Israel, NATO and the Euro-Atlantic Community

  Uzi Arad

The broader Middle East is home to the main strategic threats facing the Euro-Atlantic community, namely international terrorism and WMD proliferation. These threats, aimed at Israel as well, position Israel more than ever before on the Euro-Atlantic side. History, and particularly the history of the Euro-Atlantic community, proves that common threats can create ever-closer allies. As the Euro-Atlantic community, NATO particularly, is debating and changing its strategic orientation toward the broader Middle East to confront these threats, and since its actions and policies might well have substantial strategic effects upon Israel, both parties should assess their relationship--as a community consisting of Israel, too. In this respect, the proposal to develop these relations recently submitted by Israel to the secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is an important step, as is Scheffer's upcoming visit to Israel on February 24, 2005.

NATO is the primary institution of the Euro-Atlantic community. Just as the European Union recently deepened its relations with Israel along the lines of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), NATO member states should also move to deepen relations with Israel following the Istanbul Summit Communique and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Indeed, there is a growing recognition of Israel's rightful place in the Euro-Atlantic Community in both Europe and the United States. Even in Europe, there is an emerging understanding that more than before interests and values tie the Euro-Atlantic community and Israel together.

This is also the basic assertion of the Israeli proposal to develop NATO-Israel relations. The proposal elaborates potential courses of action for elevating the Mediterranean Dialogue to a "genuine partnership" and for further developing the bilateral Israeli track. While it is evident that Israel should be at the table, the long-term framework of the relationship is yet to be determined. Since the future features of the Mediterranean Dialogue and the new Istanbul Cooperation Initiative framework are un-chartered, it might be useful to look at an acceptable institutional precedent as a model for formulating the relationship between Israel and NATO.

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is such an example. Within the PfP framework, NATO maintains solid and robust partnership relations with several western European countries that choose not to become full and formal members of the Alliance, yet are active members of the Euro-Atlantic community: Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, and Switzerland. As NATO begins to operate in the broader Middle East, it is destined to rely much more on its western partners. Israel could prove as important to NATO as any other partner. NATO and Israel could develop substantial and practical bilateral programs based on Israeli capabilities and experience relevant to NATO's agenda, e.g., counter-terrorism, WMD proliferation and homeland defense.

The option of Israel's admission to NATO as a full member is also viable in the future, as long as Israel preserves independent strategic capabilities. Israel, as a country capable of defending itself and maintaining an independent deterrent posture, would be a more valuable strategic asset to NATO than a country far too dependent on Alliance guarantees. It is clear, however, that at this stage the majority of Alliance members will be loath, if not actively objecting, to offer Israel Article 5 guarantees, i.e., full defense treaty commitments. Yet as part of a final status peace agreement, Israel's place in NATO and the Euro-Atlantic community should be at the very least seriously considered, if not assured.

Moreover, when Israel needs to make territorial and other concessions, and should the Euro-Atlantic community want to be an effective player in bringing about peace, it will have to encourage Israel to take such risks. If Europe chooses not to offer these guarantees to Israel as part of the final phase of the roadmap it will forfeit the political and moral right to demand painful concessions from Israel. Bringing Israel into the Euro-Atlantic community would be the community's contribution to the Middle East peace process.

A common Euro-Atlantic effort to promote the peace process by also ensuring Israel's long-term security would improve Europe's political and strategic relations with Israel and could, in turn, contribute directly to improving the state of transatlantic relations. Curiously, the upcoming visit of NATO's secretary general to Israel is due immediately after President Bush's visit to Brussels this month.

Strengthening the ties between Israel and NATO and anchoring Israel in the Euro-Atlantic community are not only a strategic and political issue, important as it may be. Geographically, Israel is located in the broader Middle East, but culturally, politically, and economically it is an advanced western democratic nation. While this does not preclude peaceful cooperation and dialogue with its neighbors, Israel belongs to the Euro-Atlantic community of like-minded nations. Israel would not be coming empty-handed to the table--as its broad economic and technological cooperation with Europe has proven, or as the vast potential for cooperation with NATO holds. The Euro-Atlantic community is Israel's natural habitat.- Published 17/2/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org

Dr. Uzi Arad is head of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Herzlia's Interdisciplinary Center. He served as foreign policy advisor to PM Netanyahu, and with the Israeli foreign intelligence service, the Mossad.