Dr. Nikolay Surkov
Senior Research Fellow, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO)
12 November 2021

Part of the EastMed Project

The Russian presence in the Eastern Mediterranean is not new. Historically, the region has always been considered to be strategically important for the security of the Russian south. After a brief absence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia is once again militarily present in the Eastern Mediterranean. Dr. Nikolay Surkov gives a brief overview of Russia’s main interests in the region.

#Russia #EasternMediterranean

Visit us at: www.erpic.org
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Erpic1

Antonia Dimou
Director of the Middle East Department
Institute for Security and Defense Analysis, Athens
5 November 2021

Greece and the United States have a long-standing historical and political partnership that is based on common principles and shared democratic values. Their membership in NATO and other international organizations and multilateral treaties are test for the solid foundation of this partnership along with their participation in their War on Terror. Greece has become a source and a provider of solutions. It has become a positive example to the region and a country which has demonstrated its commitment to investing in cooperative relationships across the broad region that the United States is involved in a global competition. Major powers, like the United States, have strongly supported a more dynamic Greek foreign policy, and in particular the 3+1 partnership between Greece, Israel, Cyprus and itself. This partnership has been sealed by the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Act Partnership of 2019 and the United States-Greece defense and the inter-parliamentary act of 2021 that foresee cooperation in maritime security, energy initiatives, the establishment of the Eastern Mediterranean-United States energy center, and the rejection of interference by other countries in Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone and Greece’s air space.

#Greece #UnitedStates #EasternMediterranean

Admiral (ret.) Amichai Ayalon (Haifa Research Center for Maritime Policy & Strategy) and Dr. Christodoulos G. Pelaghias (ERPIC)

Part of the EastMed Project

The ongoing war against terrorist organizations calls for a new theoretical framework that takes into account globalization and information revolutions. Defining the meaning of “victory” is essential when examining democracies’ war on terror. There is a lack of understanding of what it means to win the war on terror. Victory in this war is not directly correlated to military success on the battlefield but is an interplay of three fronts: home front, military front, and international front. Of these, the home front is the most important – the aim of terrorist organizations and the resilience of civilian society are the determining factors in achieving victory.

The military struggles that dominated the world stage after the end of the Cold War – mostly confrontations between states and non-state organizations in Asia and Africa – have not been sufficiently incorporated into the thinking of political decision-makers, nor has the end of the Cold War itself.

Images and conflicts can be instantly broadcast around the world – either through TV cameras, by the combatants themselves, or by civilians or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) using personal phones to upload images to social media. War thus becomes “imagefare,” since states have lost the ability to control the war of information.

The salient characteristic of many present-day adversaries is their ability to keep fighting despite massive casualties that would likely have caused a regular national army to surrender. A strategy of non-surrender can turn war into a never-ending struggle in which it is difficult to identify a clear beginning and endpoint.

The war on terror is primarily a war of the hearts and minds of people – internationally, domestically, and in the civilian population in which terrorist organizations operate. This calls for greater emphasis on the distinction between terrorists and civilians, offering hope to the latter.
Since it is ongoing and involves increased security measures domestically, the war on terror threatens democracy itself. Gradual steps, each of them justified in itself can lead to a diminution of human rights and democratic checks and balances.

At the same time, democratic mechanisms are the best way to arbitrate social conflicts and bolster social cohesion; without them, states become more vulnerable to the destabilizing and radicalizing effects of terrorism. In this sense, democracies do not win the war in spite of democratic limitations placed on combating terrorism, but because of them.

#Israel #Terrorism #Democracy

Visit us at www.erpic.org
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Erpic1

Admiral (ret.) Amichai Ayalon
Chairman of the Executive Committee
Maritime Policy and Strategy Research Center, University of Haifa
22 September 2021

Part of the EastMed Project

The ongoing war against terrorist organizations calls for a new theoretical framework that takes into account globalization and information revolutions. Defining the meaning of “victory” is essential when examining democracies’ war on terror. There is a lack of understanding of what it means to win the war on terror. Victory in this war is not directly correlated to military success on the battlefield but is an interplay of three fronts: home front, military front, and international front. Of these, the home front is the most important – the aim of terrorist organizations and the resilience of civilian society are the determining factors in achieving victory.

The military struggles that dominated the world stage after the end of the Cold War – mostly confrontations between states and non-state organizations in Asia and Africa – have not been sufficiently incorporated into the thinking of political decision-makers, nor has the end of the Cold War itself.

Images and conflicts can be instantly broadcast around the world – either through TV cameras, by the combatants themselves, or by civilians or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) using personal phones to upload images to social media. War thus becomes “imagefare,” since states have lost the ability to control the war of information.

The salient characteristic of many present-day adversaries is their ability to keep fighting despite massive casualties that would likely have caused a regular national army to surrender. A strategy of non-surrender can turn war into a never-ending struggle in which it is difficult to identify a clear beginning and endpoint.

The war on terror is primarily a war of the hearts and minds of people – internationally, domestically, and in the civilian population in which terrorist organizations operate. This calls for greater emphasis on the distinction between terrorists and civilians, offering hope to the latter.
Since it is ongoing and involves increased security measures domestically, the war on terror threatens democracy itself. Gradual steps, each of them justified in itself can lead to a diminution of human rights and democratic checks and balances.

At the same time, democratic mechanisms are the best way to arbitrate social conflicts and bolster social cohesion; without them, states become more vulnerable to the destabilizing and radicalizing effects of terrorism. In this sense, democracies do not win the war in spite of democratic limitations placed on combating terrorism, but because of them.

#Israel #Terrorism #Democracy

Amiral (ret.) Amichai Ayalon is currently the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Haifa Research Center for Maritime Policy & Strategy. He is also Chair of AKIM Israel (the National Association for the Habilitation of Children and Adults with Intellectual Abilities). Adm. Ayalon is a former Director of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) as well as the Commander of the Israeli Navy. In addition, Adm. Ayalon served as a Member of the Knesset – the Israeli Parliament – and a former cabinet minister.

“Redefining Victory in the War on Terror: A Great Challenge to Democracies”:
https://www.amazon.com/REDEFINING-VICTORY-WAR-TERROR-DEMOCRACIES/dp/B08DBHD56R

Visit us at www.erpic.org
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Erpic1

Prof. Miri Shefer Mossensohn (Tel Aviv University), Prof. Yair Hirschfeld (ERPIC) and Dr. Christodoulos G. Pelaghias (ERPIC)
6 October 2021

The Ottoman Empire was a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire. Prof. Shefer-Mossensohn, an Ottomanist from Tel Aviv University, explains that the empire was a working framework for a heterogeneous society that existed for three hundred years. At its peak, it stretched from Hungary to Yemen, from Algier to Iraq and included a major segment of religious and ethnic minorities. Jews and Christians, as well as other minorities, had a place in the Ottoman Empire, although it was not based on the principle of equality since the Ottoman society was very hierarchical. This system that for centuries worked rather well, in the 19th century experienced more and more challenges and tensions that led to its collapse during World War One. Professor Shefer Mossensohn, Prof. Hirschfeld and Dr. Pelaghias discuss whether there are any elements of the Ottoman experience that could serve to build a better future for the Eastern Mediterranean.

#OttomanEmpire #ReligiousMinorities

Visit us at: www.erpic.org
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Erpic1

Professor Miri Shefer Mossensohn
Tel Aviv University
8 August 2021

The Ottoman Empire was a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire. Prof. Shefer-Mossensohn, an Ottomanist from Tel Aviv University, explains that the empire was a working framework for a heterogeneous society that existed for three hundred years. At its peak, it stretched from Hungary to Yemen, from Algier to Iraq and included a major segment of religious and ethnic minorities. Jews and Christians, as well as other minorities, had a place in the Ottoman Empire, although it was not based on the principle of equality since the Ottoman society was very hierarchical. This system that for centuries worked rather well, in the 19th century experienced more and more challenges and tensions that led to its collapse during World War One.

#OttomanEmpire #MilletSystem #ReligiousMinorities

Visit us at: www.erpic.org
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Erpic1

Laury Haytayan
MENA Director Natural Resource Governance Institute
30 September 2021

In September, the energy ministers of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon met in Amman to approve a roadmap for supplying the latter with natural gas and electricity. According to the roadmap, the gas supplies would come from Egypt, the electricity would be produced in Jordan, and both would be transported to Lebanon via Syria. Laury Haytayan, an energy expert from Lebanon, comments on the significance of the deal for Lebanon and the wider region. ERPIC is an independent non-partisan, non-profit, non-governmental organization dedicated to the study of political and economic issues affecting the Eastern Mediterranean.

Visit us at: www.erpic.org
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Erpic1
#Lebanon #Syria #Egypt #Jordan #EasternMediterranean