During his two election campaigns this year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly boasted of his alleged foreign policy achievements. At the same time, Foreign Affairs Ministry, of which he has been in charge for the past four years, has recorded yet another low in an ongoing process meant to weaken it and decentralize its authority, thereby undermining Israel’s ability to implement diplomatic goals and improve its international relations. The ministry is over NIS 300 million ($85m.) budget deficit makes it hard for diplomats to carry out their work.

However, the essence of the crisis is not budgetary. It lies in the ministry’s ongoing exclusion from the core issues of Israeli diplomacy and the scattering of its roles and budgets among various government ministries and entities. Its public standing has been undermined with deliberate intent, and Israelis are insufficiently aware of the ministry’s importance. The voice of diplomats is marginalized in Israel’s decision-making processes, which therefore lack the broad diplomatic angle that Foreign Ministry professionals could bring to the table. This has a direct negative impact on Israel’s national security.

There is a price to be paid for an enfeebled Foreign Ministry and its inability to promote Israeli interests in the international arena, such as creating diplomatic alliances and expedient terms for cooperation with other countries, forging ties with international organizations and institutions, identifying economic opportunities and helping Israel fulfill its potential. Among the ministry’s other core tasks is aiding Jewish communities around the world and Israeli citizens abroad, promoting foreign aid that contributes to Israel’s sense of self-worth and public image abroad, and carrying out the public diplomacy essential to explaining Israel’s cause and mobilizing international support for its survival and prosperity. The weakening of the Foreign Ministry harms all these missions and damages Israel’s future.

The recent appointment of Israel Katz as a full-time foreign minister, after four years of Netanyahu holding the position among his many other duties, was a positive development that underscored the importance of staffing this post. The new minister is rightly seeking to identify measures to bolster his ministry and help resolve the dispute it has with the Finance Ministry. However, the reform he is proposing, as reported in Haaretz, reportedly consists primarily of shifting the ministry’s focus to the economic realm and is therefore unlikely to solve the issues at stake.

FIRST, REGARDLESS of the proposal itself, a reform in the Foreign Affairs Ministry should be carried out by a minister appointed for a full term, and not as a caretaker in a transition government. It should also be conducted in coordination with the ministry’s professional directors, taking into account the planning work undertaken by them in recent years to prepare it for the future.

Second, the reform as reported merely perpetuates the trend of shrinking and weakening the ministry’s work, undermining the core of its activity: diplomacy. Strengthening the economic component in the ministry’s work and its ability to measure and assess its performance are positive steps, appropriate in the era of modern diplomacy; but only in accordance with additional important measures designed to strengthen the ministry’s impact on foreign policy design and implementation, and boosting its voice at the decision-making level. Presenting Israeli diplomats with new economic demands that are far from the added value they are able to provide is not the solution.

The campaign ahead of Israel’s September 17 elections is an opportunity to reiterate the importance of Israeli diplomacy and foreign relations. It provides an opportunity to demand that the political parties and their candidates boost the standing of the Foreign Service. This is an opportunity for the candidates to explain to voters the importance of a strong diplomatic apparatus and the opportunities that it can help promote, and to present concrete foreign policy goals and action plans. In addition, civil society organizations dedicated to Israeli foreign policy and its Foreign Service are growing in number and strength, representing varied professional and ideological backgrounds, and they can also help shape the conversation during (and after) the elections campaign.

The formation of a new government and ministerial appointments are an opportunity to empower Israel’s Foreign Service, also by restoring to the Foreign Affairs Ministry the foreign policy responsibilities and budgets farmed out to other agencies in recent years, appointing a full-time foreign minister and forming a ministry-led inter-agency committee to coordinate all government activity in the field of foreign relations. This is also an opportunity to ensure that the voices of diplomats and foreign policy professionals become an integral part of decision-making processes.

The swearing in of the next Knesset will be a time to ensure that its committees, especially the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, deal with foreign relations issues properly, and do not allow them to be overshadowed once again by Israel’s security-focused discourse. Israel can follow the example of other countries and establish a parliamentary committee solely dedicated to foreign affairs. This may also present an opportunity to promote structural change in the National Security Council that would ensure a role for diplomats within it, and to encourage the cabinet to demand regular briefings on foreign affairs by the ministry.

The incumbency of a new foreign minister also provides an opportunity to define clear goals for the ministry, build a work plan and set measurable targets with which to assess its achievements, its ethics and equity for Israel’s citizens. The Foreign Affairs Ministry must improve its cooperation with civil society organizations, the media and the Knesset; share information about its ongoing activities and its annual assessments, enable parliamentary and public oversight and encourage transparency, professional freedom and sound administration.

In summing up, Israel’s Foreign Service is weak and is deliberately being weakened even further. We are paying the resulting cost to our diplomacy, economy, civil society and security. None of this is preordained. It stems from a political decision and thus can be transformed. The coming elections are a chance for change. We as citizens must demand that our candidates and parties, from across the political spectrum, pledge to repair the damage and bring Israel’s Foreign Service back to the forefront.

Dr. Roee Kibrik is director of research at Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies; Dr. Nimrod Goren is head of the institute.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Israel’s Foreign Service Is Being Weakened and We Are All Paying the Price, הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The MFA is a victim of the traditional predominance of military, defense and intelligence agencies in providing responses to the diplomatic and security challenges Israel faces. Politicians and government officials tend to dismiss the ministry’s potential contribution to key issues on the national agenda. This continuous neglect has resulted in a string of budget cuts and closure of Israeli diplomatic missions throughout the world, undermining the ministry’s classic diplomatic roles, chief among them developing and maintaining Israel’s diplomatic ties with other countries. With deliberate intent, Netanyahu’s governments have steadily chipped away at the ministry’s significant role in designing and conducting Israel’s diplomacy and defense agenda.

The next Israeli government could reverse this grim trend if the Prime Minister appoints a full-time Foreign Minister and gives him or her full backing. Provided the new government displays willingness and openness to MFA reform, it will have to start by adopting a conceptual change in mapping the current spheres of influence in the international arena, which are no longer limited to government and state level. There are other, varied spheres of influence, some devoid of any diplomatic or state-level definition, some without an organized structure and/or territorial (or other) borders, which are often more powerful and influential than those of governments and states. These new spheres of influence include the internet and social media, giant corporations and multinational groups. They command huge budgets, often greater than the average budget of a small or medium-sized state. Religious and ethno-cultural streams numbering many millions of believers and members also hold growing sway, as do influential global civil society organizations.

The methodology and means used to exert global influence are also different from the ones we knew. Top-down processes, in which an established state entity conveys messages to broad swathes of the public through traditional media, exert declining influence. These familiar trends are being replaced by a non-hierarchical, non-filtered influence no longer based on traditional media channels but rather on direct contact through internet and social media platforms. Most of them are largely unregulated and uncensored, such as Twitter and Facebook. This constitutes a dramatic change in diplomatic and political influence. Therefore, present-day Israeli diplomacy must reflect a deep understanding of these new avenues of influence, a correct reading of global power centers and the use of innovative and relevant tools to create influence within these arenas – from classic diplomacy within the framework of traditional international relations to digital diplomacy on the internet, social media and digital communications.

Realistic funding for updated MFA operations is also a vital element of any future reform. Israel has traditionally allocated an especially low budget for its Foreign Service compared with other states that increase their foreign affairs budgets significantly each year. This undermines the potential impact of the MFA and its diplomatic activities. The required overhaul must also be based on branding Israel as an innovative purveyor of foreign aid. The MFA’s Agency for International Development Cooperation (known by its Hebrew acronym Mashav) is one of the most efficient tools for improving Israel’s image in the world.

Increasing the extent of Israeli aid to developing countries could greatly enhance its prestige in the world, in general, and in beneficiary states, in particular. The combination of Israel’s image as a start-up nation and its willingness to play a key role in Tikkun Olam – the Jewish value of “repairing the world’, a form of global responsibility – has vast potential for promoting positive branding. Unfortunately, and absurdly, this blend of foreign aid with technology and innovation is undervalued and very far from utilizing its potential. A reconstituted Israeli MFA must change this policy and turn innovation-based foreign aid into a first-rate tool of public diplomacy and branding.

Most importantly and above all, however, a new government must restore the authority stripped from the MFA and the purview over foreign policy and public diplomacy handed over to various agencies, clearly define the ministry’s roles and influence, and anchor them in government decisions and even legislation.

Dr. Ronen Hoffman is an expert on governance and foreign policy at the IDC in Herzliya, who served as a Member of Knesset and Chair of the Subcommittee on Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy in the 19th Knesset. This article is based on his speech at a conference of the Mitvim Institute.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Empowering Israel’s Foreign Service via Modern and Innovative Diplomacy הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Some elements of the crisis are deeply rooted, while others have been exacerbated significantly in recent years. The Israeli establishment has always taken an instrumental and unilateral approach toward Diaspora Jewry, expecting it to serve as a pro-Israel lobby, a cash machine for unconditional funding, and a potential immigrant pool. However, since Diaspora Jews do not have voting rights in Israel, their needs and preferences do not enjoy political advocacy or representation.

Had Israel adopted a constitution, it should have stipulated that the President of the State or, alternatively, the Supreme Court, wield the authority to strike down Knesset legislation deemed as damaging to the State of Israel’s designation in the Declaration of Independence as the Jewish nation state. Absent a constitution, the commitment to Jewish “peoplehood” should have been enshrined in the 2018 Nation-State Law, along with a promise of equality for non-Jewish citizens, given that both elements constitute the pillars of the democratic Jewish nation state.

The crisis also lies in the Israeli establishment’s attitude toward the non-Orthodox streams of Judaism that constitute a large majority of the Jewish people. Jewish peoplehood, which essentially means one extended family, cannot be forged when we treat members of Judaism’s liberal streams as second-class Jews. Israeli legislators have no incentive to deal with this issue, either, since there are many more Orthodox Jews in Israel than there are Conservative or Reform. This requires an organization with a broad vision of “Jewish peoplehood” to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government do not adopt myopic, harmful decisions (such as the ones reneging on promises of pluralistic prayer at the Western Wall and a draft law on Jewish conversions).

In the context of political instrumentality, those who regard Israel as their state cannot be expected to express only political views in tune with those of the government. The approach that views the political views of world Jewry as a litmus test of their allegiance turns Israel into a divisive element rather than a unifying force. We must be open to criticism and embrace those among the Jewish people who disagree with our government’s positions.

As for the funding issue, with Israel having one of the strongest economies in the world, Diaspora Jews can no longer be expected to finance us as they did in years past. Israel no longer needs donations, but it does desperately need a strong connection with Diaspora Jews; relationships between people and not between bank transfers. Funds from both sides of the ocean should be directed toward greatly needed youth exchange programs and joint projects with civil society organizations.

As for the expectation of Jewish Aliya – we are happy with every new immigrant to Israel, but we have to accept the legitimacy of life in the Diaspora and avoid judgment of, or arrogance toward, Jews living abroad as if there were only one way to be a Zionist.

On top of these longstanding structural flaws, successive Israeli governments have distanced themselves from the liberal values enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, shared by a large majority of American Jews, further exacerbating the crisis. The situation deteriorated further when Israeli diplomacy abandoned the guiding principle that support for Israel must be a bipartisan issue in US politics, rather than one identified mostly with the Republicans. Many Jews also perceive Israel as forging alliances with populist, racist regimes that have replaced anti-Semitism with a hatred of Muslims and have thus found Israel a like-minded state.

Resolving the crisis requires a change of all Israel-Diaspora relationship paradigms, basing them on actions that connect people, especially those on the liberal side of the spectrum, through joint work on Tikun Olam (loosely translated – building model societies) projects. This ancient Jewish ideal speaks to all Jews in their relationships with each other and with the rest of the world, and could be attractive for the younger generation. A self-confident, globally integrated Judaism, rather than an isolationist one, is far more of a draw for younger Jews. Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation (MASHAV) under the Foreign Ministry should be transformed into a project involving the entire Jewish people, training young Jews and sending them to confront need wherever it arises, not just, where narrow interests dictate. Obviously, we must make sure that these Tikun Olam projects reflect a desire for compassion and connection, and not arrogance toward aid recipients.

We must also create a “reverse Birthright project”, enabling every Israeli high school student to join a Jewish community abroad for a week or two to experience direct contact with its members. Despite the importance of the annual visits by Israeli high school students to concentration camps in Poland in order to understand our national trauma, meeting living Jews is no less important. For the sake of our joint future, the living are no less important than the legacy of the dead.

Restoring bipartisan support for Israel, especially in the US, is vital. It must replace the controversial issue Israel has become. Israel must realize that 79 percent of US Jews voted for Democrats in the November 2018 mid-term elections and most despise President Trump, although he enjoys great popularity in Israel. Israel must adopt a forward-looking foreign policy that does not limit Israeli interests to the current government in Israel and to a specific US administration. Rather than an isolationist, victimized narrative, Israel must conduct a constructive discourse with the US and the liberal nations of Europe, even those critical of its ongoing occupation and settlement policies.

To sum up, resolution of the crisis with world Jewry and promotion of “Jewish peoplehood” must become a central item on Israel’s public agenda if we are to be true to the definition of the State of Israel as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people. Ahead of the upcoming elections, we should all demand that candidates adopt a serious attitude toward the crisis and commit themselves to its resolution.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Resolving the Crisis with Diaspora Jewry הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.