video clip the IDF released of the assault on the Mavi Marmara passenger ship as evidence of poor leadership. Mind you, this clip was released to defend the IDF, but there’s plenty there to condemn the planners of the operation such as the decision to fast rope onto the deck of the ship from a helicopter armed with paint guns and pistols. An assault of this nature hinges on three factors; speed, aggression and surprise. As soon as the soldiers hit the deck they were set upon by activists wielding metal pipes, knives and other improvised weapons that rendered the paint guns useless. Some of the soldiers reportedly had their pistols taken from them. The crucial elements of speed and surprise were lost. Once the soldiers were surrounded, they couldn’t scramble back up the rope into the heli. They had no choice but to stand and defend themselves.

Had the IDF forgone the fast-roping and instead boarded exclusively with small crafts at various entry points on the ship’s hull, the individual raiding teams would have had the option to withdraw rather than open fire. It beggars belief that no one has lost their job over the unnecessary bloodletting on the Mavi Marmara. The whole operation was deplorable. The IDF commanders who planned it should be court-martialled and Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak should resign.

If history is anything to go by, the IDF will conduct an investigation into what happened and then clear itself of any wrong-doing. Anyone who attempts to counter the finding will no doubt be branded anti-Semitic and/or dismissed. But the IDF can’t stick its head in the sand forever. They need commanders with the knowledge and skills to execute delicate operations successfully.

To be fair, the IDF were not the only ones at fault here. The leaders of the Free Gaza flotilla should have ensured that none of the activists on board the ships would resort to violence. Had they responded non-violently to the IDF assault, it is entirely possible that no lives would have been lost. If there is another attempt to breach the Gaza blockage, I do hope the peace activists keep it peaceful. Because as this week’s tragic events have shown, violent resistance will be met by overwhelming force.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. His debut novel The Infidel will be published August 5th by Simon & Schuster UK. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

Omar Dajani, a former envoy to the UN and a professor at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law, recently spoke to us about the fallout over Israel’s raid on a flotilla bringing aid to the Gaza Strip.

New York is facing a 3 billion dollar budget deficit, second only to California. But in the middle of the legislative session at the end of November, longtime Brooklyn assemblyman Dov Hikind led a group of American Jews to Israel to check out real estate in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. We headed up to Assemblyman Hikind’s district of Borough Park to find out how the trip went – and his favorite Christmas song.

Despite calls from the Obama administration and other members of the international community, Israeli settlers continue to occupy parts of the West Bank, in violation of the Geneva Convention and Israeli law. For the Palestinians, this means continual harassment, pressure, and intimidation as settlers attempt to force them from their homes. And the ongoing power struggle within the Palestinian government isn’t helping things, either.

To the apparent consternation of the Israeli government, the issue of the settlements has been brought front and center, and it’s not something that will be settled soon, nor easily. Episode 4 of “Political Graffiti” examines the problem from the ground level.

Admittedly, it doesn’t help when you have a president citing Gog and Magog as swell reasons to go to war. Countries like, oh, say, Israel, might be forgiven for being confused now, after eight years of ears open to Biblical reasoning to public policy, that the same arguments aren’t working on the Obama administration.

So if you can’t count on good old fashioned American biblical rhetoric, maybe you can count on good old fashioned American short-term memory! We’re famous for it.

Today’s Haaretz has the interior minister touring the E-1 corridor in Jerusalem and saying “he hoped Israel would succeed in convincing the U.S. to approve construction.” The minister goes on to note that the “the new [U.S.] administration is different from the last,” and that the Bush administration had “made clear comments” regarding its acceptance (italics, ours) of construction in that area.

Sigh. We are hoping that our upcoming episode of “Political Graffiti” will be our Last Story About Israel Ever, but then there are moments like these, when we have information. So in our Second to Last Story About Israel Ever:

In addition to the on-record testimony we have from former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the E-1 corridor–”“We have told the Israelis in no uncertain terms that [settlement in the E1 area] would contravene American policy”–we have from a US source involved in the negotiations that “the issue Rice got the most incensed over was the development of the E-1 zone. The US said time and time again: you do not start E-1.”

Now, whether or not Israel presses forward and starts construction is one thing. But the ruse that this was a project ever approved by any US administration (Elliot Abrams does not count as an “administration”) is just that–another ruse.

"Don't do it! Doooon't...do...it!"

Ah, the settlements. We’re not sure how that particular word got chosen for massive housing tracts that more closely resemble Southern California suburbs (if those suburbs were, say, plunked down on land that technically belonged to someone else), but still, homes inhabited by Israelis that are built in the West Bank are referred to by a term usually used to denote pioneers, like Laura Ingalls Wilder or Davey Crockett.

President Obama, following the Mitchell Plan of 2001 (which identified settlements as a flashpoint and advised an immediate freeze), has now drawn the ire of Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defemation League–the ADL coughed up money for a full-page ad in the New York Times to say so. The takeaway is this: “the problem isn’t settlements, it’s Arab rejection.”

J Street, having none of it, published an open letter on August 4, retorting, “The problem isn’t just settlements, nor Arab rejection. And a lasting resolution to this decades old conflict – a goal which I know you and your organization supports – isn’t advanced by pointing fingers at either side.”

And the ADL fired back with it’s own open letter, to J Street, criticizing the “exaggerated emphasis on the settlement issue.”

J Street’s Isaac Luria sat down with us to discuss the settlements earlier this year.

Israeli actor and IDF reserve army engineer Ohad Knoller speaks on the state of Israel today with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli settlement building, and Israel’s place in the world.

Israeli actor and IDF reserve army engineer Ohad Knoller speaks on the state of Israel today with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli settlement building, and Israel’s place in the world.

Israeli actor and IDF reserve army engineer Ohad Knoller speaks on the state of Israel today with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli settlement building, and Israel’s place in the world.