HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031865.jpg

32

supplement to the sea for the movement of large numbers of troops.
Once the Hellespont is crossed, the coastal route through southern
Turkey, down the Levant and along the Mediterranean's southern
shore, provides such an alternative.
There is an additional consideration. If a Mediterranean empire
leaves the Levant unoccupied, it opens the door to the possibility of a
great power originating to the east seizing the ports of the Levant and
challenging the Mediterranean power for maritime domination. In
short, control of the Levant binds a Mediterranean empire together
while denying a challenger from the east the opportunity to enter the
Mediterranean. Holding the Levant, and controlling Israel, is a
necessary preventive measure for a Mediterranean empire.
Israel is also important to any empire originating to the east of Israel,
either in the Tigris-Euphrates basin or in Persia. For either, security
could be assured only once it had an anchor on the Levant.
Macedonian expansion under Alexander demonstrated that a power
controlling Levantine and Turkish ports could support aggressive
operations far to the east, to the Hindu Kush and beyond. While
Turkish ports might have sufficed for offensive operations, simply
securing the Bosporus still left the southern flank exposed. Therefore,
by holding the Levant, an eastern power protected itself against
attacks from Mediterranean powers.
The Levant was also important to any empire originating to the north
or south of Israel. If Egypt decided to move beyond the Nile Basin
and North Africa eastward, it would move first through the Sinai and
then northward along the coastal plain, securing sea lanes to Egypt.
When Asia Minor powers such as the Ottoman Empire developed,
there was a natural tendency to move southward to control the eastern
Mediterranean. The Levant is the crossroads of continents, and Israel
lies in the path of many imperial ambitions.
Israel therefore occupies what might be called the convergence zone

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031865