Amichai Magen

Introduction: American and European Strategies to Promote Democracy — Shared Values, Common Challenges, Divergent Tools?

In June 2004, President George W. Bush tried to leverage the US chairmanship of the G-8 summit to launch the centerpiece of his Administration’s “forward strategy of freedom” for the post-9/11, post-Saddam Middle East. The new Mideast project would marshal American and European diplomatic and financial resources to press for greater social, political, and economic freedom from Marrakesh to Bangladesh. Well before G-8 leaders convened in Sea Island, Georgia, however, the Europeans (allegedly) leaked a draft of Bush’s proposal to the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat and demanded far-reaching revisions as a condition for their support. Eventually, the G-8 did inaugurate what it dubbed the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) initiative, but in a much diluted form from the one originally hoped for by the White House. BMENA then promptly sank into low-profile obscurity.

Comparative Assessment of Israel’s Foreign Policy Response to the ‘Arab Spring’

Abstract This article analyses Israel’s foreign policy response to the ‘Arab Spring’ in comparative perspective. Following the analytical framework shared by all contributions to this Special Issue, the article addresses four main dimensions in as many parts. Part I examines Israel’s initial reactions to the advent of the popular upheavals and regime changes in the Arab world in 2011–2014 and explores how those reactions have evolved over time. Part II identifies Israel’s main policy objectives in relation to events in the region and particularly its immediate neighbours: Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Part III examines the instruments which Israel has used, and eschewed, in pursuit of its policy objectives. Finally, part IV undertakes a theoretically informed analysis with the aim of explaining Israel’s distinctive strategic posture and policy responses to the events of the ‘Arab Spring’ thus far.

Cracks in the Foundations: Understanding the Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU

The article offers a succinct conceptual and analytical framework for approaching the ‘great rule of law debate’ currently unfolding in the EU (European Union) and the contending positions of the various EU institutions embroiled in it. It addresses the challenge of conceptualization imbued in the notion of the rule of law, and critically examines the definition of the concept provided by the EC (European Commission). It then demonstrates that over the course of modern European integration, the rule of law emerged as a central dimension in four distinct core areas of EC/EU identity and activity. Should the contemporary crisis of foundational values persist or deepen, each of the four is expected to be adversely affected. Finally, the article explores the emerging ‘rule of law turn’ in the EU. This article is part of the September 2016 Symposium titled ‘The Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU’, which also includes The Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU by Dimitry Kochenov, Amichai Magen and Laurent Pech (DOI:), Better Late than Never? On the European Commissions Rule of Law Framework and its First Activation by Dimitry Kochenov and Laurent Pech (DOI:), Strengthening the Rule of Law in the EU: The Councils Inaction by Peter Oliver and Justine Stefanelli (DOI:), The European Parliaments Role: Towards New Copenhagen Criteria for Existing Member States? by Judith Sargentini and Aleksejs Dimitrovs (DOI:), Upholding Shared Values in the EU: What Role for the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights? by Gabriel N. Toggenburg and Jonas Grimheden (DOI:)

Introduction: The Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU

Faced with what has been labeled ‘rule of law backsliding’ in some EU countries, EU institutions have sought to address the rise of ‘illiberal regimes’ via existing mechanisms as well as new instruments. This introductory contribution offers an overview of the problem and a brief summary of the papers to follow and which were first presented at a workshop co‐organized by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and Middlesex University London. This article is part of the September 2016 Symposium titled ‘The Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU’, which also includes Cracks in the Foundations: Understanding the Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU by Amichai Magen (DOI:), Better Late than Never? On the European Commissions Rule of Law Framework and its First Activation by Dimitry Kochenov and Laurent Pech (DOI:), Strengthening the Rule of Law in the EU: The Councils Inaction by Peter Oliver and Justine Stefanelli (DOI:), The European Parliaments Role: Towards New Copenhagen Criteria for Existing Member States? by Judith Sargentini and Aleksejs Dimitrovs (DOI:), Upholding Shared Values in the EU: What Role for the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights? by Gabriel N. Toggenburg and Jonas Grimheden (DOI:)

The Anglo-American Tradition of Liberty: A View from Europe

Those of us who are rather attached to the values and institutions of political and economic liberalism have been having a hard time lately. Financial crisis and economic stagnation, fear of the influx of (mostly Muslim) migrants, and rising threats of terrorism have all combined to erode public trust in open societies and capitalist democracy, and to stoke popular support for illiberal forces, not least within the heartlands of the West itself. In fact, the vote share of anti-establishment parties or candidates in national elections in major developed countries is now at its highest level since the dark days of the early 1930s. So far at least, the most organized challenges to the liberal order have emanated not from Islamist or other overtly authoritarian ideologies, but from variable forms of populism, coming from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum inside the democratic world. Despite marked differences, what they all share is an amalgam of statist, protectionist, anti-pluralist, authoritarian, and often conspiratorial instincts that are fundamentally anti-liberal and corrosive to the values and institutions of free societies.

The Tail Wags the Dog: International Politics and the Middle East

In his latest book, distinguished Anglo-Israeli historian (and incoming director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University) Prof. Efraim Karsh sets out to dismantle two longstanding and pervasive claims that have shaped both scholarly and popular narratives of politics in the Middle East, and which have consequently produced misguided Western policies toward the troubled region for close to a century.

Hybrid War and the “Gulliverization” of Israel

Since 1948, the State of Israel has not only experienced many wars per se, but several successive species of war—conventional, economic, and terrorist. Historically, as one mode of war failed to overwhelm the Jewish state, a process of strategic adaptation on the part of its foes has taken place, resulting in the emergence of succeeding species of attack. When a shift from an old to a new mode of war takes place, Israel is called upon to recognize the new form of assault, conceptualize it correctly, assess the nature and seriousness of the threat, and adapt its own strategic concepts, institutions, and behavior to counter it. The ability to identify an emerging species of war swiftly, understand it correctly, and respond to it effectively is thus a critical challenge for Israel’s national security.