In April of this year, I wrote that the upheaval in Syria (the Sunni majority revolt against the Alawite-dominated regime) has turned into a battleground between the Sunni axis led by Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Shiite axis led by Iran. As events continue to unfold in the region, particularly the Sunni Islamists’ monopolization of the political processes in new Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia plus the belligerent Saudi-Iranian exchange in Syria and Bahrain, what is increasingly visible is that the liberal, democracy-seeking Arab Spring is being hijacked by radical Islamists on both sides, risking major conflagration between the two pillars of Islam.    

The dispute between Sunnis (who make up the vast majority of the world’s Muslims) and Shiites is not faith-related but is rather essentially political about how the Caliph can be appointed and the nature of political power that religious scholars should have. Because, much like Europe in the 1500s and 1600s, with theology intertwined with geopolitics, the conflict was sustained for a millennium from the seventh to the seventeenth century and witnessed the conflict between the Shiite Safavid dynasty in Persia and the Sunni Ottoman dynasty in Turkey. It was not until the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the Iraq-Iran war (1980–1988) culminating with the Iraq war in 2003 that the relationship between the Arab world and Iran was again re-framed in the context of the Sunni-Shiite schism. The emergence of a Shiite government in post-Saddam Iraq, discriminating against its Sunni citizens, and the ensuing Sunni insurgency terrorizing the Shiite majority only added fuel to the fire. The high hopes accompanying the advent of the Arab Spring that the youth uprising would make a smooth transition to a liberal democracy are gradually fading away.

I strongly believe that the time is right for Turkey and Israel to mend their critically important bilateral relationship which has suffered a precipitous decline since 2010. With the Middle East in turmoil as a result of the Arab Spring, the perilously unfolding crisis in Syria, the concerns around the Iranian nuclear program, the recent expansion of the Netanyahu government and the fact that the continuing and increasing level of bilateral trade relations between Turkey and Israel remains unaffected by these developments, all suggest that restoring their bilateral relationship now will serve the national strategic interests of both former allies. The question is, will Israel and Turkey recognize the potential gains they can both reap once they remove any obstacles standing in the way of rapprochement, knowing that full collaboration at this time is central to a regional stability that directly impacts their respective national security concerns?

Coupled with other significant developments, perhaps the most alarming issue at this particular time is the turmoil in Syria, in which Turkey has taken a strong and principled stand against the continuing carnage inflicted by Assad’s regime. Prime Minister Erdogan has made it clear that Bashar Assad and his cohorts must step down from power in order to end the crisis. Turkey shares a more than 800 kilometer (510 mile) long border with Syria and is deeply involved in Syria as it continues to provide humanitarian aid, shelter the refugees and host the Syrian National Council, the main opposition to the Assad regime. Israel, for its part, has prevented potentially greater conflagration by carefully and quietly monitoring the situation while taking no provocative action to keep the calm, which provided Turkey the necessary space to serve as the main power broker to oppose Assad with a sense of empowerment from the Arab League. The new political order that emerges in Syria will have a tremendous effect both on Israel and Turkey. By virtue of being neighbors of Syria, both have unique national interests in dealing with post-Assad Syria in a manner that will ensure regional stability and enhance their short and long-term strategic and security interests.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s move to expand his coalition to include Kadima with 28 Knesset members provides him with a majority of 94 out of 120 parliamentarians and represents nothing short of an ingenious political coup or an insidious political scheme, depending on what he does with his historic mandate. Reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians and bridging the social gap must be first and foremost on his national agenda. Should he succeed, Netanyahu will be hailed as the leader who delivered his people from the bondage of occupation to the home of true liberty, independence and peace. Should he squander this momentous opportunity, however, he will be remembered as the most devious prime minister in Israel’s history, one whose blind personal ambitions and distorted vision brought his people to the brink of utter disaster.   
     
In his speech following the agreement with Shaul Mofaz, the leader of Kadima, Netanyahu stipulated four central issues on which his newly expanded government will focus: “Shaul and I and the rest of the coalition, saying [sic] we're pulling together for four main issues: to pass a fair and equal replacement of the Tal Law; to pass a responsible budget; to change the system of governance; and, lastly, to try and promote a responsible peace process." It is important to note that although all four are important issues and have serious national implications, the two most pressing concerns are the peace process and the alarmingly expanding social gap between the rich and the poor.

As the carnage in Syria continues, the powers that are capable of taking serious measures to stop it are busy finding excuses to explain their collective ineptitude. Meanwhile, the Syrian people are paying with their blood day in and day out while the international community is shamelessly hiding behind UN envoy Kofi Annan’s plan that was doomed from day one. Since the Syrian government “accepted” the plan a month ago, at least 1,000 Syrians have been killed and thousands more have been displaced. The Arab League (AL), the United States, the European Union and Turkey, who in particular can collectively stop Assad’s killing machine, still pin down their hopes on a plan that Assad has, with impunity, already turned into yet another mockery of the international community.

As Israel recently observed sixty-four years of independence, it is critical that Israelis reflect on the path they have taken and ask if the current one is sustainable in the long-term. Much has been achieved since the nation’s founding and the Israelis should take immense pride in what they have accomplished in a relatively short period of time. In the midst of celebration, however, there is a dangerous obliviousness to the “dark side” of Israel, one that could jeopardize Israel’s very existence far more than threats from Iran or any other country. Indeed, none of Israel’s achievements will be sustainable if Israel ignores the gathering storm and continues on its current perilous course.

Whereas Israel has achieved a near economic miracle, touting itself as the “start-up nation,” hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens, including a quarter of Holocaust survivors, live below the poverty line. The social gap between rich and poor continues to grow, and according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Israel ranks alongside Chile, Mexico, and the United States in its levels of inequality. The increasing frustration of the poor and middle class was on full display last summer, when nearly 400,000 citizens took to the streets to demand equal opportunities, a reigning in of the cost of living, affordable housing, and most importantly, credible government efforts to respond to their demands. Strong support for the protests (as high as 90% in some polls) underscores the level of dissatisfaction that exists today in Israeli society. This is certainly not what the elder Zionists of the state, notably Herzl, had envisioned.

In the past few weeks, the Egyptian revolutionary youth’s worst nightmare has come to pass: they have been caught in a horrifying struggle between the old regime and the Islamists amidst chaos in every aspect of Egyptian life. Before the transitional period deadline of June 30 of this year, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) (once thought of having reached a power-sharing understanding) are squabbling as to who will have the upper hand after the transition. The secular forces, meanwhile, are divided over every single aspect of the political process, all amidst a crushing economic crisis that risks the bankruptcy of the country.

At stake is the survival of the revolution itself. Egypt’s youth should re-take the lead (as they courageously did in January 2011) and form a unified front to usurp from politicians the ownership of the country’s transitional process to democracy, and ensure the achievement of its central aims: “food, freedom, and social justice.

With the victory of Shaul Mofaz in the leadership contest of the Kadima party, the fractious nature of Israeli politics once again haunts what remains of Israel’s peace camp. Mofaz is by no means a perfect candidate but he at least came up with a peace plan with the Palestinians and regardless of its merits, presents a basic political platform to achieve peace. At a time, however, when the Palestinian conflict places Israel in real danger of losing its national Jewish identity and its democratic nature, its centrist and left-of-center political parties should unite and form a partnership that could provide a serious alternative to the Likud-led ultra-nationalist coalition of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

In a late 2011 article, I argued that Syria’s upheaval thrusts Turkey and Iran into a collision course because they have opposing geostrategic interests in an outcome that neither party can afford to ignore. Four months later, it has become increasingly clear that the Syrian uprising transcends Iran’s and Turkey’s strategic interests, as it has become the battleground between the Sunni and Shiite communities throughout the Middle East. The Syrian uprising has drawn a clear sectarian line: the Sunni axis led by Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Shiite axis led by Iran. The new political order that will eventually emerge in Syria will determine not only the ultimate success or failure of Iran’s aspiration to become the region’s hegemon but whether or not the Sunni Arab world will maintain its dominance. Hence, the conflict will be long, costly and bloody, reflecting the troubled history between the two sides that has extended over a millennium.

In a recent article, I argued that Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt should accept the fact that they exist and will continue to exist in the same neighborhood indefinitely, both as an acknowledgement of their mutual realities and as a way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and improve Israeli-Egyptian relations. Nonetheless, deeper than an acceptance of reality and beyond the MB is the need for a rapprochement between Israel and the Islamic Arab world, which must be based not on necessity but on the desirability of coexistence between Muslims and Jews.