Oren Barak

ISRAEL'S “SECURITY NETWORK” AND ITS IMPACT: AN EXPLORATION OF A NEW APPROACH

This article discusses a critical factor that has influenced Israels politics, society, economy, and public discourse since this states establishment in 1948, and particularly after the 1967 war: a highly informal but at the same time very potent “Security Network.” This Network has been critically involved in the political, social, economic, and cultural spheres, and its impact is felt in major and lesser issues. It is made up of actors who ( a ) are connected by informal, nonhierarchical ties; ( b ) share common values and perceptions regarding Israels security and the ways to promote it; ( c ) have identical or similar individual and collective interests; and ( d ) are capable of joining hands to influence policymaking on different levels and in various spheres of the countrys public life.

The Failure of the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process, 1993–2000:

The article presents a critique of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process of 1993–2000 (the Oslo Process) by placing it in historical and theoretical perspective. It begins by showing how the Oslo Process was inspired by the legacy of peacemaking in the Arab–Israeli conflict, which stipulated peacemaking between states, and contends that this factor had far-reaching implications for the way the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was analyzed and treated. It then employs insights from the expanding literature on conflict and peace between groups, and especially from three major theoretical approaches that are referred to here as conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict regulation, to assess the Oslo Process and explain its failure. This is done by examining (1) the causes and nature of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; (2) the methods used to establish peace; (3) the impact of peacemaking efforts on the conflict; and (4) the role of outside players. The article contends that the peacemaking strategy adopted in this period was not informed by the vast literature on intergroup conflicts or by the experience of other, similar cases. It concludes by arguing that reconsidering conventional modes of peacemaking and learning from the experience of others are the most promising paths to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Arab Security Sector: A New Research Agenda for a Neglected Topic

This article discusses the lack of adequate attention to the Arab Security Sector and its complex political and social roles in the Arab States and presents the contours of a new research agenda for this topic. First, the authors demonstrate the insufficient scholarly attention accorded to the Arab Security Sector in several academic publications in the fields of Middle East Studies and Security Studies in the period 1990 —2005. Second, they focus on three major areas where recent theoretical and comparative advances in the study of civil—military relations have not been paralleled in the study of the Arab Security Sector: (1) the role of the Arab Security Sector in the process of state formation; (2) informal connections between actors within the Arab Security Sector and actors operating in the political system; and (3) the role of the Arab Security Sector in reflecting and reinforcing patterns of intersectoral relations in the Arab States.

INTRA-COMMUNAL AND INTER-COMMUNAL DIMENSIONS OF CONFLICT AND PEACE IN LEBANON

Recent contributions to the study of ethnic conflict, which attempt to explain why and under what circumstances members of ethnic groups, or communities, 1 mobilize and engage in violence, include several works that are inspired by the “security dilemma”—a basic concept of the realist tradition of international theory. 2 Barry Posen, for instance, argues that ethnic groups behave like sovereign states in the international system and are influenced by their proximity to other, similar groups in the same way that states are affected by their neighbors. Because security is the primary concern of these communities, each tries to enhance its security by strengthening its position. The actions the community takes, however, trigger the response of other groups, whose members intrinsically view it as offensive, regardless of its motives. A paradox thus emerges, as “what one does to enhance ones own security causes reactions that, in the end, can make one less secure.” 3

Continuity and Change in the Social Background of Israel's Military Elite

This article discusses markers of continuity and change in the social background of Israel’s military elite from the establishment of the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 1948 until the present. This is done by analyzing an original database that we have created, which includes details on the social background of all 213 officers who were promoted to the ranks of major general (Aluf) and lieutenant general (Rav Aluf) — the two highest ranks in the IDF — and who served in its general staff during this period. The article also discusses the interplay between the characteristics of Israel’s military elite, on one hand, and Israel’s process of state formation and inter-sectoral relations, on the other hand.

REPRESENTATION AND STABILITY IN POSTWAR LEBANON

The two decades that elapsed since the end of the civil war in Lebanon (1975–90) were not always stable but did not witness a return to conflict. This article suggests that a significant factor that can help account for this outcome is the reforms introduced in Lebanons security sector, and especially in the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), which made the LAF more representative and hence more legitimate in the eyes of members of Lebanons various societal sectors. This case suggest that in divided societies in the aftermath of conflict, stability can be attained by enhancing the representativeness of the security sector, in addition to similar reforms in the political system.

REPRESENTATION(S) IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Over a year ago, hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners—mostly Arabs but also Iranians and Israelis—began taking to the streets to demand a greater say in political decisions that affect their daily lives. The regimes in question, and especially those that are categorised as ‘not free’ (that is, non-democratic), have found it increasingly difficult to rebuff these massive popular demands. In some countries, most notably Tunisia and Egypt, the result has been the ousting of the leader and the holding of relatively free and fair elections for the first time since attaining independence. But in others—especially Libya and Syria— protests were met with massive state repression that led to large-scale atrocities, intrastate conflict (or civil war), and foreign intervention, which, thus far, has led to regime change only in Libya but not in Syria. The events of the ‘Arab Spring’ are indeed dramatic and unprecedented and thus deserving of scholarly attention, especially from a broad, theoretical and comparative perspective. However—for all their significance—these events must not lead us to overlook more gradual, long-term, but nonetheless very significant political developments in other Middle Eastern countries (as well as in areas within them), especially where the regime is ‘partially free’ (that is, having some democratic attributes) and ‘free’ (i.e., democratic). One particular sphere in which these major developments have been taking place is representation in the state’s political institutions and, sometimes, also in other state agencies and apparatuses. The six articles that comprise this special issue of Representation examine the issue of representation in five countries in the present-day Middle East—Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Lebanon—as well as in one autonomous region in a sovereign state: Iraqi Kurdistan. Among these, two states, Iraq and Jordan, are categorised as ‘not free’ according to the Freedom House index, but their score (5.5) is the highest for states that fall under this category, reflecting the political progress that has been made there. Two others, Kuwait (4.5) and Lebanon (4.0), are categorised as ‘partially free’, and the fifth state, Israel (1.5), is categorised as ‘free’. In particular, the articles address questions pertaining to two major types of representation, ‘representation as presence’ (i.e., demographic representation) and ‘representation of ideas’ (also known as ‘substantive representation’), and their interplay. Each deals with various issues, while emphasising specific aspects of representation in the particular polity that it examines. The issues include the ways that various societal groups are represented in the political institutions and, at times, also in ostensibly non-political ones (the security sector); the role and influence of the regime and of the elites in promoting and/or blocking representation of certain social groups; the influence of various kinds of representations on each other, e.g., whether representation of certain social groups in the polity affects that of others and, if so, how; and the extent to which ‘sectarian’ representation weakens movements

Studying Middle East Militaries: Where Do We Go from Here?

Research on Middle East militaries is imbalanced. In recent decades, scholarly interest in Israel and Turkey has expanded, while the Arab states have more often than not been overlooked. In this essay, I suggest how to address the “gap” in the study of Arab militaries by drawing parallels with militaries in non-Arab states, which have received considerable attention.

K IRSTEN E. S CHULZE , Israel's Covert Diplomacy in Lebanon , St. Antony's Series (Houndmilles, Basingstoke, and London: Macmillan Press, 1998). Pp. 227. No price available.

This book addresses a topic that has aroused much interest since June 1982: the relations between Israel and the Maronite community in Lebanon and the historical and ideological origins of these relations. Brought to the fore by Israels invasion of Lebanon, this relationship so far has been the subject of three major—and one should add, conflicting—contributions, by Benny Morris, 1 Avi Shlaim, 2 and Eyal Zisser. 3 Morriss and Shlaims works are quoted extensively in Kirsten Schulzes book; Zissers is not even mentioned (though the author is quoted as a source). This, I believe, has much bearing on the validity of Schulzes arguments, because these studies represent two differing views with regard to the matter at stake: how should one interpret archival material and memoirs, place them in their rightful context, and form a firmly grounded opinion as to past events.