Yossi Alpher
is a consultant and writer on Israel-related strategic issues, and is coeditor, with Ghassan Khatib of the bitterlemons
family of internet publications. He also writes Hard questions, tough answers
, a weekly security Q&A available at peacenow.org
. Alpher serves on the executi...
More
- The future of Israel-Palestine: a one-state reality in the making
-
Khalil Shikaki , 14 May 2012
- Palestinian youth and the Arab Spring
-
Mona Christophersen , Jacob Høigilt , Åge A. Tiltnes , 16 March 2012
- Hamas’s leadership struggle and the prospects for Palestinian reconciliation
-
Nicolas Pelham , 17 February 2012
- Religion, territory and violence: exploring emerging religious-political groups in Israel and Palestine
-
Jacob Høigilt , Tilde Rosmer , Hanne Eggen Røislien , 3 November 2011
- For lack of a better alternative, Palestinians go to the UN
-
Khalil Shikaki , 29 September 2011
- Today's call on Palestine’s future: interim arrangements instead of comprehensive peace
-
Tamar Hermann , 26 September 2011
- Comparative perspectives on state-building for a future Palestinian state
-
30 August 2011
Israel's troubled relationship with Turkey and Iran: the “periphery” dimension
Yossi (Joseph) Alpher
, 20 December 2010
Summary
Israel’s approach to Turkey and Iran must be understood against the backdrop of its “periphery doctrine” of forming alliances with non-Arab and non-Muslim regional actors and its search for a Middle Eastern identity. The “periphery strategy” it pursued in the 1950s led to alliances with, among others, Turkey and Iran, who were viewed as natural allies against the hostile and powerful Arab “centre” spearheaded by Nasserism. In Israel’s eyes, “periphery” peoples also seemed to have broadly accepted the legitimacy of having a Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East.
Though the Arab core may have begun to accommodate Israel, it has not become fully reconciled to the idea of Jewish self-determination. The current fragility of a number of states in the Arab world, and the loss of influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, leave Israel increasingly fearful of the regional ambitions of the Islamist regimes in Turkey and Iran. It sees Turkey as having betrayed the old alliance formed between the two countries in the face of a hostile Arab world and has thus been reluctant to respond positively to Turkey’s offers to mediate in Israel’s disputes with Islamists and Syria. Tentative efforts to do so were scuppered by the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2009 and relations with Turkey have seriously deteriorated since the flotilla incident in May 2010.
If Israel is to change its approach to Turkey and discover the possible advantages of dealing with a regional power whose foreign policy departures have increased its commerce and influence in Asia, Europe and the Middle East, it will have to abandon its “periphery thinking”. As for Iran, Israel needs to separate its calculations in dealing with Tehran’s hostility from over-optimistic assessments of the fragility of the Iranian regime. In short, it needs to recognise the regional facts of life.
