IHS Project, Year 4, 2005
Title: A Review and Comparison of the Management of Political Space Between Israel and Singapore With Regards to Foreign Policies
Aims and Thesis Statement:
Israel has always been in a volatile situation, with enemies on all sides of the country’s border who have been trying to enter undercover throughout the centuries and to undermine the security of the country. This has unsettled much of the Israeli population, which are composed predominantly of Jews, but with a sizeable minority as well, comprising not only (Druze) Arabs but Muslims and Christians, all of whom believe that Israel is a place of great spiritual significance to their faith. The Arabs, on the other hand, believe that Israel belongs to them, due to the massive amount of territory they control around the small country (Refer to Annex A). Thus, they have spent many troops and resources in an effort to retake Israel, all to no avail. My aim here is to find out Israel’s foreign policy, and why it is so effective against a nation several times its size. Also, I hope to compare this to Singapore’s foreign policy when dealing with its overseas neighbours, because Singapore is in as much the same situation as Israel is- surrounded by countries which are predominantly Muslim in faith, leaving Singapore in a precarious situation. A comparison and analysis would show why these policies are effective or ineffective.
Definition of Terms: By “Management of Political Space”, the essay refers to the political maneuvers conducted by the lawmakers and sovereignty of the country
By “Israel and Singapore”, the essay refers to the countries as and where relevant in the era or period stated or mentioned in the same sentence; if not, the period is taken to be in the 21st century.
By “Foreign Policies”, the essay refers to a set of political behavioural rules the country follows when in political contact with another country; this is to ensure that the country’s national interests are upheld with only the best in mind.
Background and Analysis of the Situation at Hand:
The majority of Jews in Israel originate as descendants of Jews who underwent a massive Diaspora to their “homeland” while seeking escape from persecution. Lasting centuries, the Diaspora has brought the percentage of Jews in Israel to 80.1% of the whole population with the rest being mostly Arab in nature. However, the trouble only started when Palestine Mandate was signed in June 1922 by the League of Nations, defining Britain as the Mandatory of Palestine and leading to a massive influx of Jews entering Israel to escape persecution as the call of the Anti-Semitic movement became popular in more and more countries. As Article 2 of the Palestine Mandate defined,
“…Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
And thus, the Jews flocked to Israel, which whom many regarded as their homeland. This upset the Arabs, who believed that Palestine belonged to them alone, and as a result, the Great Arab Revolt of 1937 occurred, which was subsequently put down by the British government after three years. Consequently, Arab hostility has been mounting ever since the British officially recognized the State of Israel in 1948. Almost immediately after Israel gained independence, the bordering Arab countries of Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Egypt attacked Israel, with hopes of destroying the newly declared state; however, their attack was repulsed, and when the war finally ended in January the next year, Israel controlled 24 % more of Palestine than had been allocated to it by the UN. This was then followed by the signing of peace and armistice agreements during the next five months.
The question is: How did Israel survive under continual attack by an Arab enemy with 11 times its GDP?
Firstly, it can be noted that ever since Britain was the first colonial mandatory in Palestine, both Israel and the Arab League have been relying on their Western superpower Allies to either gain an edge in the Israel-Arab conflict, or to circumvent war as an option. Currently, Israel, as a predominantly Jewish country with its population having suffered countless persecutions, retains an active army known as the unified “Israel Defence Forces” (IDF), which has been built up over the years, and now possesses an active standing strength of 170,000 members, and which can be reinforced to 455,000 men in 48 hours. Being formally at war with its neighbour states of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, military preparedness has always been the key issue in the state of Israel; in fact, the country spends 30% of its Gross National Product (GNP) on military spending alone. This rate of spending allows Israel to constantly upgrade its military equipment, researching technology to allow Israel to upgrade its own arms (Israel is suspected to even be an undeclared nuclear power), while at the same time purchasing heavy weaponry from its allies, for example, missiles from the United States. These, in addition, to the four major wars the Arab Nations have conducted so far against the State of Israel, and the fact that it is experiencing ongoing conflict, give it a directly (forced) aggressive stance against its immediate neighbours with little chance of initiating and concluding peace treaties.
In comparison, the island-republic of Singapore retains its status as the smallest state in South East Asia, and lacks natural resources, possessing human labour as its only resource. Surrounded by Muslim states, Singapore reports one of the highest per capita GDP in the region (US$25,000), and yet maintains the fragile balance of peace in the region, even though it has an innate vulnerability as a small nation. This is not surprising, when we look at the changes and experiences Singapore had undergone to develop its foreign policy so thoroughly.
Firstly, our army, albeit small, is modeled on the Israeli concept of National Service in order to forge an operationally ready force, where all males age 18 and above and required to undergo a compulsory stint of military service ranging from two to two and a half years with reservist training for a few weeks each year. The Israeli men, however, serve for three years with similar reservist training. Singapore even upgrades her arms as regularly as possible, importing weapons frequently from allies where need be, such is the similarity between hers and Israel’s military establishment. Thus, we can see that both countries rely on an outward show of aggression and military preparedness to discourage any possible attackers.
Secondly, Singapore possesses a strong and efficient authoritarian political and judiciary system under the People’s Action Party (PAP), the party in power ever since Singapore was granted self-governance in 1959. Classified as a parliamentary democratic state, the PAP has taken the opportunity whenever possible to politically publicise itself to the people while in office, thereby removing all possible chance of the opposition being granted control in Singapore. Israel, too, is a parliamentary democratic state in nature, with the conservative Likud party being predominantly in power. Possessing a Presidential figurehead and a 120-strong parliament known as the Knesset, Israel’s manner of rule in the country is very similar to that of Singapore’s.
To avoid offending its neighbouring countries, however, Singapore has taken a stand to be “friends with all who sought friendship” and to “remain nonaligned”, and this is where the difference occurs. Where Israel is already at conflict with others, Singapore is maintaining its best not to offend neighbouring countries by stressing on the concept of “Total Defence”, where a melting pot of racial groups would be only classified as Singaporeans, equal regardless of race. This concept has worked so far in Singapore’s history, and although Singapore has come close to offending other nations with this form of foreign policy, she has never gone into full blown war since independence, unlike Israel.
Recommendations for Changes:
Israel therefore should tailor her aggression policy to be one more based on diplomacy; with issues like the present disagreement between Egypt and Israel regarding the ownership of the West Bank and Gaza Strip lands looming, Israel’s step towards a more peaceful solution would surely be welcomed by the superpowers in the West, and currently, generating public sympathy in the West seems to be its surest guarantee of survival. It should therefore follow Singapore’s concept of peace over war.
http://factbook.wn.com/Israel
http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_1.htm
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/
http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm
http://countrystudies.us/singapore/56.htm
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict.asp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment