Will Bush Provide Middle East Crisis Management?
One of the strongest lessons of past Middle East crises and wars has been the crucial crisis management role played by outside parties. Most often it’s been the United States that has played this role. In the current crisis, which has the potential to be as or more dangerous than previous ones, the need for a concerted American-led crisis management role is as great or even greater than in the past. So far, though, there’s all too much reason to doubt that the Bush administration --- overextended in Iraq, under-supported internationally as a consequence of its overall foreign policy, and so much less actively engaged in the Arab-Israeli conflict than predecessors --- is able and/or willing to play this role effectively.
The historical pattern isn’t perfect, but it is clearer than most:
In 1948 the United Nations played the crucial role in adopting the Palestine partition plan and recognizing the State of Israel. War still ravaged but the UN imprimatur was a key factor along with Israeli military capacity and political cohesion in Israel surviving the war and gaining international recognition.
In 1956 the Eisenhower administration managed the Suez crisis effectively, including leaning on allies Britain and France as well as Israel.
In 1967 UN Security Council resolution 242 set the land for peace terms that reinforced the ceasefire and became the basis for the peace agreements that have been achieved in the almost 40 years since.
In 1973 the Nixon administration, working with the Soviets, managed a crisis that threatened to escalate to superpower nuclear confrontation.
In 1978-79 the Carter administration did major crisis avoidance with the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt.
In 1982 the Reagan administration defused the initial crisis set off by the June Israeli invasion of Lebanon including through sending U.S. troops along with French and Italian ones as part of a peacekeeping force; although its second intervention failed, ending up in the October 1983 terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut.
In 1990-91 the George H. W. Bush administration responded effectively both to the crisis set off by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and then in leading a peace process, the Madrid talks.
In 1993 and over the rest of the decade the Clinton administration provided key diplomacy for the Israeli-Palestinian agreements and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, managing numerous crises and averting others.
Two clarifying points: One is that such efforts at crisis management have not precluded strong support for Israel from one administration to another: not necessarily a blank check of support for any and all Israeli actions, but unwavering support for Israel’s security and existence. The other is that this isn’t just a U.S. story: important roles also have been played by the UN as noted as well as Europe (Norway and the Oslo talks especially). But the central element consistently has been U.S. crisis management.
So where is the Bush administration today? The G-8 summit actually is fortuitous in major world leaders being together and not having to orchestrate a special meeting or relying on cables and phone calls. It’s a real opportunity to make a strong joint statement and to coordinate a cooperative concerted effort. I wish I could be more confident that something more than a stylized but still perfunctory piece of paper will come out.
To be sure, the problem is not just on the U.S. end – but it is heavily so. The issue with our overextension in Iraq is not even principally a matter of constraining a further military deployment. It’s the overall problem of diversion of focus at the highest levels of policy, the budget drain and strain of billions piling on billions, and the fracturing of the emergent post-9/11 U.S. domestic consensus with distrust and disillusionment sowed by Bush’s Iraq fiasco as well as other post-9/11 abuses of power.
The under-supporting is part of the accumulated costs and splits the overall Bush foreign policy has engendered. Secretary of State Rice has tempered these some, but only some. The basic strategy being played by one adversary after another – Iran, North Korea, Hizbollah-Hamas-Iran-Syria --- is to wedge other major countries from the United States. Recent shifts in the Bush policy on Iran helped buttress against the wedge strategy, although a key test remains whether Bush will provide similar security reassurances as were a key part of the success in the Libya case that this is about policy change not regime change (pertains to North Korea as well).
On the immediate Middle East crisis, imagine a process going on now at the G-8 which instead of in essence saying this is our policy/we want you to support it, is more a genuinely joint effort with the United States in the lead but open to the input of the other G-8ers such that it reflected their ideas as well as interests and thus provided a much stronger basis for coming out of the meeting with a coalition capable of a sustained and concerted collective crisis management effort led by the Untied States.
We’ll see.
Good analysis, Bruce.
Unfortunately it appears that Bush and Olmert worked out this scheme months ago, and Bush is completely supporting the Israeli operations, merely asking for "restraint" in attacking civilians - a meaningless request given the situation.
So any suggestion that Bush is going to be running with crisis management ideas from the Europeans is moot.
The Washington Post article today pretty clearly puts paid to that notion.
July 16, 2006 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bruce, I just posted a comment on this topic in response to another post at TPM Cafe, but I will re-post it here with some editing and amplification:
From the White House perspective, this is not a crisis. It is an opportunity.
I am a little puzzled by the "absent US" refrain from the Democratic side. After these last several years, and abundant evidence of the martial dispositions and strategic outlook of the current US administration, people on the liberal side still seem to have trouble believing, and coming to grips emotionally with the fact that the US and its allies would be willing to start a major war in the Middle East in pursuit of their interests, as they perceive them. Please wake up, and attend to the facts that are in plain view. The administration has been talking, but you are not hearing.
The President has already spoken quite plainly from the G8 and made the US position clear to anyone who is not diplomatically tone deaf. In a nutshell, it is this: "This is Israel's war; we believe the war is justified and concur with its main war aim - the total defeat and disarmament of Hizbollah. We have no interest in ending the conflict, but would prefer to see Israel prosecute the war to its conclusion."
Many commentators on the Democratic side seem to think that it is obvious that any sensible administration would be frightened about this conflict's potential ramifications, and would thus want to contain this conflict if it could. They infer that the absence of a diplomatic effort to end the "crisis" is due to the fact that the US is "overextended". This interpretaion has been expressed so frequently today that it must be some sort of coordinated talking point. But I believe this interpretation is mistaken. In addition to the "disarm Hizbollah" war aim, which has already been publicly endorsed by the US, the Bush administration has other more expansive aims which will become evident as the conflict progresses.
By the way, the allies here do not just include Israel and the United States. The main line Sunni Arab states, no doubt concerned about the growing power of the "Shiite crescent" seem to be lending quiet support as well.
July 16, 2006 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Bush administration has two goals:
1. To allow (even encourage) Israel to destroy Hezbollah. (As I wrote earlier, this is pure fantasy.)
2. To ensure that Siniora's gvt does not fall.
Hence the "no ceasefire but restraint" rhetoric.
July 16, 2006 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Dr. Bruce. Those lessons of history are outdated. Don't you know that these folks "create their own reality" leaving guys like you to study the dramatic outcomes? Jo Ann Mort reported from Jerusalem that for crisis management, Bush sent Elliot Abrams. What does that tell you about what Bush intends to manage?
Make no mistake.. Israel is holding the most dangerous "blank check" since Kaiser WII's to Emperor Franz Josef. But that check has a date. It expires in 2009, and the Israelis being no fools, aren't wasting time. And they don't give a damn how much they cost the good ole USA or anyone else for that matter.
July 16, 2006 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the Crisis Management Program
July 16, 2006 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile back at the Other Wars or what is coming to be more properly referred to as the Other Fronts of the One War to Secure the Realm.
The Crisis Management Coalition that "might be" will, if it ever is, have more fissures than Yoemite's Half Dome. Ahmadinejad's laughing all the way back from the Martyrs' Cemetary
But if Dr. Bruce is right, then the winner hands down of the next Nobel Peace Prize will have to be Hassan Nasrallah
July 16, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush was quoted today of saying, "Good job, Elliott" and plans to fly over Lebanon when the killing subsides.
July 16, 2006 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
who was it who said you can win all the battles but lose the war?
July 16, 2006 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce
It seems to me that instead of questioning whether or not the United States alone will act as a parental figure in this war the real question should be whether the United Nations has any ability, or even desire, to perform its expected tasks.
Democrats will quickly point out that John Bolton has been placed at the UN so he can work to disengage the U.S. with that international body. On some issues there is truth to that claim. Not this one.
Everyone keeps asking, where is Bush?
I ask: where is Koffi Annan? Where is Tony Blair? Where is Jacque Chirac? Where is Angela Merkel? Thus far this conflict has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the United Nations is as irrelevant as it is useless.
Perhaps American leadership is what is expected but if nobody is willing to follow (Britain, France, Germany, etc) then there is no one to lead.
I'm afraid this isn't like the story of Forrest Gump who decided to take a long run and in the process drew hoards of followers. If the U.S. were to enter into this affair there would be outrage at one end of the spectrum or the other.
No, if the UN or NATO is not willing to take a hand in this dilemma then we should let them fight it out.
July 16, 2006 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leadership doesn't mean handing down decisions about what "we" will do, then starting to do it, expecting to be followed by those you are "leading". Leadership involves persuading others to accept your plan, modifying the plan in response to the input of others, then agreeing on how to implement the plan in concert with those you are leading. What happened in Iraq, in other words, was not an example of leadership.
Think diplomacy. Think the most powerful nation on earth. Think diplomacy again.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 16, 2006 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg, you wrote,
No, if the UN or NATO is not willing to take a hand in this dilemma then we should let them fight it out.
If the above is your conclusion, is your basic premise that this "dilemma" is really not much more than a border dispute and the only ones affected by it are the Israeli's, Palestinians and Lebanese and perhaps the governments of Iran and Syria?
If so, you and Bruce (including the others who have replied here) are not on the same page. When Bruce started off with "In the current crisis, which has the potential to be as or more dangerous than previous ones..." he was not referring to a dilemma that probably doesn't affect America's (or the world's) interests.
The long hours that the G8 Summit leaders spent on discussing "the dilemma" points to a very real concern about a possible international crisis.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
July 16, 2006 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell
For the record I agree that the situation could become an international crisis. The intent of my post was not to insinuate that the U.S. cannot play the customary role of leader here either.
Though the U.S. has reasons for not getting involved, as I have detailed on other threads, it should absolutely not hesitate IF other nations agree to form a united front.
In essence, if Britain, Germany, France, and Russia all refuse to participate, or even give their implicit approval of U.S. intervention, it is not the place of the Americans to act "unilaterally."
Moreover, even if the European nations were to encourage an American intervention, however unlikely such an occurrence might be, are they not bound to actively participate?
Following the Second World War the major governments of the world got together and decided that no sovereign nation should ever have to face questions of war; whether it be of the offensive or defensive variety. The United Nations was to be the guarantor of peace and the instrument by which democracy and human rights would be implanted throughout the world.
Everyone now sees that the UN is dead. It is not dying, it is not feeble, it is not lethargic. It is dead. Insofar as it ensures peace and stability in the world's "hot spots" it ceases to exist.
Sure it may continue to help allocate resources in times of natural disaster but that is the extent of its reach.
Without the UN, and without European support, even the United States cannot, and should not, be looked upon to act while everyone else sits in their dimly lit parlors reading the evening news.
Europeans, of all people, should understand their responsibilities to this alliance.
July 17, 2006 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy
A question: Has not America's neutrality during the Middle East crisis shown, perhaps better than any pragmatic approach could, just how accustomed the world has gotten to America taking the lead?
A more important question: Given the absolute dead silence coming from European nations on the Middle Eastern issue, does American neutraility not prove DEMONSTRATABLY that the world STILL relies on American strength and determination to lead the way?
Indeed, in this era of anti-Americanism (both at home and abroad) it certainly seems as if old Mr. Irony has stopped by for a visit here.
Many say, perhaps with short-term frustration at Bush, that the world no longer needs America.
I believe the Middle Eastern war will prove them sorely wrong. To be sure, it already has.
July 17, 2006 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whose everyone? Ninety-percent of the world knows where Busch was.
Now, if you run into any of the others in the 10% crowd with their head stuck in the ground let 'em know the leader of the greatest nation on earth had a date with a pig... right after impressing the kids...
Now THAT's statesmenship...
~OGD~
ps: I know... I know... I'll give myself an "unproductive" for this one....
July 17, 2006 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Hoppy ... right on the mark.
Now if we could just get him to spell C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S.
~OGD~
July 17, 2006 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
A even more important answer: Not really.
What is D-E-M-O-N-S-T-R-A-B-L-E is if the European nations have a different take or approach on how to do things in their sphere of the globe, and the US tells 'em to go piss-into-the-wind and American US forces are then unilaterally employed to show it's strength and determination and it thereby causes absolute dead silence coming from European nations on the Middle Eastern issue.
~OGD~
ps: What is it that's said about a "parallel universe"?
July 17, 2006 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's gonna send in the Marines to re-establish a barracks at the airport and finish what Reagan was unable to do?
~OGD~
ps: (actually I think they want to flank Syria from the sea...)
July 17, 2006 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the Washington Post article you linked. It does not say what you claim. It only says that the United States is willing to support Israel going after Hezbollah even if the rest of the international community doesn't like it. The U.S. also believes they have the tacit backing of the Sunni Arab world for such a policy.
There is no suggest of a long ago plan. Afterall who knew that Hezbollah would violate the U.N. Res 1559 border and murder Israelis and then use Iranian supplied missiles to attack Israel.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 17, 2006 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce The United States has often taken a bow for getting a deal signed and has played a key role in helping work out many of the details. However most of the agreements have come only after extension secret meetngs between Israel and Arab leaders. See for example Schlomo Bin-Ami's Wounds of War Scars of Peace.
July 17, 2006 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is too controlled by his Likudnik NeoCon circle to show any leadership, and so can't control Israel.
No, see, our job as Americans is to arm Israel to the teeth, publicly support their "right to exist" while Israel does whatever it damn well pleases.
July 17, 2006 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In trying to shift the blame onto the Right's perpetual whipping boy of convenience (the UN) you seem to have forgotten that the US essentially vetoed a UN Security Council call for a ceasefire.
July 17, 2006 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In trying to shift the blame onto the Right's perpetual whipping boy...
I think you underestimate the Right. The UN is not a whipping boy but a useful tool to stall, frustrate, and othewise obfuscate more nefarious policy decisions [or non-decisions].
July 17, 2006 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right.... Let's don't call this antisemitism lest we be accused of stifling an otherwise valuable debate.
July 17, 2006 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 17, 2006 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel Lobby Watch
July 17, 2006 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where you see antisemitism, I see profound disagreement with US policies and US leaders. Specifically, Bush's policies and his incompetence at carrying them out, no matter at whom or where their target is located.
There is nothing resembling antisemitism in this thread.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
July 17, 2006 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
seashell,
"Likudnik control"; Israel's " 'right to exist' " (quotes denoting illegitimacy), for starters. Too subtle for you?
July 17, 2006 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista,
You of course are far more expert in determining the degree of anti-semticism in any given post and far be it from me to be so presumptuous to defend a poster whose motives I do not know but is it possible that these references can have another entendre that is not anti-semitic but suspicious of intention?
Haven't Bush advisors like Perle and Feight empirically been proven to have dual loyalties that they swear to? Could the poster be mistaking their loyalty as being Likud? Or maybe it is. Maybe you can examine the issue from this perspective and tell us the inside scoop.
And considering the tax subsidy and unregulated nature of America's national commitment to Israel isn't it a legitimate question to ask what the cost of this "right to exist" rhetoric?
Because it seems to me that Israel is already a nation that is not going away anytime soon [and the poster may not wish it to], yet this mythical "right to exist" rhetoric seems to justify profound loss of judgement on all sides. Who can grant this right to exist? The UN? the Pope? An oil baron? One of our puppet dictators in the Middle East? Maybe a virtual University can confer such a right...
What?
July 17, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I had missed seeing those in that post.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
July 17, 2006 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no sense that the US is absent from this conflict. Most of the weapons that Israel is discharging into the bodies of Lebanese or Palestinian civilians have been made in America and will continue to be made in America. A fair chunk of Israel's budget comes in the form of aid from the United States. In a more proximate sense, the US has blocked the UN security council from dealing with the matter, and has twisted Europe's arms to keep them out of it. The US has loudly blamed the Palestinians and Hezbollah, while quietly suggesting that perhaps the civilian death toll could be moderated. We have a reasonable degree of tacit US military, political and economic support.
So how can you say that the US is not providing Middle East Crisis Management. Throwing gasoline on a fire might not be the sort of management you want, but others have other objectives.
Besides which, it's now clear that the US has no credibility anywhere. You 'liberals' pine for the notion of America as 'honest broker' stepping in to 'bring people together' and 'make peace.'
Well, the reality is that America is not an honest broker. America engages in wars of choice, is currently engaged in occupying two muslim countries against the wills of their population, has threatened to use nuclear weapons against a third, has endorsed every single one of Israel's most extreme policies and whose allies in the Arab world are the corrupt and the wealthy. What sort of credibility does that give you? What sort of integrity do you have?
The US is incapable of crisis management on its own, and is incapable of working with other parties to manage a crisis.
Indeed, the foreign policy goal of the US seems to be crisis manufacture.
July 17, 2006 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
And most of weapons Hizbollah is discharging into the bodies of Israeli civilians have been made in Iran and distributed by Syria. [CAUTION: Bringing this up exposes anyone as a neocon Likudnik Elder of Zion.] So, are Hizbollah fighters civilians? We know they're not Lebanese soldiers. They don't hang out on military bases since they are essentially party hacks in the Lebanese political universe. So, Hizbollah invades Israel, kills a few Israeli soldiers and takes a couple others hostage (because it was such a good idea a week before in Gaza!), and since Lebanon is one of the great majority of Arab League member nations committed to the policy of denial regarding Israel's statehood and there are no diplomatic channels for Israel to utilize, then how is Israel supposed to get them back?
July 17, 2006 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
LiberalVoice,
Smells like presumption. If you have something to support it, cough it up. Meanwhile, I read it as vintage Wilhelm Marr.
July 17, 2006 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
[quote]And most of weapons Hizbollah is discharging into the bodies of Israeli civilians have been made in Iran and distributed by Syria. [/quote]
EXACTLY!!! I'm glad you caught on. Now, here's one of the roots of the problem. Israel is publicly accusing Iran and Syria of being behind it all, on the basis that they made the weapons that Hezbollah used. This is then used as the formula to argue that it is actually America behind the attacks on Lebanon! In short, the rhetorical canard of the Likud extremists is being employed by the Arab extremists. The knife cuts both ways.
So, if we give the United States a free pass on its weaponry, arguing that the US just builds the stuff and hands it over, without any control or responsibility for its use... Then don't Iran and Syria get to be entitled to the same 'get out of jail free' card?
It's a puzzler, Zionista, that's what it is.
[quote]So, are Hizbollah fighters civilians?[/quote]
Probably they would say they weren't.
On the other hand, I would presume that its not a retroactive thing. People don't become Hezbollah fighters *after* you've blown them up. And I presume that when you drop a bomb on a house or a crowd filled with women and children, that the women and children are not Hezbollah fighters.
[quote] We know they're not Lebanese soldiers.[/quote]
Yeppers. So why is Israel blowing up Lebanese soldiers?
[quote] They don't hang out on military bases since they are essentially party hacks in the Lebanese political universe.[/quote]
Interesting description.
[quote]So, Hizbollah invades Israel, kills a few Israeli soldiers and takes a couple others hostage (because it was such a good idea a week before in Gaza!)[/quote]
Almost as good an idea as blowing up that Palestinian family at the beach!
Seriously though, and thanks, you've all been a great audience, I think that you've almost got it. But it's not quite as 'monkey see/monkey do' as you propose. Its more like:
- Israel blows up family.
- Hamas, or random Palestinians, feel the need for reprisal, and kidnap soldier.
- Israel responds by attacking a bunch of civilian targets, blowing up and killing people in outrageous ways that are not proportionate.
- Hezbollah then responds to the bombing of Palestinians by conducting a kidnapping operation in deliberate reflection of the Palestinian one.
- Israel responds disproportionately again.
Let me apologize if I seem to be awkwardly mentioning that family of civilians that got blowed up. But they do seem to be the big hairy starting point.
If you'd like, you can point out that there have been rockets constantly fired from Gaza into Israel that over a year and a half killed as many Israeli civilians as got deliberately targeted and shelled at the beach.
And then we can trace it all the way back to Og hitting Thag with a rock during the neolithic.
[quote] and since Lebanon is one of the great majority of Arab League member nations committed to the policy of denial regarding Israel's statehood and there are no diplomatic channels for Israel to utilize,[/quote]
Well, no diplomatic channels except all the usual third party channels and the low level 'unofficial' contacts.
[quote] then how is Israel supposed to get them back?[/quote]
Hey, you're using sarcasm, are you? I like it.
Hmmmm. Perhaps by bombing convoys of fleeing civilians after dropping leaflets telling them to get out of town and onto the road where they could more easily be hit?
Perhaps by shelling airports? Blowing up bridges? Blowing up generating stations? Attacking the civilian population, including Christian and Sunni areas far removed from Hezbollah?
Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
Is it working?
July 17, 2006 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Christopher Dickey as usual illuminates events in the Middle East better than any other journalist. Anthony Shadid tells the story and together they give me a way to think about what is really going on. Dickey's 24 July 2006 column "The Hand that Feeds the Fire" describes the role and position of Iran in the current fighting, President Bush's perceptions of events including the role of Iran and the effect of Bush's Iraq invasion. At present the disagreement over Iranian nuclear program is obscured by the Israeli Hizbullah conflict.
"Bush's decision to invade Iraq removed Saddam as a strategic balance to a radicalized Iran. Now Washington and Tehran confront one another in the following areas: military, political, ideological, direct and indirect, overt and covert. The Iranians appear to have outmaneuvered the administration."
"Prominent Iranian journalist Mashallah Shamsolvazin, an expert on Lebanese affairs, suggest that Tehran's next step will be to present itself as a peacemaker...to show its regional power."
Dickey in a very cohesive fashion covers Hizbullah, Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians in conjunction with the present mess in ME.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13881857/site/newsweek/
July 17, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel Lobby Watch
Collective punishment is a war crime. Israel has been targeting civiliam populations in attacks which are wholly unrelated to their avowed purpose.
Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is an incontestable and continuing violation of several UN resolutions.
Israel for nearly 60 years has been ethnically cleaning its "lands" of Palestininan residents.
Therefore, by standards set by Dr. Jentleson, Ivo Daalder and others, be it resolved that Israel has forfeit its right to national sovereignty.....
Israel is a rogue nation......
July 17, 2006 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's all very well and nice, but I don't think that the state of Israel will be volunteering for dissolution any time soon.
Nor do I believe that there is any legal authority in international law to dissolve a state once it comes into existence. At best, the constituent sub-elements or population of a state can dissolve it, as we saw with Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, and the USSR.
However, dissolution from without appears to violate international law. Certainly it was not accepted in Iraq/Kuwait.
In any event, any real effort to dissolve Israel as a state would face the problem of what to do with the 5.2 million jewish and .8 million arab Israeli's, who are currently in residence, some for generations.
Israel's existence is a fact. Israel's right to exist derives from that fact.
It is a fact and right which is accepted by Arab states, either overtly or tacitly. Certainly no Arab state is prepared to make the investment in military and weapons systems to contest Israel.
Countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Albania, Bosnia, Bangladesh and Indonesia have never been part of the party. Algeria had its own civil war to deal with. Morocco looks elsewhere. The Sahel muslim countries, Chad, Mauretania, Sudan, Niger and Mali all look inwards to internal strife. Somalia is a basket case. Egypt has a peace treaty. Jordan is on side. Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states and Yemen are all more interested in making money.
Syria is so uninterested in further conflict with Israel that it gave its claim to territory occupied by Israel to Lebanon. It has no patrons, no oil, no money, and no interest. Its military is not going to challenge Israel. Its major interest is keeping its economy going.
Iran's problem with Israel is only academic. It has all sorts of real problems, internal and external. Despite rhetoric, it is not in any sort of position to attack or challenge Israel in any way.
The only groups seriously challenging Israel's existence are minor non-state actors with no power whatsoever to threaten it seriously, and who represent displaced or oppressed populations who have serious unresolved issues. They exist mainly because the displaced/oppressed populations exist. They will cease to be a factor when these populations are dealt with.
The suggestion that Israel's existence is invalid only fuels the ranting of the apocalyptic Zion-nuts who see Israel surrounded by an endless sea of enemies, constantly at the threshold of destruction.