This perspective is not just an expression of deep pain – it is a testament to the destructive consequences of the events of October 7, 2023, on the perception of Israel’s future in the eyes of many liberals in Israel and the American Jewish community.

Hamas not only attacked, murdered, and raped Israelis, it also succeeded in causing many Jews to lose faith in a future in which Israel can exist as a Jewish and democratic state alongside a Palestinian state.

From Hamas’s perspective, this is a tremendous strategic victory. After all, its goal has never been Palestinian independence alongside Israel but rather the elimination of the Zionist idea.

If Israel completely rejects the two-state solution, it will be trapped in a predicament where it cannot be both democratic and Jewish in a sustainable manner – thus demolishing liberal Zionism.

The position of Rabbi Hirsch is also the result of years of systematic political messages from the Israeli Right and the conservative American Jewish establishment, which have succeeded in conflating the Palestinians as a national movement and Hamas as an extremist Islamist movement.

Netanyahu’s narrative 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by organizations in the Jewish establishment in the US, promoted a narrative that associates every Palestinian with Hamas.

As a result, even moderate voices such as Rabbi Hirsch’s are now adopting an interpretation that absolves Israel from any responsibility for the failure of peace processes.

The Palestinian side is not exempt from responsibility, of course, but granting an exemption to Israeli governments throughout the generations from shared responsibility for the failure is not Zionism – since the purpose of Zionism is for the Jewish people to take responsibility for our fate.

It also reinforces the destructive stance of the “There’s no partner for peace” school, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those who claim that the problem lies solely with the Palestinian side and the strengthening of Hamas that has been led by Netanyahu’s governments in the past 16 years are causing serious damage to our future.

Despite the pain, in light of Rabbi Hirsch’s words, I find comfort in the fact that the American Jewish community still largely holds a different position.

Most Jews in the US support the two-state solution and understand that the endless control over the Palestinians is not a recipe for Zionist prosperity but rather for Israel’s moral and strategic decline.

In Israel, polls indicate that the majority of the public would support a solution that included a demilitarized Palestinian state as part of a regional agreement.

Israel can make a reality of full peace relations with Sunni Arab countries as part of a moderate Middle Eastern bloc standing against both Iranian and jihadist Shi’ite and Sunni forces.

Saudi Arabia is leading this initiative among Arab countries, and it is possible that Indonesia and other non-Arab Muslim countries will join as well.

Biden tried to promote this vision and failed, but Donald Trump also wants to reach such an agreement for different reasons of prestige and money, which could make its realization more realistic.

Such an arrangement would not only solve the moral and demographic problem of controlling a foreign people but would also the solution to Israel’s security problem, as former senior officials from the IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet, and the Foreign Ministry have testified.

From a historical perspective, we know that – sometimes – it is precisely after severe shocks that a political breakthrough occurs.

After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israeli public became more hawkish – but shortly thereafter, peace was signed with Egypt.

After the First Intifada, which was a severe trauma for the Israeli public, the Oslo Accords were born, paving the way for peace with Jordan.

Today’s crisis is not necessarily a sign of losing our way – it could be a springboard to a new solution; if only the right leader can be found, with the ability to translate pain into hope.

The reality is indeed difficult. The current dynamics make the political discourse in Israel more extreme. But we do not have the privilege of despairing.

Zionism has never been an effortless project. Every significant achievement we have attained as a people and as a state has come through determination, despite opposition and fears.

הפוסט Israel cannot let Hamas win by abandoning the pursuit of peace הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Thus, Israel was the only country to withdraw its ambassador from Vienna in 1986, when Kurt Waldheim – the former UN secretary-general, who was later revealed to have been an officer in the Wehrmacht – was elected president of Austria.

Even in 2000, Israel recalled its ambassador from Vienna when the Austrian Freedom Party, with roots in the Nazi regime, joined the coalition government. Once again, we were among the few in the world who placed an ethical stance above cold political considerations – and we sent a clear message about what was acceptable and unacceptable when it came to Jewish safety.

This is how Israel has acted for years: a Jewish state with a historical memory that obliges it to take a stand for our people and against racism and xenophobia of any kind. But today, 25 years later, I’m concerned about the future of Israel’s moral compass and its Foreign Ministry. The excellent individuals in the Israeli Foreign Ministry are increasingly being asked to implement policies that contradict everything we believe in, everything Israel once represented.

When Israel voted at the UN against the proposal calling for the preservation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – alongside countries like Russia, North Korea, and of course the United States under Donald Trump – it was another painful testament to the dark place into which we have descended.

But it doesn’t stop here.

New policy directives

The Israeli Foreign Ministry continues to receive new policy directives that shame its legacy. For example, the directive from Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar to work on strengthening ties with far-right parties in Europe.

These are the same parties that continue the path of neo-Nazi movements. Today, they hide behind an anti-Muslim facade, which should be a reason to not legitimize them in any case. They cast a thin veil over the antisemitic undertone that simmers beneath the surface, waiting for the right moment to break out.

While in 2000, Israel’s government condemned Europeans for allying with right-wing extremists, in 2025, the Likud has made itself an “observer member” of a grouping of far-right European parties.

Government ministers are continuing to cozy up with those who are willing to downplay their hatred for Jews in order to gain legitimacy. This is alongside other activities that shame our nation, such as the support for the ethnic cleansing carried out by Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry is composed of good and dedicated individuals who chose a career primarily focused on representing their country and fighting for it. But today, every Israeli diplomat must take a moment for self-reflection: can they continue to serve a policy that contradicts the Jewish and democratic values for which they joined the Ministry? And if they do, shouldn’t they raise their opposition to the minister’s directive?

Israel was once a moral beacon. Our founding vision was to be a light among nations. It was core to our identity to never forget. We must not lose our way, and the responsibility for this does not lie solely with the leaders – it also falls on the public and our public servants, especially those in the Foreign Ministry. These are the individuals whose role is to implement the policies of the Israeli government on the international stage.

The legitimization of racist and antisemitic parties and support for Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine are the diplomatic equivalents of an illegal order with a black flag flying above it. There are things that every principled person must stand against and say clearly: enough is enough.

The article was published on March 17th 2025 in The Jerusalem Post.

הפוסט Israel’s Foreign Policy Has Lost Its Moral Compass הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

We owe it to ourselves to ask the question: Where did we go wrong? Why did we not allow the Biden administration to implement the detailed plan it had prepared for the day after the war in May, which included an alternative to Hamas in Gaza and the normalization of Israel’s relations in the region in a way that would provide security against Iran and its proxies? Why did the Biden administration fail to use the many levers the US has over the Israeli government to save us from the continuation of the catastrophe that has caused so much unnecessary suffering?

What allowed Trump, whose values could not be more contrary to those of the liberal camp in Israel and the United States, to succeed where the principled and Zionist Joe Biden failed?

One of the main reasons for this is the view, which still prevails among too many in our camp and the leadership of most Jewish organizations abroad, that there must be “no daylight” between the positions of the American administration and the Israeli government.

This approach is not only anachronistic but also truly harmful when Israel is led by a government whose main purpose is its own self-preservation. A purpose that often comes at the expense of Israel’s national interests. A purpose that goes against the position of the majority of the Israeli public and that of the liberal majority of American Jews, who have long supported the cessation of hostilities, the release of the hostages, and the defense of our democracy against attempts to destroy it.

Translating pressure

The Prevailing view is not only that it is forbidden to show a gap in positions, but even more so that it is forbidden to translate the gap into pressure on the Israeli government – even one as antagonistic and in need of reigning in as our current one.

A prominent example of this playing out was the criticism from some of the leaders of Israel’s liberal camp regarding the delay in supplying two-ton bombs ahead of the entry into Rafah. It was clear there was no operational need for these bombs, but it was a signal and a message to Israel that it must take the position of the American administration into consideration with regards to the risk of collateral damage.

Another example was the malicious attack in Israel and from many Jewish organizations in the US against the vote of 19 senators – all supporters of Israel and the special US relationship with Israel – who voted to disapprove of unrestricted weapons transfers and send a message to Biden and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that American aid is not a “blank check.”

The position of the senators was unambiguous: The US should not unconditionally support a futile war without a strategic plan to get hostages home or for the day after – and should not do so in violation of US and international law and in a manner that harms both American and Israeli interests.

Biden and his secretary of state Antony Blinken invested monumental efforts in building plans that could have dramatically and positively changed Israel’s situation in the region and brought back the hostages, but they failed to implement them because they feared the political repercussions of pressuring the Israeli government. The Biden administration continued to declare at every opportunity that the prevention of the deal was Hamas’s fault, even though it was as clear as a bell that Netanyahu was the main obstacle to the deal. They removed political pressure that could have gotten hostages home and ended the war sooner, contrary to their own stated goals.

Netanyahu immediately understood the dynamic and Biden’s weakness, openly disregarding American requests.

Hamas is indeed responsible for the atrocities of October 7 and is an openly jihadist, barbaric terrorist organization, but its position over the halting of the fighting to free the hostages has not changed since the first day of the negotiations. After the IDF completed the majority of its military tasks many months ago, there was no reason to prevent the conclusion of the deal other than Netanyahu’s narrow political considerations, primarily the preservation of the coalition.

Jewish organizations in the US supported the release of the hostages, but due to those anachronistic and harmful constraints, they failed to use their influence to actually do something about it. The automatic backing of the Israeli government’s position proved both absurd and dangerous.

This is not the first time that the tendency of many Jewish organizations and leaders in the Israeli liberal camp to align with right-wing governments here has caused strategic damage to Israel. The opposition to the nuclear deal between the P5+1 superpowers and Iran is another example.

They aligned with Netanyahu’s position, leading to the eventual Trump withdrawal from the agreement that had stopped Iran from developing weapons. In hindsight, it is now abundantly clear that the agreement was the best option available, and Trump’s withdrawal from it has resulted in Iran becoming a threshold nuclear state. It also allowed China and Russia to extricate themselves from the international coalition designed to prevent Iran’s nuclearization, and they are now both in a strategic alliance with the ayatollahs’ regime.

Another example was the support of many Jewish organizations and centrist leaders in Israel for Trump’s and Netanyahu’s policies to abandon the Palestinian issue in the framework of the Abraham Accords. This weakened the Palestinian factions that support a settlement and strengthened Hamas. Together with other moves to strengthen Hamas and weaken the Palestinian Authority, this was among the factors that led to October 7.

There is no doubt that there is an Israeli interest in normalization with Arab countries, but the attempt to achieve this goal while bypassing the Palestinian issue dramatically harms Israel’s security interests. Here too, the voice of many Jewish organizations was not to be heard.

The time has come for the majority in the Jewish community in the US and the centrist politicians in Israel who claim to lead the liberal camp to realize that the “no daylight” approach in Israel-US interaction only serves the agenda of the messianic Right and the survival of governments that harm Israel’s vital national security interests. It is high time for collaboration between the opponents of the far Right, on both sides of the ocean, to enable an American foreign policy that supports the values we believe in instead of the survival of Netanyahu and his supporters.

The article was published on February 2nd 2025 in The Jerusalem Post.

הפוסט Biden’s Failure and Trump’s Success הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

In retrospect, we should have realized that we had ignored the fact that the Palestinians could alone not provide answers to significant parts of the core issues of the conflict—the refugee issue, the Jerusalem issue, and, of course, the security envelope—because each one of them requires a regional approach.

In Oslo, Camp David, and even in the very advanced talks of then-Prime Minister Olmert with Abu Mazen, there was a lack of understanding of the necessity for a broad regional framework, which would provide the Palestinians with the backing to make the necessary compromises—and provide the Israelis with the incentive of the fruits of regional peace.

The Israeli right tried to exploit the failure to achieve an agreement in order to promote opposing approaches—Sharon attempted unilateralism following Barak’s assertion that there was no partner for an agreement, and Netanyahu marketed the illusion that regional peace could be achieved without a Palestinian component. Both of these approaches tragically exploded in our faces on October 7.

The events of October 7 and the ongoing war since then have ended the fantasies of most Palestinians to become a majority in a single democratic state between the river and the sea. Long beforehand, they had given up their hope that negotiations would lead to the establishment of their own state.

The terrible massacre that Hamas committed hardened the hearts of many Israelis, who had previously believed in the moral imperative to end control over a foreign people. The walls of fear and hostility have risen among both Israelis and Palestinians, two peoples who have paid an unbearable price over the past fifteen months.

We must internalize that for the Israeli public, the most important issue is security. After October 7, the Israeli public is more frightened, more suspicious, and less willing to consider moral arguments. Therefore, even those of us who believe that the occupation must end to avoid moral and strategic harm to Israeli democracy must offer the citizens of Israel an arrangement that allows them to achieve what they desire most of all: security.

Security is brought by diplomatic arrangements, such as those we have with Jordan and Egypt. Security that is derived from a united regional front against the axis of Shiite jihadism led by Iran and the Sunni jihadism that may emerge with Turkey’s backing after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria.

Surveys by the Accord Center for Social Psychology at the Hebrew University, conducted even during the most difficult periods of the fighting, reveal that the Israeli public is willing to accept a Palestinian state if it comes in the form of a comprehensive normalization agreement between Israel and Arab countries. The majority of the Israeli public (about 61%) prefers separation from the Palestinians over annexation. The data indicates that ultimately, even when the winds of war are blowing, the Israeli public is much more realistic than its current leadership. Israelis understand that the path to security passes through normalization, which will include the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Arab normalization of relations with the State of Israel.

The current reality necessitates the promotion of a regional solution—a 23-state plan—which includes all Arab states, a demilitarized Palestinian state, and Israel as an integral part of the region. Unfortunately, a large proportion of Israeli citizens are not interested enough in ending the occupation. However, agreements that will bring about security and prosperity for Israelis and that will end the occupation will receive public support.

The challenge for the Peace Camp is to implement the “Arab initiative,” which was first presented in 2002 as a Saudi initiative but has effectively become an initiative of the Arab League. The “Arab Initiative” offers full normalization between Arab countries and Israel in exchange for a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian conflict based on the 1967 borders. During Obama’s presidency, Arab countries added the principle of land swaps at the request of US Secretary of State John Kerry.

The Abraham Accords did open the door to regional normalization and economic cooperation, but their disregard for the Palestinian issue limited them to a small number of countries and did not resolve the fundamental issues at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today, after October 7, no Arab country can afford to ignore the Palestinian issue, and it is very clear from Saudi Arabian declarations that normalization must include a Palestinian state.

The important lesson from the Abraham Accords is that the Israeli public preferred normalization over annexation, which was avoided thanks to the UAE, which made clear to Trump that this was a red line that could not be crossed. Moreover, since the accords, many Israelis now recognize the advantages of normalization. Many of those who saw Arabs only as enemies have found the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco to be their preferred tourist destinations and enjoy the ability to fly cheaply and in less time to the Far East.

Together with Arab countries, the Biden Administration prepared a regional framework—that includes a Palestinian state—as a way to end the war in Gaza and achieve a governance alternative to Hamas. This framework is also in the interest of the Trump Administration and the entire Sunni world led by Saudi Arabia, and they have a better chance of addressing the objections of the Israeli right than the outgoing Biden Administration.

The Israeli peace camp should adopt a discourse that emphasizes strengthening Israel’s security, economy, and international legitimacy, all of which resonate with the Israeli people.

This will not convince the current government, which has been taken over by the most extreme elements of the Israeli right, but if it is the public’s will, in the end, a sane government will be established here that will work to implement it.

We need to create responses that are suitable for Israel in 2025—practical solutions to everyday problems. To turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a minefield for Israel’s integration into the region into the key to its advancement.

The article was published on January 8th in The Times of Israel.

הפוסט The 23 State Solution הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

President Carter, who passed away at the age of 100, was committed to the future of Israel and the region, and to promoting a two-state solution. It is very regrettable that too many people in Israel distort his legacy and blame him for being hostile, even though he understood earlier than others the danger of our descent into a bloody binational reality.

The Camp David Summit, which he initiated, was a personal project of his. Carter acted with persistence and determination, moving between the delegations’ rooms, proposing compromises, and pressing to reach the historic agreement between Israel and Egypt—the country that was then the leader of the Arab world.

Even then, Carter understood that a true solution to the conflict must include the Palestinian issue, and he pushed for Israeli recognition of Palestinian autonomy as part of the agreement, a recognition that ultimately came only with the Oslo Accords 15 years later.

Carter’s commitment to promoting a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continued to accompany him for decades after he left the White House in 1980. Many in Israel did not welcome his criticism of settlement policies and the preservation of the occupation. He indeed delivered pointed criticism, yet it was rooted in genuine care and a sincere aim to foster peace.

In his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” published in 2006, Carter expressed an approach that was not easy to digest but reflected a deep understanding of the reality here. Carter posed an equation that many here have since internalized: without peace, the occupation turns Israel into an apartheid state, where two different legal systems exist for people living in the same territory.

In October 2010, he attended the weekly demonstrations in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah against the takeover of homes in the neighborhood by settler organizations. He rightly told the protesters, “I don’t think it can be argued that demolishing homes or confiscating a house where a family has lived for several generations is a just, fair, or peace-loving act.”

Carter was probably the most progressive president the United States has ever known. A worldview that explains his deep commitment to Israel. His commitment drove him to make tremendous efforts to promote peace solutions and prevent Israel from descending into an apartheid reality.

He was an evangelist, however, a very different one from those who have taken over the Republican Party. The Republican evangelists believe that war will bring the second coming, while he believed that peace is the true redemption.

Sometimes he also displayed naivety, leading him to believe that diplomacy alone could change the fundamental perceptions of organizations like Hamas—a premise that proved to be incorrect. He failed to foresee the consequences of the Khomeinist revolution and later to rescue the Americans who were held hostage.

However, Carter’s belief in diplomacy as a tool for resolving conflicts was not misguided. Diplomacy does indeed sometimes require support from military and coercive tools, but in the end, there is no alternative to it.

His greatest achievement—the peace agreement with Egypt—is not only proof of the power of diplomacy but also the greatest gift Carter gave us all: an agreement that opened the door for Israel’s integration into the region and the subsequent agreements that followed.

Our leaders would have done well to listen to his warnings about the implications of the occupation on Israel’s moral and international standing. To accept his advice that the two-state solution is the only way to ensure both the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and the rights of the Palestinians.

Jimmy Carter passed away peacefully nearly 45 years after leaving the White House. But now, the Democratic Party, like many in the United States, who struggled to digest him and his views during his presidency, is embracing his ideological values more than ever, as well as his views on the conflict.

Even after his death, we should wisely listen to Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding our region. A legacy that, at its core, serves as a reminder that the State of Israel must choose its future—to be an apartheid state or to remain a democracy and the safe, thriving national home of the Jewish people.

The article was published on January 2nd in The Times of Israel.

הפוסט President Carter Was a True Friend of Israel הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Netanyahu is like a scorpion, trying to sting whoever tries to help us. But whereas the scorpion acts against its own interests, Netanyahu, in his attempts to save his own skin, sacrifices the country’s interests for his own.

At the height of the war, Netanyahu directed his “poison machine” at the leaders of the defense establishment, blaming them for the prewar protests and accusing them of misconduct. He continues to incite this hatred by blaming Qatar, the International Red Cross, President Biden, and even the families of hostages.

“Qatar serves Hamas” is a statement made by Netanyahu to families of captives and which was allegedly leaked by him, before he repeated it at a press conference. Really? It was Israel, led by the same Netanyahu, who asked Qatar to use its influence with Hamas in order to create mechanisms to end repeated cycles of violence between Hamas and Israel. It was the same Netanyahu-led Israel that asked Qatar to supply the money that strengthened Hamas in Gaza. This means that if Qatar served Hamas, Netanyahu himself served Hamas. But he has no use for truth, only for his personal interests.

The essence of his policy is “the Palestinian Authority is a burden and Hamas is an asset”, as stated in 2015 by Netanyahu’s collaborator Bezalel Smotrich. In those words, he expressed the declared policy of several Netanyahu governments, which were designed to weaken the PA and strengthen Hamas. Israel executed the first half by itself and Qatar was recruited to do the rest. Now, when a hostage deal threatens his extremist government, he has no inhibitions in attacking that country, even while it is making huge efforts to bring the hostages home.

Thus, the Red Cross, whose people risked their lives by entering the Gaza Strip in order to rescue hostages, also became a target of his poisoned arrows. At a special Knesset meeting with families of hostages, Netanyahu said: “Several days ago, I met with the president of the Red Cross and gave her a box of medication which the hostages require. I told her ‘Take this to the Rafah Crossing’, but she declined”.

The פresident of the Red Cross, Mariana Spoljaric apparently did not understand that she was dealing with a prime minister who has no qualms about using an organization that risks its workers’ lives to help the hostages in an ugly publicity stunt. He knows full well that the Red Cross is not able to visit the hostages or supply them with medication without Hamas approval. He also knows that in order to be able to function in Gaza, Red Cross personnel cannot criticize Hamas or support Israeli hasbara, even if that is how they feel. Doing so would prevent them from fulfilling their humanitarian tasks. Netanyahu knows all that, but nevertheless resorts to it to gain another pathetic round of self-promotion. This behavior conflicts with Israel’s interests.

Netanyahu seeks more and more targets for his poisoned arrows because he knows that the largest arrow of all is pointed at him. It is under his rule that we experienced the worst disaster in our history. It is he whose leadership and policy made Hamas grow economically and militarily. It is his army that moved more and more troops to the West Bank and failed to protect the Gaza envelope communities. He is the one who, for the past four months, has conducted a war with no exit plan and is preventing the most supportive American president from leading an international coalition to defeat Hamas and also promote regional normalization with Israel. It is none other than Netanyahu who has avoided attempts to free the hostages for fear that he will lose his coalition. He does so in order to pacify the far right, mainly Ben Gvir and Smotrich, whose disapproval he desperately fears.

In the face of such a massive failure, his attempt to escape responsibility, coupled with a lack of basic empathy and human decency, leads him to blame whomever he can and to further his own selfish interests including maliciously targeting the hostage’s families themselves.

His goal is to ensure that there is never a quiet moment here, during which his remaining supporters will see that the emperor has no clothes. He is naked of leadership, naked of concern for the country’s future, naked of responsibility for the lives of the hostages, and naked of concern for anyone and anything who is not Netanyahu.

The article was published in “The Times of Israel” on February 15.

הפוסט The­ scorpion הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Indeed, under Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel maintains distorted and strange relations with Russia that join a wide range of Israeli behaviors in the past decade that increasingly distinguish Israel from the free world and lead us toward the bench of the world pariahs.  One would have thought it is reasonable to assume that in the face of Russian support of Hamas, we would have stopped veering in the direction of the nation whose people committed war crimes, including rape of civilians. However, it transpires that such an assumption is mistaken.

Since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, many western companies have abandoned Russia.  They have done so in order to stifle the economy of an aggressor nation that carries out war crimes and against the leader of which an international arrest warrant has been issued by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Hague.  The Russian economy is in bad shape, but its size and huge domestic market, together with broad economic ties with countries such as China, Iran and Turkey, enable it to at least give an impression of business as usual, while it continues its aggression against Ukraine.

However, there are those who suggest that we should act like Russia. They want Israel to starve, destroy and kill as much as possible. And what will happen if we are sanctioned, they are asked?  If Russia has survived, we will also survive, they answer.  Those same people argue that we should adopt the Russian example of brutal conduct in war and simply ignore moral considerations, as if there are no basic norms to which Israel is obligated to follow as a liberal democracy, and a country that wishes to be part of the West and to earn international legitimacy from it.

A country like Russia can perhaps allow itself to break all the rules, to massacre and to destroy and without significant economic damage thanks to its political power, together with its being a central part of the axis of the autocratic countries. Countries that the Netanyahu government sought to flirt with, only to discover the bitter truth, that in a war against Hamas, they hurry to side with Hamas.

Our defense accords, both written and unwritten, are based on democratic principles shared with the United States, Germany and other western countries.  Our economy is based on commerce with the western nations.  Israel does not have the resources to become an autocratic island state, politically and economically, cut off from the West and banished from the East.

The Gaza War has also provided us with an important lesson regarding the limitations of our power and our true abilities and the supreme importance of preserving proper relationships with our allies, relationships based upon acceptance of and obedience to the international norms.  We have learned that we need the United States not only for purposes of its veto at the UN, but also in order to conduct the war.  We learned, and the entire world has seen, that Israel could not have fought as it did without the shipment of armaments from the US, without the military, economic and diplomatic backing that was extended to us and that saved and is still saving us from a bloody regional quagmire.

Preserving our humanity is not only a moral imperative, it is part of Israel’s defense wall.  If we fantasize about being like Russia in Ukraine or like China against the Uyghur minority, not only will we become an immoral nation, we will find ourselves isolated throwing off altogether the central strengths of Israel.

Russia can afford to behave in this manner, but we will become easy prey for our enemies who have already proven how well they are able to identify weakness and to exploit it.

The article was published in “The Times of Israel” on February 13.

הפוסט Spoiler – We are not Russia הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

This is the sad reality that Israeli citizens must confront. While the attack on the World Trade Center brought with it widespread international shock and condemnation, many Israelis feel deserted by global public opinion and are suffering an unfathomable blow watching anti-Israel demonstrations around the world and diminishing international support, as they are forced to deal with the tragedy almost on their own.

The State of Israel is not the United States, with 33 times fewer residents and 440 times less land. The kibbutzim in the southern part of the country, where the Hamas terrorists infiltrated, are no more than a two-hour drive from the homes of over 70 per cent of Israeli citizens.

Israelis have experience with wars and acts of terror, but the events of the Black Sabbath changed something deep within each of us. We lost the almost imperceptible sense of personal security that we had until 7 October, the feeling of protection granted to us by the strong State of Israel.

There is almost no Israeli citizen who has not been personally and painfully affected by this catastrophe. The incomprehensible disaster is almost indigestible; children were murdered and kidnapped, parents were brutally killed in front of their children, and families waited for hours in safe rooms as parents tried to quiet their children in order to not be heard by the murderers. An incomprehensible cruelty reminding us of the deepest trauma of every Jew, the Holocaust.

Around 130,000 Israeli citizens from communities near the Gaza Strip, where the massacre occurred, and even further away have fled their homes and are not expected to return soon. The residents who lived closest to the border will not return to their homes until the State of Israel can guarantee their security. And the State has to provide this sense of security because they have no other land.

The need for a political solution

All my life, I have struggled for peace, for an end of the occupation and the promotion of a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many other residents of the kibbutzim in the south have also done so. I believed, and still do, in the right of the Palestinians to self-determination in their own state, with all my heart. I continue to believe in our need as Israeli citizens to fight against the occupation and expose the injustices it creates. I have criticised and continue to criticise the Israeli governments that weakened the Palestinian Authority and expanded the settlements in the West Bank. I did this as an Israeli fighting for the character of his state and its future. It is this belief that leads me to support the continuation of the Israeli military operation in Gaza, while at the same time making every effort to minimize any harm inflicted on innocent Palestinians.

I am not indifferent to the difficult scenes, the casualties – including many children – and the unimaginable suffering of the residents of Gaza. But I am fighting for my home, for my mere existence. It is not a war of choice. If brave citizens, along with the Israel Defense Forces, had not stopped them, Hamas terrorists would have continued to murder every Israeli they could. They attacked their victims like a hate-fueled mob, Jews and Arabs alike, showing no mercy for anyone, not even children and infants.

For years, despite countless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli settlements and cities, Israeli policy has been one of ‘containment’ — responding with limited force, giving work permits to the approximately 20,000 laborers from Gaza entering Israel daily and turning a blind eye to Qatari support for Hamas. But no country, especially not a small one like Israel, can tolerate such a broad and ruthless terrorist attack on its citizens.

We have no choice. If we do not win the war against Hamas, the residents of the towns, villages and kibbutzim who fled will not be able to return to their homes. Not only them but also the residents of northern Israel, living close to Lebanon, will not be able to return to the towns and kibbutzim that are attacked every day by Hezbollah terrorists supported by Iran. If they do not return, Hamas and Hezbollah, who are also enemies of the Palestinians and the Lebanese, drunk on their success, will continue to strike until no one – Jews and Arabs alike – can live in Israel anymore.

Reality is complex

Calls for an unconditional ‘immediate ceasefire’ may sound good in theory, but in practice, they are calls for surrender to the Hamas terrorists and for the abandonment of Israeli citizens to a reality in which those who have harmed them so severely will be able to regain their strength to harm them again in the future. Humanitarian pauses are justified if they assist in releasing the kidnapped and providing aid to innocent Gazans. Israel has no choice but to defeat Hamas, and, sadly, when the enemy operates from residential areas, setting up their command centres under hospitals, civilians get hit, too.

The world has become accustomed to painting a simplistic picture of good versus evil, weak versus strong, David versus Goliath. But the reality is more complex. Israel is not Goliath, and Hamas is not David. The reality is not black and white — it has many shades, and we would all do well to inspect it more meticulously and in a distinguishing manner.

Those who, 80 years after the Holocaust, do not see the justification for the existence of the State of Israel and call for freeing Palestine ‘from the River to the Sea’ are not people with whom I can find a common ground. But those who seek to fight for a better future for the Middle East must understand that without the ability to ensure basic security for its citizens, Israel cannot continue to exist. Right now, to achieve this, there is no choice but to eliminate Hamas’ military capacities and rule in Gaza and deter Hezbollah. Currently, it is primarily the Israelis who are in danger, but some are already looking to the next stage. It is no coincidence that Putin and Erdoğan rushed to stand by Hamas. They understand that if the State of Israel is defeated, it will be just the first step in their war against international liberal values.

From this tragedy, a positive outcome could occur in the form of a turning point. Ultimately, the understanding that the existence of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel is an Israeli interest must be spread in Israeli policy circles. Despite years of weakening the Palestinian Authority, it was and remains an important partner. Strengthening it and promoting a political solution that will also return it to rule Gaza must be a central component of the Israeli security concept.

In addition to the demand for and support of elections in Palestine, which, if held alongside a credible diplomatic horizon, will create a legitimate and supportive Palestinian address for a diplomatic solution. It won’t be Hamas.

Victory must be political. The military operation will yield a purely tactical win at best. A political, regional and international diplomatic strategy is needed.

The article was published in IPS on November 9th.

הפוסט A sense of security – gone הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Babies, children, and entire families were slaughtered. No eye can stay dry at the sight of the pictures of the kidnapped children. The state of Israel went through the hardest day in its history, a day that will take us a long time to overcome.

The crimes against humanity committed by Hamas are the most horrible tragedy that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has produced. But even in times of catastrophe, there is a window for progress.

This was one lesson from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where the national trauma eventually led to a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. It was also the First Intifada, or Palestinian uprising, that led to the Oslo Peace Accords. War and bloodshed are often the greatest motivation for compromise.

Now it is time to understand that the Palestinian conflict — including the reign of terror of Hamas in the Gaza Strip — will not be solved by war only. As the U.S. learned in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, even the strongest military in the world cannot solve such challenges with guns and bombs alone. 

The opportunity for President Biden to lead a major change of course in the Middle East arises as well after a year-long protest movement inside Israel to protect and preserve our democracy. The general failure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government to function during the Hamas attack and its aftermath opens a door to connect the protest movement with the no-less-significant threat to Israel’s democracy posed by its ongoing occupation of the West Bank.

The Biden administration can and should push the Palestinian issue to the forefront of the Israeli public agenda and instill hope among moderate Palestinians that they can achieve statehood by diplomacy and not terror, to lead the Israeli government to a policy based on the understanding that strengthening the Palestinian Authority as a governing body is an Israeli and international interest. 

This moment also comes amid aspiration for a U.S.-Saudi Arabia defense alliance and the normalization of Israel-Saudi relations. While these are hardly close to creating a two-state solution, they could provide leverage for Washington on both Israel and the region — leverage that at its core is the promotion of the belief that the fruits of normalization will be shared by everyone in the region, including the Palestinians.

The first response of the Biden Administration following the Hamas attack rightly focused on military support for Israel. Now, the U.S. can act diplomatically by initiating an international effort for a long-term solution. It should mobilize the United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state based on the 2002 Saudi Arab Peace Initiative for a two-state solution, and demand Palestinian elections that will provide one legitimate leadership representing both Gaza and the West Bank for negotiations. 

Except for the governments of Israel, Iran, and Hamas in Gaza, there is an overwhelming international consensus for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and Palestine can easily be accepted as a full member of the U.N. if the U.S. does not use its Security Council veto.

This is good for Washington as well as the Middle East. Given the impact of rising oil prices on the global economy, the U.S. wants to mobilize countries in the region that export energy to exert pressure against Russia. Biden has an opportunity here to promote global interests and to arrive at an agreement with China and Russia on a two-state solution.

American leadership is the best way to prevent Russia and China from taking advantage of the vacuum created by Washington’s justified withdrawal from the “boots on the ground” approach of the Bush Administration. 

Despite Biden’s clear and principled support for a two-state solution, he has in his first three years as president largely avoided the issue. Now that a catastrophe has occurred so tragically, it is time to take strategic action. And it could help him win reelection next year.

The Democratic Party is riper than ever to support a move on the Palestinian issue. For many years, the party was influenced by American Jews who supported the status quo of Israel’s occupation. Now a new generation of Democratic lawmakers have come to realize that there are no military solutions to the conflict. No less significant is the growth of organizations like mine, J Street, that support Israel, democracy and peace, and believe in the power of courageous diplomacy to promote both Israeli and U.S. interests. 

President Biden has a unique opportunity to be remembered in history as the one who saved the Zionist vision of liberty, justice and peace, along with Israel’s fragile democracy. He would be building on the legacies of giants before him — President Harry S. Truman, who recognized the state of Israel; President Jimmy Carter, who led Israel to peace with Egypt; and President Bill Clinton, who signed the Oslo Peace Accords.

Biden described the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel as an act of sheer evil and an atrocity on an appalling scale. His empathy for our anger, pain and hopelessness has, more than ever before, earned him the trust of Israelis. He can now leverage this trust with a move that would save Israel from the biggest threat to its mission as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people — which is the continuing occupation.

This article was published in Forward, on October 17th.

הפוסט Can Biden transform a human tragedy into a diplomatic opportunity? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

This is a skewed, false message formulated by those seeking to task Israeli diplomats with whitewashing what is essentially a regime coup championed by an extremist government that is leading Israel to the brink of dictatorship. In other words, the Foreign Ministry is demanding that Israel’s official representatives around the world portray Israel as a “strong democracy” even as the government is removing the checks and balances of the democratic system and severely undermining the independence of the judiciary. This is a genuine Orwellian attempt to portray a campaign to crush the judiciary as “preserving the independence of the courts.”

These messages make it incumbent on all diplomats to ask themselves whether this was the reason they joined the foreign service and whether they really want to describe a coup d’état as a measure to “strengthen democracy.” Our representatives abroad who are anxious about what amounts to a regime coup should refrain from defending a policy that endangers themselves, their families, and their country. This is not a call for their resignation; it is a call for soul-searching and for establishing boundaries.

After all, the diplomats are not being asked to ignore a policy disagreement on a specific issue. They are being told to soft-pedal a fundamental contradiction between the foreign service of a country that purports to be based on democratic values that are articulated in our Declaration of Independence – and the direction in which the government of Yariv Levin, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Benjamin Netanyahu is leading us.

These extremists are aiming to eliminate the separation of powers that is the underpinning of the democratic system, destroy judicial review, promote discrimination and misogyny, divert state budgets to serve ultra-Orthodox and nationalist constituencies and shatter the Zionist ethos on the basis of which the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people was established.

The role of diplomats is to represent their country, including the government and its policies, but also the cultural, economic, and political totality of the society and country they serve, in all its diversity. As long as the government adheres to its basic contract with the public, diplomats can do both, despite the challenges involved. Such is the case in all democratic countries, and the same is true in Israel.

The role of diplomats, like all other civil servants, is not only to broadcast the government’s messages to the world but also to clarify to the government in a professional and courageous manner the implications of the policies it adopts for its interests in the international arena.

Those applying for foreign service training know that they will be called upon at some point in their career to represent policies with which they disagree. Diplomats are civil servants serving democratically elected governments that come and go. Therefore, the ability to serve different governments is a prerequisite for anyone who wishes to represent the State of Israel. Such service involves a willingness to represent and promote the policies of any government, not necessarily the one for which they voted as long as the basis of our democracy is maintained

This challenge faces anyone sent to represent Israel abroad. I myself faced it when I served as Israel’s consul general to the states of New England (at the consulate in Boston). When I disagreed with the Israeli government’s handling of its relations with the US administration, I voiced my criticism behind closed doors in internal forums (although they turned out to be more porous than I thought and my criticism was leaked to the media).

However, I always knew that I would draw the line when I felt that my views were no longer just a policy disagreement, but a fundamental rejection of the messages I was told to convey and of the policies I was required to promote. I did take early retirement from the Foreign Ministry, partly because I felt I could promote my country’s interests better from outside the system. My decision was right for me personally, but may not necessarily be the right choice for all of my many friends at the Foreign Ministry who have achieved wonderful accomplishments for many years from within the system.

Deepening tensions between government policy and civil servants’ personal beliefs can pose a heartbreaking dilemma. They require difficult personal decisions that involve complicated implications for lives and livelihoods, and therefore no one has a right to judge them. Moreover, when a government undermines democratic values, it makes no sense for those who seek to promote such values from within the system to resign, since they will clearly be replaced by officials willing to help the government crush our democracy.

Notwithstanding this argument, civil servants have both the right and the duty to voice their opinions forcefully and describe the implications of government policy on the matters under their purview. Those who can influence from within should do so and make their voices heard.

A large liberal democratic camp has emerged in Israel in recent months under the current government, a citizenry unwilling to sacrifice its future and that of its children and grandchildren for a dictatorship in the making. Right now, the role of democracy lovers is to help preserve the basic values of democracy, if possible, from within the government and if not, from the outside

The current government’s policy cannot and must not be justified or “explained,” not even in diplomatic language.

The article was published on “The Jerusalem Post“, on August 8th.

הפוסט Diplomats should represent the country, not the government הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

While the weakening US grip on the Middle East stems from global trends and its impact extends beyond our neighborhood, it is undoubtedly an ominous process for America’s main ally in the region – Israel. Could the Israeli government turn around this direction in the interests of its national security?

What went wrong with American-Saudi relations

The process of US withdrawal from the Middle East can be dated back to 2011 and the Bush Administration’s failed attempts to impose the neoconservatives’ vision of forcing democratic governments on the countries of the region. These failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya created a vacuum which drew in ISIS and Iran. This process was impacted further when the United States became the world’s leading oil producer due to the development of shale oil extraction technologies. American energy independence severed the Gordian knot between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, and brought to the surface the cultural and moral contradictions between the countries.

The Iranian-backed Houthi attack on Aramco’s oil facilities in 2019 marked a further milestone in this process, with the Trump Administration’s lack of response signaling to its allies that they should not rely on the US to deal with the Iranian threat and prompting Saudi disillusionment with its expectations of Uncle Sam’s protection.

Tensions had already intensified following the 2018 murder of exiled Saudi dissident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and even more so after the 2021 US intelligence report, which blamed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the killing. The report made it very difficult for the Democratic Party to prioritize realpolitik with the values it seeks to promote, especially given the erosion of US energy considerations.

However, the Americans did not give up. During his visit to Saudi Arabia in July 2022, President Biden tried to repair somewhat relations with the Wahhabi kingdom and even agreed to meet with bin Salman. But his overture was met with a chilly reception, leaving him neither here, nor there: on the one hand, he had legitimized the leader he accused of murder, and on the other, he was met with a cold shoulder, in stark contrast to the warm welcome accorded in Riyadh five months later to Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The cooling of relations between the Biden Administration and the Saudis is not merely symbolic. It has practical implications, such as the Kingdom’s decision to blatantly ignore US expectations to lower oil prices at an August 2022 OPEC meeting. This, in turn, not only encumbered American efforts to help Europe withstand the energy pressures induced by the war in Ukraine, but also to combat domestic inflation, with its major impact on political support for the administration.

These developments, along with China’s growing influence and the threat it has begun to pose to Taiwan and other US allies in the Pacific, have made East Asia more important to US interests than the Middle East, both economically and in terms of competition with China for dominance of the global economy and technological leadership. The United States has therefore shifted its involvement to the eastern Asian continent. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which restored a measure of American attention to Europe and NATO, also contributed to the declining priority to US interest in the Middle East.

Democracy or money

President Xi’s deepening foothold in the Middle Eastern arena, even as American policy is trying to maneuver carefully between its values and the nature of the strategically important monarchical regimes in the region, makes clear that he has much more in common with Mohammed bin Salman than President Biden does. These two authoritarian leaders, Xi and bin Salman, make no secret of their ambitions and willingness to take risks in order to expand their international influence. The fact that China has also become Saudi oil’s biggest customer has further strengthened the alliance between the two countries.

This turn of events highlights the fundamental difference between China and the US – the first examines international developments through the lens of economic empowerment without ethical considerations, while the second is a self-appointed “policeman of the world,” which, alongside the economy, seeks to promote its values. In this case, these values are diametrically opposed to the nature of the Saudi regime, as well as to those of its neighbors in the Gulf and Maghreb.

Western divisions of the world into “good and bad guys” are alien to the Middle East. The more the United States tries to inculcate them into regimes in the region, the lesser the influence it enjoys. The region’s authoritarian rulers are not interested in the struggle for democracy or in the Western values that President Biden seeks to promote. In the face of American morality, they prefer to seek avenues to other powers that, like them, are indifferent to “Western” democratic values.

Iran’s rapprochement with China and subsequently with Saudi Arabia (with Chinese encouragement) was prompted by economic considerations. The US pullout from the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) and the re-imposed sanctions on Iran naturally led Tehran directly into China’s arms. China offered it an escape route from the sanctions’ regime in the form of an agreement guaranteeing Chinese investments of up to $400 billion in exchange for Iranian oil, while easing its path to the status of a nuclear threshold state.

China has not stopped in Tehran, using its influence and Iran’s dependence to advance other regional goals, such as a ceasefire in Iran’s proxy war in Yemen against Saudi Arabia. Indeed, under Chinese pressure, Iran seems less enthusiastic about supplying weapons to its Houthi proxy rebels in Yemen. China is also carving inroads into the UAE through large-scale economic cooperation, and as a by-product, also striving to rehabilitate relations between the UAE and Iran.

Israel is paying the price

International relations abhor vacuums, and when one power moves away, another takes its place. Israel is paying a heavy price as a result of these geopolitical shifts.

It is no coincidence that although in its third year in office, the Biden Administration has yet to reach agreement with Iran on a return to the nuclear deal (the JCPOA). As long as Iran believes it has a reasonable alternative in China, which is indifferent to its nuclear ambitions, it is in no rush to commit to shutting down its centrifuges.

Iran’s mistrust of US ability to meet its obligations, as was the case when the Trump Administration withdrew from the nuclear agreement signed by the Obama Administration, is further disincentive to reconstitute the 2015 deal. Iran’s motivation to return to the deal is expected to diminish further given its renewed relations with Saudi Arabia and warming ties with the United Arab Emirates, leaving Israel almost alone in its confrontational approach to Tehran.

Israel’s interest, of course, is to maintain American involvement in the Middle East. While it could benefit from eased tensions between Iran and the countries of the region, Israel prefers to do so under American rather than Chinese influence, since the Chinese, unlike the Americans, do not take Israel’s geostrategic interests into consideration when planning their policy.

Troubling aspects of Israeli policy

Two aspects of its policy at this time drive a wedge between Israel and the United States and accelerating the American withdrawal: the regime coup and its attitude toward the Palestinian issue.

The government’s moves to crush Israeli democracy run counter to American liberal-democratic values and cast a dark shadow over the moral alliance between the two countries. The defense of these values underpins the existence of the American nation and is also reflected in the growing majority of the liberal public in the United States vis-a-vis receding support for Trumpist populism. The deepening US involvement in the war in Ukraine – with resources, weapons and intelligence on the one hand, and the formation of a coalition against Russia, on the other – illustrates its commitment to these same values.

Therefore, the Biden administration cannot stand idly by while the Netanyahu government leads a revolution that seeks to dismantle Israeli democracy. During a recent visit to Israel, Secretary of State Antony Blinken made it clear that Israel must respect human rights and the rights of minority groups, and ensure an egalitarian judicial system, the rule of law, a free press and a robust civil society. This is the price of the alliance between the two countries. The more Israel refuses to pay it, the lesser the commitment of the United States to fulfill its part.

The government’s destructive policy on the Palestinian issue compounds the problem. It is not limited to a decade of political stalemate and rejectionism on the part of the Israeli leadership (which now includes staunch annexation supporters such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir), but also moves such as the repeal of the Disengagement Law, the return of de jure annexation to the discourse, and the deepening of de facto annexation, along with trigger-happy fingers and a record number of Palestinian fatalities.

Despite Israel’s interest in US involvement in the region, the Netanyahu government is doing everything in its power to make it difficult for the Americans to operate in this arena and stand by its veteran ally. Israel’s adherence to fanatical positions – both in terms of domestic policies and vis-à-vis the Palestinians – therefore undermines its own interests and helps distance the United States from the regional arena.

Risks and rewards

The United States has an opportunity to leverage the change wrought by the Abraham Accords by increasing the influence of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco on Israel to advance the Palestinian cause. This is based on the regional consensus over the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Relying on the Arab Initiative, also known previously as the Saudi Initiative, is also the way to draw the Saudis into the arena. Such a move is in Israel’s clearest interest, otherwise it will find itself isolated in a region devoid of American influence.

The United States, as a global power with global interests, also has an interest in maintaining its dominant player status in the Middle East and not letting the Russians, Chinese, and Islamists fill the vacuum. However, the political fear of the so-called pro-Israel lobby prevents the Americans from exerting their full weight to advance the Palestinian issue, and also makes it difficult for them to return to the path of agreement with Iran.

Since Israel can never rely geo-strategically on China, we have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to facilitate enhanced US regional influence. This makes it incumbent on the Netanyahu government to abandon the regime coup not only in order to preserve Israeli democracy and economic robustness, but also to safeguard Israel’s security.

The claim by Israel’s supporters in Washington that Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East guarantees its strong alliance with Washington is highly doubtful – both because we are undermining liberal democratic values and making it difficult for the Americans to realize their interest in stability in the region, especially in the Iranian and Palestinian contexts. The agenda of the Netanyahu-Haredi-messianic coalition, as set out in the coalition agreements, contravenes Israel’s main national security interest: strengthening the alliance with the United States and helping it restore its dominant position in the region.

This articale was published on “The Times of Israel” on May 19th.

הפוסט How to reverse the trend of the US distancing הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Under Chinese auspices, Iran is recovering from Western sanctions and restoring its relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This process is also bringing an end to the conflict with the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who had previously enjoyed Tehran’s backing.

The Chinese have managed to exploit the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, which fractured the international coalition built under the Obama administration, in order to provide Iran with an escape from sanctions in exchange for strategic cooperation.

Russia, too, is not sitting idle and deepening its collaboration with the Ayatollah regime amid the conflict in Ukraine.

Given these regional developments, one could have expected Jerusalem would also act strategically. However, it has almost entirely abandoned the consideration of dealing with the profound regional changes in recent years and instead focused on tactics.

Fewer pacts, more operations like Shield and Arrow in Gaza. The Abraham Accords were signed nearly three years ago as an alternative plan to prevent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to annex West Bank territories as part of Donald Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century” and marked the last time Israel participated in regional strategic maneuvering.

Since then, the Middle East has made leaps and bounds while we’re lagging behind. Henry Kissinger’s quip from half a century ago that “Israel has no foreign policy, only a domestic policy,” rings ever truer and leads us down a diplomatic cul de sac.

Netanyahu is trapped, whether willingly or not, in a far-right government and is discovering that the cost of maintaining a messianic coalition is distancing from allied nations.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s visit to the Temple Mount led to the prime minister’s visit to the United Arab Emirates being canceled. The invitation from the White House never came, and Netanyahu realizes that as the Americans distance themselves and lose interest in him, the regional countries also lose interest in Israel.

Our greatest strength has always been serving as a bridge to the United States, and when the bridge becomes shaky, we become much less desirable or relevant.

An ancient Arabic proverb says, “movement is a blessing,” yet Israel insists on getting stuck in one place without negotiations with the Palestinians or regional dialogue. The result is more and more tactical crises, more military operations, and more assassinations that lead us nowhere. Israel has no exit strategy, not from military operations and not from the stagnant, bloody daily reality.

Unlike us, other countries in the region do move constantly. They mend frayed ties, form new alliances, and create a new reality of which Israel is not a part. This is not a predetermined fate. Israel can only be part of the region if it addresses the central issue of the Palestinian conflict (despite the Abraham Accords, which came into existence in exchange for relinquishing the dangerous fantasy of annexation).

Those who dream of peace with Saudi Arabia need to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Palestinians. The path to Riyadh goes through Ramallah and requires restoring trust with Washington, which has been undermined not only due to the political upheaval but also because of the lack of diplomatic action and succumbing to more and more right-wing provocations such as ascent to the Temple Mount, de facto annexation steps, and coalition agreements that will lead to de jure annexation.

We need the Americans in order to re-engage in regional affairs, and we need to engage in dialogue with the Palestinians to generate hope for a solution instead of living in a perpetual cycle of violence.

This article is from “Ynet“, May 18th, 2023.

הפוסט As Middle East alliances are reshaping, Israel is lagging behind הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Moreover, rescinding the clauses in the law that prohibit Israelis from returning to the area of four northern Samaria settlements evacuated along with Israel’s pullout from Gaza is bad for Israel since it further diminishes prospects of a two-state solution. This is obviously the intent of its instigators and its greatest threat but not the only one.

Rolling back the law also rewards those who built on private Palestinian land in violation of precedent-setting High Court rulings, making a mockery of the law by returning periodically to the scene of their crime over the years and endangering the soldiers tasked with protecting them. The Palestinians, obviously, pay the highest price by having the fabric of their life undermined by Israeli troops protecting lawbreaking settlers.

The inclusion of northern Samaria in the Gaza Strip pullout law was part of a quid pro quo deal between the Sharon government and the Bush Administration, which sought to strengthen Palestinian territorial contiguity by removing the four isolated Israeli settlements.

In exchange for agreeing to evacuate northern Samaria, prime minister Ariel Sharon received a written commitment from President George Bush, which recognized that a future Israeli-Palestinian agreement would keep settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty and prevent a significant return of Palestinian refugees to Israel’s sovereign territory. The letter also affirmed the US recognition of Israel’s right to defensible borders.

Two of these principles are vital to ensuring Israel’s survival and the third guarantees the viability of West Bank settlement groupings in exchange for compensating the Palestinians with land swaps. Bush’s letter to Sharon constitutes a governmental commitment by the US to Israel, a commitment it made in exchange for an Israeli commitment that has now been violated with the repeal of the northern Samaria pullout.

A country that reneges on its commitments also frees the other side from adhering to those commitments. The current bill not only violates the commitment of an Israeli prime minister to a US president but also casts heavy doubt on all Israeli government commitments and proves they can no longer be trusted because domestic political pressure outweighs external commitments.

US criticism is growing

Even as US criticism of the regime coup is growing, the Knesset, with government backing, chose to further fuel the fire by breaching a formal commitment to the Americans. At times, this government seems to be acting independently of Israel’s existential interests, as is the case of repealing the disengagement law and of Diaspora Affairs Minister Chikli’s suggestion that US Ambassador Tom Nides mind his own business.

But Israel’s business is intertwined with that of the US, for decades it’s greatest and closest ally and friend. In addition to the withdrawal from northern Samaria, Israel more recently committed to refrain from annexing parts of the West Bank in return for the landmark Abraham Accords engineered by the Trump administration.

THE US and the Arab signatories to the agreements will no longer have reason to believe that the Israeli government can be trusted to repel domestic political pressure and adhere to this commitment, either.

Ambassador Michael Herzog’s unusual rebuke by the deputy secretary of state attests to the severity with which the Americans view the disengagement law repeal.

What is more, coming on the eve of Ramadan, the move sends a dangerous message to the countries with which we have normalization agreements. The message is clear: commitments by previous governments and the state are not binding and therefore, Israel can no longer be trusted.

The message signals that the Israeli government is an agent of instability in a region desperate for stability and calm. The decision also renders irrelevant the recent Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian-Egyptian security agreements reached at meetings in Aqaba and Sharm e-Sheikh.

Signs of mistrust have already emerged in the distancing of the Emirati government, the delay of security cooperation and indefinite postponement of Netanyahu’s visit to the United Arab Emirates, as well as the widening rift with Jordan following Ben-Gvir’s ascent to the al-Aqsa compound. The fear of renewed annexation measures could further undermine relations with our Arab neighbors and the Palestinian Authority, given the sense on the Palestinian street that security cooperation with Israel only yields unilateral Israeli measures and a record number of fatalities.

Europe, too, is eyeing us suspiciously, with Israel’s repeal of its commitment further undermining already unstable relations. Every president and prime minister who has hosted Netanyahu in recent weeks has made a point of publicly expressing European concerns about the anti-democratic direction in which his government is heading.

This will now be compounded by criticism of the government’s political conduct, or more correctly, misconduct, criticism that is liable to undermine security cooperation with the West, including moves to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

We must not forget. Israel needs a strategic alliance with the US. Ze’ev Snir, until recently head of the Atomic Energy Commission, recently told Yediot Ahronot columnist Nadav Eyal, “Without American backing, the State of Israel will find it very difficult to exist, to say the least.” Now, in order to satisfy the political lust of the extreme Right, the Israeli government continues to sabotage this alliance – an alliance on which the existence of Israel depends.

The damage to the alliance with the Americans comes against the backdrop of growing concern about flare-ups fueled by the extremist rhetoric and other provocative moves of the new government on the eve of Ramadan. Israel will soon have to ask the Americans for a renewed stock of Iron Dome missile interceptors and backing in the Security Council and The Hague against anti-Israel votes.

The time has come to restore the helm of the state to people committed to national responsibility and to prevent the agents of chaos from critically risking our national security.

This article is from “The Jerusalem Post“, from March 27, 2023.

הפוסט Israel needs a strategic alliance with the US הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Deep disagreements with the Biden administration also arose during the Bennett-Lapid government over the Palestinian and Iranian issues, but these were hammered out behind the scenes. Now, under the relentless bulldozer of the coalition agreements and the “legal reform”, which increasingly resembles a regime coup, the US smiles have become forced and the criticism is louder to ensure public attention.

Blinken’s January 31 news conference was intended to convey US discomfort with the Netanyahu government’s undemocratic direction. Addressing the media following his meeting with Netanyahu, Blinken spelled out US objections to Israeli policy on the Palestinian issue.

“The United States continues to oppose settlement activity, legalization of illegal outposts, violation of the status quo in east Jerusalem, home demolitions and incitement to violence,” Blinken said, adding that the US administration opposes “unilateral measures, which fan tensions, create a more dangerous environment for all, and lower the chances of advancing toward a two-state solution.” Blinken ticked off every single item on the list of US concerns to make it clear to the Netanyahu government the extent of the administration’s opposition to each of the measures it takes or seeks to take.

The Netanyahu government could conduct business as usual, ignoring and even attacking the Democratic administration, hoping for its replacement in two years by a Republican one but it would do well to heed these warnings. Blinken’s remarks to reporters were relatively pleasant compared to the criticism being voiced in closed rooms not only by Blinken but by senior Biden administration and Democratic Party officials.

The current administration’s sympathy for Israel and first and foremost that of President Joe Biden is sincere and strong. It does not stem from political interests alone and cannot be undermined as quickly as it was built, which was the case with Trump’s instrumentalist relations with Israel but from an abiding respect for Israel and the values it represents, as reflected throughout Biden’s five-decade political career.

But the greater the friendship, the more intense the criticism because it emanates from a sincere concern for the shared democratic values on the basis of which the historic alliance between the countries was built. The concern for Israel’s image and democratic character also stems from the fact that the vast majority of American Jewry supports the Democratic Party, with many seeing the current struggle over the nature of Israel as one directly impacting their own identity.

Thus, it is the sympathy and connection to Israel that makes the criticism more powerful, unequivocal and clear. The Book of Proverbs teaches us that “faithful are the wounds of a friend,” and this is how we must address American criticism, not denying and ignoring it but trying to understand its origins – concern for American interests but no less so for Israel.

Israel should not ignore US warnings

IGNORING THE warnings will only intensify the criticism and may cause a dangerous rift between the US administration and the Israeli government. At the time, the Obama administration was able to overcome disagreements with Israel, including Israeli audacity that culminated in Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in 2015, approving the largest security aid agreement ever for Israel. But this Netanyahu government should not be complacent and think it can count on that precedent.

The Biden administration has learned the lessons of the Obama era, when the rift was not only between the administrations but was also reflected in the clear unjustified lack of sympathy of Israeli citizens for the president. That is why, along with the pressure and criticism, the Biden Administration is embracing the citizens of Israel by promoting a visa exemption process.

The person who delayed the process was Netanyahu, who, as leader of the opposition, refused to advance the legislation on the subject promoted by former interior minister Ayelet Shaked. The administration seeks to criticize with one hand and caress with the other but it is uncertain that it can do so for long. Even before Blinken’s departure from the region, National Security Minister Ben-Gvir decided to challenge US demands to grant freedom of movement to American citizens of Palestinian origin, boasting of standing up to the Americans but in fact risking the interests of Israeli citizens.

The coming period will test relations between the countries. In an unusual move, Blinken asked Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf and Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr to remain in Israel and keep an eye on the government decisions. Blinken doesn’t need Leaf and Amr on the ground in order to know what’s going on but he needs them to make his warnings to Netanyahu on every settlement construction and Palestinian home demolition tangible and clear.

Due to its aggressive statements and the revolution it is promoting, the Netanyahu government has lost what credit it had with the US administration. The US will no longer let policies slide that it overlooked under previous governments.

Israel no longer needs to approve construction in the strategically sensitive E1 area of the West Bank to earn a stinging US rebuke. The bar will be much lower as the government accelerates like a driverless train toward a head-on collision with the Biden White House.

This article is from “JPost“, from February 8, 2023.

הפוסט Israel’s government needs to heed US warnings הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The current government has embarked on a fundamental clash with international law due to its intent to transform the occupation into a permanent reality de facto even if not de jure. Despite the claims of Israel’s political right that “a people cannot be an occupier of its own land”, and without denying the historical connection of the Jewish people to regions of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is also undoubtedly the land of the Palestinians living in these territories. The Palestinians in the West Bank experience violent military occupation whereas Palestinians living in annexed East Jerusalem face discrimination in all aspects of life. In the West Bank, a different law applies to Palestinians and to Israeli settlers living there, and in East Jerusalem, Palestinian residents do not enjoy Israeli citizenship and are discriminated against in terms of municipal and social services and in the residency permits they are required to obtain from the government and municipality. In other words, Palestinians living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are subject to different and discriminatory rules compared to their Jewish neighbors.

Israeli governments has nonetheless managed to avoid significant international sanctions over this clearly immoral reality unparalleled in Western democracies due to its claim that the situation is temporary in nature and that Israel is reaching out to the Palestinians in search of a peaceful solution to the conflict. These two claims have long since ceased to hold water, but nonetheless enjoy US backing and benefit from European inertia. Israel has thus been spared sanctions of the kind imposed on Russia since its 2014 occupation of Crimea, and even more so since its invasion and occupation of parts of eastern Ukraine.

Dr. Micah Goodman’s theory of “shrinking the conflict”, which was adopted by the previous government as unofficial policy due to its inability to seek an accommodation with the Palestinians, is nothing more than self-delusion. Anyone familiar with the situation in the Occupied Territories knows that the conflict cannot be shrunk and cannot be “managed.” The question is essentially dichotomous – Israel is either an occupying power or it is not. Vague definitions and hollow words cannot change this fundamental fact. In practice, the “shrinking the conflict” policy of the past year has failed to achieve its already limited goals. The Israeli presence in the West Bank creates a routine of violence against the Palestinian population,by Jewish settler violence intended to take over Palestinian territory and make Palestinian life a misery. Discriminatory laws, which allow Palestinians to be evicted from their homes and lands while their Jewish neighbors live comfortably in homes on land that belongs to Palestinians, are intended to thwart any solution that would divide the land between Israelis and Palestinians. Nonetheless, successive Israeli governments, including the so-called government of change (2021-2022), have succeeded in convincing the world that the occupation that begun in 1967 is temporary.

The new government, according to its declarations and the wording of the coalition agreements underpinning its formation, is about to expose this prolonged masquerade and thereby eliminate the international protective umbrella that allowed Israel to keep it in place. This government has announced its intention to continue building settlements in the Palestinian territories and even to whitewash the outposts considered illegal under Israeli law due to their location on private Palestinian land.

The new government also intends to significantly weaken the independence of Israel’s judicial system, which has served as a shield against international legal intervention by convincing the West that Israel should be allowed to deal with human rights violations in the Occupied Territories on its own.

Moreover, the new government intends to undermine the status quo on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, a move that would severely undermine the peace agreement with Jordan and damage Israel’s other agreements with Arab countries, not to mention the real danger of widespread violence as a direct result. It should be noted that, contrary to Netanyahu’s claim that the Abraham Accords proved that the Sunni Arab states are not interested in the occupation, all Arab states supported the December 2022 UN resolution seeking the International Criminal Court’s opinion on the Israeli occupation.

The new government’s policy reflects a disregard for international law and the norms underlying it. It is important to understand that most countries in the Western world, of which we claim to be a part, regard international law as the infrastructure for their foreign affairs policy. Therefore, once it becomes clear that the occupation is not temporary and does not comply with the rules governing transition periods, their policy towards us may change significantly. Without the US veto power in the Security Council, the Palestinians would have long since been accepted as a UN member. In fact, without the American diplomatic umbrella, most countries would have recognized a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The two-state solution, which the new government is renouncing, is accepted by almost all countries of the world except Israel, Iran and a number of other non-democratic states.

The longstanding American diplomatic defense on which we have pinned our hopes for decades is about to be eroded, and rightly so. The US administration will no longer be able to justify, either domestically to the majority of Democrats, nor externally to the international community, the protection it provides for Israel’s occupation once Israel’s new government exposes the fraud that enabled its existence. There are already increasing calls in the Democratic Party to stop providing Israel with financial and diplomatic assistance given the Israeli government’s contravention of the two countries’ shared values and interests. Younger American Jews no longer remember Israel as the small and week country extending a hand of peace to the hostile neighbors threatening its existence, which justified their parents’ mobilization to help the fledgling state at all costs. The younger generation rightly sees Israel as a military power making no move to end the conflict while continuing to expect American military aid.

The ultra-Orthodox right-wing government is causing the great majority of the American Jewish community and the Democratic Party to distance themselves from Israel, undermining not only the automatic defense of Israel, but also our ability to serve as the national home of the Jewish people in the Diaspora in accordance with the Zionist mission. The vast majority of American Jews and Democratic voters will be unable to adhere for long to a partnership with Israel cemented by shared values and interests when the State of Israel chooses to disengage from these values and turn itself into an ethnocracy based on Jewish supremacy. Israel’s position at the center of US political consensus has already been severely eroded by Netanyahu’s previous governments. If the State of Israel continues in the direction on which it has embarked, we will soon be left only with the support of Trumpist populists and evangelical Christians who hope for Armageddon in which they hope that most of us will be killed and that the rest of us will convert to Christianity with the return of Jesus Christ.

For years, there has been talk of a political tsunami. The fact that it failed to materialize no longer means it will not.  For those like myself who fear the demise of the Zionist dream and its promise as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people, external intervention to halt such deterioration is not bad news. For all those who, like me, think that the eternal domination of the Palestinians is incompatible with our humane and Jewish values, removing the mask may actually be beneficial by exposing the obvious cost of the occupation and making it clear to all that we cannot be part of the enlightened world as an occupying people. My only hope is that the price we pay will not include bloodshed and the dangerous weakening of Israeli society and of the magnificent Zionist project established by our grandparents and parents.

This article is from “Haaretz“, from Janurary 5, 2023

הפוסט The Impact of the Occupation on Israel’s Foreign Relations הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Since its inauguration, the Biden administration avoided prioritizing the Middle East on its full agenda for several understandable reasons. The US no longer needed the Arabian/Persian Gulf energy reserves, having itself become an energy exporter and aspiring to curb the use of polluting energy.

The administration was also mindful of the disappointing results of US military interventions in the Middle East in recent decades – the war in Iraq that strengthened the Iranians and ISIS, the policy of “leading from behind” in Libya that failed, as did the huge investment in Afghanistan and in attempts to turn it into a democracy, which ended in a justified albeit ignominious American withdrawal.

On the Iranian issue, the administration was determined, rightly so, to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in order to stop Iran’s progress toward military-level uranium enrichment for its nuclear program, which accelerated significantly since Trump violated the agreement. However, the Iranians have upped the ante and negotiations between the sides are deadlocked.

Biden also realized the futility of advancing the two-state solution, in which he believes, when Israel’s government is unable to move forward on the Palestinian issue while the Palestinian Authority’s leadership has lost internal and external legitimacy. Due to the low priority given to Middle East issues, it took the administration a long time to appoint an ambassador to Israel, and the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs only assumed office on May 31 after the Senate finally confirmed her appointment.

Two factors have restored the Middle East to the administration’s priorities, leading to Biden’s planned visit next month to Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia. One is the war in Ukraine, which has once again raised the need for the Middle East’s energy resources in order to provide an alternative to sanctioned Russian gas for Europe and ease the oil price hikes impacting inflation and exacerbating the US economic downturn born of the COVID-19 pandemic. The war in Ukraine has been a salve for the domestically weakened leader unable to push reforms through Congress, presenting Biden as an international figure successfully leading NATO to unity and weakening Russia.

The second factor prompting the visit is the midterm elections for the House of Representatives and a third of the seats in the Senate. The Democrats are projected to lose their slim majority in both houses and a presidential visit to Israel never hurts, as politicians have found through the decades, although the government Biden meets here will be a transitional one.

His visit to Israel is supposed to “legitimize” his scheduled meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), ostracized by Democrats for his alleged role in ordering the assassination of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and for his country’s troubling human rights record. Administration officials are justifying the visit and meeting with MBS by citing its importance to Israel’s security and to bolstering the regional front against Iran.

The mistake of neglecting the Palestinian issue

THE AMERICAN and Israeli Right are satisfied with the Biden Administration for mobilizing to strengthen the Abraham Accords, thereby reaffirming their belief that Israel can normalize relations in the region even without a breakthrough in the Palestinian context. They are completely wrong.

Biden, who indeed has Israel’s best interests at heart, is also wrong because neglecting the Palestinian issue is much more dangerous for Israel than the military threats that our politicians and media love to highlight. Israel is a military power able to deal with all external threats, including the Iranian threat (according to uncensored foreign experts). However, its military might does not provide the State of Israel with any response to the grave threat posed by the continued status quo with the Palestinians to its identity, morality and the future of Zionism.

The return of the Middle East to the US administration’s list of priorities provides a challenging opportunity to create a political horizon and thereby avert the inevitable catastrophic outcome of the status quo – a binational state, or a country in which Jews are minority in an Arab state, or worse, in which a Jewish minority controls an Arab majority by undemocratic means.

American pressure on Israel to avoid thwarting the prospects of a two-state solution by building in the settlements, especially in strategic locations such as E1 or Givat Hamatos, is important but insufficient. Most Israelis prefer the two-state solution but do not believe it can be achieved.

If Biden wants to help Israel and also hand Saudi Arabia an achievement in exchange for lower oil prices, he must announce acceptance of the parameters of the Arab Peace Initiative, launched by the Saudis in 2002 and reaffirmed since numerous times by all Arab leaders, including the Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian ones.

The original initiative was enhanced at an Arab League foreign ministers’ summit under pressure from then-Secretary of State John Kerry by including the principle of land swaps, which could leave the vast majority of settlers in their homes and also waives the full realization of the “right of return” by Palestinians to what is now the Jewish state. American recognition of these parameters as the basis for negotiations could jumpstart an initiative to advance the existing international consensus on a future arrangement.

There is widespread international agreement that such an arrangement should comprise the 1967 borders with land swaps, a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem (enabling the establishment of an American embassy there without having to obtain Israeli permission to resume the operation of a consulate), and a just and agreed-upon resolution of the refugee problem (meaning giving Israel veto power over the number of refugees who would return).

Such a political horizon could bolster support in Israel for the two-state solution and pave the way for turning it into a political reality, thus securing Israel’s future and fulfilling the Zionist vision. A political horizon would also advance a regional front against Iran, but should be viewed as an essential goal in itself because it addresses the threat to our identity that is much more dangerous than Iran.

The op-ed was published in JPost in July 2022.

הפוסט Biden should bolster a Palestinian political horizon הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Since its inauguration, the Biden administration avoided prioritizing the Middle East on its full agenda for several understandable reasons. The US no longer needed the Arabian/Persian Gulf energy reserves, having itself become an energy exporter and aspiring to curb the use of polluting energy.

The administration was also mindful of the disappointing results of US military interventions in the Middle East in recent decades – the war in Iraq that strengthened the Iranians and ISIS, the policy of “leading from behind” in Libya that failed, as did the huge investment in Afghanistan and in attempts to turn it into a democracy, which ended in a justified albeit ignominious American withdrawal.

On the Iranian issue, the administration was determined, rightly so, to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in order to stop Iran’s progress toward military-level uranium enrichment for its nuclear program, which accelerated significantly since Trump violated the agreement. However, the Iranians have upped the ante and negotiations between the sides are deadlocked.

Biden also realized the futility of advancing the two-state solution, in which he believes, when Israel’s government is unable to move forward on the Palestinian issue while the Palestinian Authority’s leadership has lost internal and external legitimacy. Due to the low priority given to Middle East issues, it took the administration a long time to appoint an ambassador to Israel, and the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs only assumed office on May 31 after the Senate finally confirmed her appointment.

Two factors have restored the Middle East to the administration’s priorities, leading to Biden’s planned visit next month to Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia. One is the war in Ukraine, which has once again raised the need for the Middle East’s energy resources in order to provide an alternative to sanctioned Russian gas for Europe and ease the oil price hikes impacting inflation and exacerbating the US economic downturn born of the COVID-19 pandemic. The war in Ukraine has been a salve for the domestically weakened leader unable to push reforms through Congress, presenting Biden as an international figure successfully leading NATO to unity and weakening Russia.

The second factor prompting the visit is the midterm elections for the House of Representatives and a third of the seats in the Senate. The Democrats are projected to lose their slim majority in both houses and a presidential visit to Israel never hurts, as politicians have found through the decades, although the government Biden meets here will be a transitional one.

His visit to Israel is supposed to “legitimize” his scheduled meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), ostracized by Democrats for his alleged role in ordering the assassination of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and for his country’s troubling human rights record. Administration officials are justifying the visit and meeting with MBS by citing its importance to Israel’s security and to bolstering the regional front against Iran.

The mistake of neglecting the Palestinian issue

THE AMERICAN and Israeli Right are satisfied with the Biden Administration for mobilizing to strengthen the Abraham Accords, thereby reaffirming their belief that Israel can normalize relations in the region even without a breakthrough in the Palestinian context. They are completely wrong.

Biden, who indeed has Israel’s best interests at heart, is also wrong because neglecting the Palestinian issue is much more dangerous for Israel than the military threats that our politicians and media love to highlight. Israel is a military power able to deal with all external threats, including the Iranian threat (according to uncensored foreign experts). However, its military might does not provide the State of Israel with any response to the grave threat posed by the continued status quo with the Palestinians to its identity, morality and the future of Zionism.

The return of the Middle East to the US administration’s list of priorities provides a challenging opportunity to create a political horizon and thereby avert the inevitable catastrophic outcome of the status quo – a binational state, or a country in which Jews are minority in an Arab state, or worse, in which a Jewish minority controls an Arab majority by undemocratic means.

American pressure on Israel to avoid thwarting the prospects of a two-state solution by building in the settlements, especially in strategic locations such as E1 or Givat Hamatos, is important but insufficient. Most Israelis prefer the two-state solution but do not believe it can be achieved.

If Biden wants to help Israel and also hand Saudi Arabia an achievement in exchange for lower oil prices, he must announce acceptance of the parameters of the Arab Peace Initiative, launched by the Saudis in 2002 and reaffirmed since numerous times by all Arab leaders, including the Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian ones.

The original initiative was enhanced at an Arab League foreign ministers’ summit under pressure from then-Secretary of State John Kerry by including the principle of land swaps, which could leave the vast majority of settlers in their homes and also waives the full realization of the “right of return” by Palestinians to what is now the Jewish state. American recognition of these parameters as the basis for negotiations could jumpstart an initiative to advance the existing international consensus on a future arrangement.

There is widespread international agreement that such an arrangement should comprise the 1967 borders with land swaps, a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem (enabling the establishment of an American embassy there without having to obtain Israeli permission to resume the operation of a consulate), and a just and agreed-upon resolution of the refugee problem (meaning giving Israel veto power over the number of refugees who would return).

Such a political horizon could bolster support in Israel for the two-state solution and pave the way for turning it into a political reality, thus securing Israel’s future and fulfilling the Zionist vision. A political horizon would also advance a regional front against Iran, but should be viewed as an essential goal in itself because it addresses the threat to our identity that is much more dangerous than Iran.

This article is from “JPost“, from July 1, 2022

הפוסט Biden should bolster a Palestinian political horizon- opinion הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

It is disappointing because Lapid has professed his support for a two-state solution and all the polls indicate that a majority of Israelis support this solution above all others. What is more, a recently survey commissioned by the Geneva Initiative (GI) indicates that most Israelis favor diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinian leadership.

Is the most powerful member of Israel’s government of change still suffering the poisonous effects of the legacy of Benjamin Netanyahu governments?

Lapid has already proven that he is not necessarily bound by Netanyahu’s harmful policies. He skillfully restored relations with Jordan. He improved ties with the European Union (EU), despite its criticism of Israel’s occupation and settlements. He normalized relations with Sweden, despite its recognition of a Palestinian state. He engaged in rebuilding Israel’s relations with the US Democratic Party and American Jewry, neglected by Netanyahu in favor of an alliance with the populists and messianic evangelists in the US. In a refreshing recent comment, Lapid said Israel was not necessarily opposed to an agreement between world powers and Iran, after Netanyahu fought every agreement and drove Iran closer to military nuclear capabilities.

Lapid certainly realizes that without a diplomatic horizon we are weakening moderate Palestinians and bolstering Hamas. He surely understands that without a diplomatic horizon the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be hard pressed to continue its security cooperation with our forces, and that saves lives on a daily basis. He must have heard during his meetings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain that the absence of a diplomatic horizon hampers the expansion and deepening of the normalization circle. He certainly knows that the absence of a diplomatic horizon poses a dire threat to our ability to preserve the Zionist vision of Israel as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.

Limiting the conflict with the Palestinians, a strategy espoused by Micah Goodman, is important in order to ease the daily lives of our Palestinian neighbors, but it is not an alternative to the need for determined action to end the occupation that threatens our strategic and moral future. Limiting the conflict could anesthetize the diplomatic process to a great extent, causing far more harm than good.

That is why last week’s meeting between PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Defense Minister MK Benny Gantz was important for the sake of strengthening cooperation, but cannot replace a significant diplomatic process.

I am not naive and I realize the importance of preserving the current government and preventing the return of an alliance between Netanyahu supporters and extremist right-wingers, but the refreshing policies adopted by the government of change in so many areas will not go down in the annals of history unless it seeks with all its might to extricate Israel from the greatest threat to the future of the Zionist vision.

Lapid has displayed impressive political capabilities in facilitating the formation of this government. Lapid proved that an Arab party can take part in an Israeli government and that agreements can be reached between opposing ideological parties for the benefit of the citizens of the state of Israel. He must display that same political and diplomatic wisdom by presenting a diplomatic horizon. The diplomatic horizon is the Zionist horizon.

This article is from “The Jerusalem Post“, from January 9, 2022

הפוסט Israel needs a diplomatic horizon to preserve the Zionist vision- opinion הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט The danger of Israeli panic over Iran – analysis הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Prime Minister Bennett and President Biden face a special challenge given the significant disparity between their views on key issues, especially in the Iranian and Palestinian arenas. On the other hand, the sides share a deep and refreshing commitment to establish close strategic cooperation built on mutual trust. Unlike Netanyahu, who sacrificed relations with the US to advance his political and personal agendas, Bennett has been demonstrating noteworthy national responsibility in strengthening the special relationship with the US as he did in rehabilitating ties with Jordan immediately upon taking office.

Israel’s overriding interest lies in taking advantage of the top-level Washington visit to formulate a US-led diplomatic initiative to achieve a two-state solution with the Palestinians, but unfortunately, this is not a realistic option at the moment. Nonetheless, the two countries share important interests that the visit can advance, taking advantage of the improved regional constellation relevant to the Palestinian context, too.

Bennett’s visit comes against the backdrop the US pullout from Afghanistan, and the understanding that US military involvement in the region is no longer in the cards – seminal developments that illustrate the vital need for a new roadmap of intensified US diplomatic leadership. Such diplomatic leadership has not been felt so far. Meanwhile, the US vacuum is filling up with Sunni and Shiite Islamist agitators, while US partners are crying out for a new regional architecture of alliances. Despite the Biden Administration’s decision to prioritize East Asia and domestic issues, the US must be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time”. Otherwise, others will fill the vacuum left by the Americans in the Middle East, as already evidenced by China’s recent strategic partnership agreement with Iran.

Iran

During his election campaign, Biden declared that he would try to revert to the diplomatic arena in order to block Iran’s progress toward military nuclear capabilities, accelerated by Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA between the P5+1 with Iran. Attempts to restore and enhance the agreement have stalled. The Iranians do not seem to feel a sense of urgency and the intentions of Khamenei and the Raisi government regarding the Vienna negotiations are unclear.

The Bennett government wisely decided to abandon Netanyahu’s pointless confrontational tactics vis-à-vis the US in favor of dialogue with the administration on Iran. Biden and Bennett will have to reach several understandings on combined efforts to pressure Iran both in case an agreement is reached and in case it is not. Coordination and consultation mechanisms must be established if Israel is to try to influence decisions by the US and its allies on an agreement with Tehran, and Israel’s room for maneuver vis-à-vis Iran must be defined.

In addition, the two sides must agree on a regional cooperation mechanism that includes the US allies under threat by Iran in a manner that will also serve their relations with Israel and expand the normalization circle. Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy terror attacks are a greater threat to the Gulf States than the nuclear threat, concerns that Israel shares as reflected in recent Iranian attacks on Israeli owned vessels and Hizballah launching rockets. The US and Israel must reach agreement on integrating these states into an American plan to deal with Iran’s subversive activities in the region. They should agree to provide these states with anti-missile defenses developed jointly by Israel and the US, which would also enhance Israel’s standing as an asset to the Gulf States.

The Palestinians

Bennett should prepare an answer for the question Biden is likely to put to him regarding solution of the conflict with the Palestinians, although agreement on the issue is highly doubtful. A plan that foresees autonomy for Areas A and B of the West Bank and annexation of Area C contradicts stated US values and interests. Micah Goldman’s blueprint for “shrinking the conflict” could serve as a temporary tactical phase, but not as an alternative to a long-term vision.

Despite the divide on this issue, agreement on two general principles could be possible: Avoiding measures that preclude the prospects of a two-state solution in the future and significantly improving living conditions for the Palestinians. We should not forget that the collapse of moderate forces in Afghanistan could be replicated in the West Bank, an outcome both Israel and the US have an interest in preventing.

Bennett must come equipped with answers on preventing unilateral Israeli moves in Jerusalem and the West Bank that risk sparking violence, especially as regards depriving Palestinians of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan and upsetting the status quo on the Temple Mount. At the same time, Bennett must explain how he plans to prevent settler violence and violation of Palestinian human rights in light of the many horrifying violations taking place in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel and the US have a shared interested in forming regional coordination mechanisms to counter attempts to undermine Israel’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world through provocations at Islam’s holy sites in Jerusalem and handing Hamas and Turkey additional public relations victories as the one in May. Such a mechanism should also include Jordan and Morocco in a manner highlighting the value of their agreements with Israel. Ways should also be found to integrate Saudi Arabia in light of its standing in the Arab and Muslim world and in order to incentivize it to join the normalization circle.

As for the West Bank, coordination is required ahead of the expected change in Palestinian leadership prompted by Abu Mazen’s age and the nadir of his domestic legitimacy. Israel and the US have an interest in strengthening moderate forces in the West Bank, although it is unclear right now who will lead them. The administration must be mobilized for efforts to improve the economy and governance in the West Bank. Jordan should be included in these efforts, having a significant interest in their outcome, as should the UAE, which has the resources to provide economic support, improve governance and strengthen civilian institutions.

As for Gaza, Israel should agree with the US on a mechanism to gradually rehabilitate and demilitarize the enclave while avoiding re-enforcement of Hamas but recognizing its existence as a significant factor in Palestinian society. This must be carried out in conjunction with the Palestinian Authority (PA), the UAE and Egypt, while diminishing Qatar’s influence.

Along with renewal of US aid to UNRWA to avoid a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a blueprint should be drawn up for a gradual handover by UNRWA to the PA and to the states where Palestinian refugees live in a manner that bolsters the PA and addresses UNRWA role in the Palestinian sense of victimization and encouragement of their refugee status.

Syria and Lebanon

Israel lacks diplomatic levers to ensure calm on its northern front, and the vacuum left by the Americans in the region constitutes a security threat. Israel and the US have a shared interest in stability in the region and in preventing a buildup by Iran and its proxies. With that in mind, the US should be asked to include in its dialogue with Russia a demand on blocking further Iranian buildup in Syria. The US could also exert direct influence in Lebanon and in cooperation with France to leverage the economic crisis there and ensure that international aid for Lebanon results in reining in and weakening Hezbollah. In addition, the US could increase its mediation efforts in the Israel-Lebanon negotiations on demarcating their maritime border and leverage this channel to advance other Israel-Lebanon issues.

China

Biden has declared China the most significant challenge to the US and its NATO allies. Israel has an interest in continued economic relations with China, which is a vital market for the Israeli economy, without undermining US interests. Bennett must propose mechanisms to enable this dual goal, while making clear that despite Israel’s clear priority for preserving its relationship with the US, it cannot afford to turn its back on some opportunities from China for which it has no alternatives. The sides must therefore define Israel’s potential room for maneuver.

Bilateral

The US 2022 foreign appropriations bill approved by the House in July is expected to win Senate approval and will include all of the US defense aid promised to Israel, reflecting the support of a large majority of Democrats for Israel’s security. Nonetheless, there is growing pressure from the progressive wing of the party to condition aid for Israel on progress in negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel should offer of its own volition a mechanism to prevent use of American aid in the violation of human rights and in creeping annexation of Palestinian territory.

To forge ties with the increasingly influential progressive elements on the US political map, a shared fund should be established to aid developing states (a “Tikkun Olam” fund), in accordance with the model of existing bi-national funds (BIRD that funds cooperation in industrial R&D, BARD that funds cooperation in agricultural R&D and BSF that funds scientific R&D). Such a fund would enable cooperation between MASHAV (the Foreign Ministry’s foreign aid arm) and USAID in development work internationally and encourage cooperation between American and Israeli NGOs dedicated to support disadvantaged populations on both sides of the ocean. Such a fund could also constitute a basis for the mobilization of progressive American Jews who are currently hard pressed to find a common cause with Israel.

The American Jewish community

Bennett should hold an event at a Washington Reform synagogue in order to send a message to North American Jewry that Israel embraces the large majority of American Jews not affiliated with Orthodox Judaism. Bennett should come with a solution to the divisive issue of prayer at the Western Wall. He should also take the opportunity to convey a message that the State of Israel embraces Jews critical of its policies, too, and supports an inclusive “big tent” approach toward Jews everywhere. This is a vital message not only related to US-Israel relations but also the State of Israel’s founding principle as the home of the Jewish people, which cannot afford the growing gap between itself and the largest and most important Jewish community in the world.

In summing up, Bennett has an opportunity and a commitment to open a new chapter between Israel and the US after his predecessor inflicted dire damage on Israel’s relations with the Democratic Party and with the American Jewish community. It is incumbent on Bennett to maintain the nationally responsible line he has adopted thus far and avoid missing the opportunity to do so.

הפוסט Ahead of PM Bennett’s White House visit: Six agenda items הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Scenes of Afghans fearing for their lives and convoys of refugees pouring out of the country are heart wrenching, indeed, and the western countries who were involved should do their utmost to absorb refugees who are running for their life. However, the events should surprise no one, nor is there any reason to accuse the Biden administration of abandonment (although intelligence forecasts of the immediate repercussions appear to have been flawed). One can however certainly blame those who thought it would be possible to change Iraq and Afghanistan and forcibly impose on them Western values.

Since the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon 20 years ago, and the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans have gradually realized the extent of the fiasco. Despite the heavy loss of life and the astronomic sums it invested, the US failed to achieve sustainable, organic change.

The article was published on Jpost, August 2021

הפוסט The alleged American abandonment of Afghanistan הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Many Americans ask me how I can be so very satisfied with the new government led by a right-wing ideologue, which declares outright that it will not embark on significant moves with the Palestinians. My answer is to ask them to imagine 12 years under a harmful leader such as Trump, but far more sophisticated, who is determined to do away with democracy in order to remain in power. I explain that this outcome was scuttled by a determined public campaign and rare cooperation among a wide variety of parties and groups that came together despite their different agendas in order to save the state.

I then add that we in the peace camp have many allies in the government after years of having none. That the new government includes nine women and 10 women directors general of government ministries. While still insufficient, it’s the best gender balance we’ve ever had. This is a government that includes an Arab party, for the first time, albeit one not guided by the liberal values we would have liked to see. A government open to the liberal streams of Judaism. A government trying to renew Israel’s alliance with the US Democratic Party and with liberal governments in Europe, and, of course, to prioritize links with the American Jewish community ahead of ties with nationalist populists in the US and Europe.

This is a government whose foreign minister, for the first time in Israeli history, is also its dominant political figure and can therefore give diplomacy the place it deserves in Israel’s national security as it strives to prioritize negotiated solutions. A foreign minister who immediately upon taking office set about rehabilitating relations with Jordan, Brussels and Washington. A government whose members come to their office to work rather than to stir up discord and prop up a cult of personality aimed at saving a corrupt leader from legal proceedings – as was the case in recent years.

I have also been asked why we are so pleased with the changing of the guard in Washington even though the Biden Administration has made clear that the Palestinian problem is hardly its top priority. Well, after four years during which Trump spared no effort to turn the US into a third world country, which does not believe in science nor in its duty to lead the free world, it’s hard not to be impressed with Biden’s leadership. His moves on important domestic issues, such as the coordinated campaign against Covid-19 and ambitious plans to save the economy and make it more equal and environmentally sustainable. His determination to renew alliances with liberal democracies. His global leadership on climate change, which is obviously the greatest challenge facing humanity. Yes, refreshing, joyous sanity has also been restored across the ocean.

On the other hand, we must not allow our satisfaction to divert us from our mission – saving Zionism from the malignant status quo of continued occupation leading us to a binational state and to the moral and strategic elimination of the Zionist vision. There is much we can do even under the new governments in Israel and the US which, while having much to commend them, are not seized with a sense of urgency to resolve our existential threat.

Sadly, there are no prospects of a breakthrough in bilateral Israeli-Palestinian initiative, not only because of the neutralizing balance of the Bennett-Lapid government, but also because of the Palestinian leadership crisis. There are many reasons why Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have sunk to such unprecedented lows. The corruption that has spread throughout the PA and the obstacles to any attempt to instill democracy certainly play a role. But the weakness is linked no less to the fact that Abu Mazen’s willingness to achieve an independent state without resorting to violence came up against an Israeli side uninterested in agreement and preferring to bolster Hamas. By definition, anyone ignoring the pragmatic forces strengthens fundamentalist ones. That has been Israel’s approach toward the PA for many years and this is the poison fruit it has cultivated.

Despite all of the above, the international community can create a new tangible, concrete vision of a two-state solution in tandem with activity to strengthen moderate elements on the ground and prevent unilateral measures hampering a solution once conditions are ripe.

The Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), together with Arab states that have diplomatic relations with Israel and with the help of other important countries in the world and the region, such as Saudi Arabia and China, could advance a UN Security Council resolution setting parameters for a permanent status agreement that would serve as the basis for negotiations once they become feasible.

Such parameters could include, inter alia, the international consensus on the 1967 lines as the border between Israel and Palestine with land swaps to be agreed in negotiations. The Palestinian capital will be in East Jerusalem and special arrangements will be made for the Holy Basin under international auspices. The settlements excluded from the land swaps will be vacated, or their residents could decide to remain there under Palestinian sovereignty. The solution to the refugee problem will combine a return to the Palestinian state and rehabilitation and equal rights for refugees who choose to remain in Syria and Lebanon. All of the above subject to security arrangements guaranteeing Israel’s security, such as a demilitarization, early warning systems, and more.

Based on these parameters, the international community will recognize a Palestinian state and also declare an international consensus recognizing Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people whose non-Jewish citizens enjoy full equality, de facto.

Such an international move would also affect domestic Israeli and Palestinian politics. Hope of a diplomatic solution would weaken the radicals and strengthen the pragmatists. The public on both sides, most of which backs the two-state solution but does not believe it is feasible will have their faith in peace restored and vote accordingly. Once political conditions are ripe for a return to negotiations, we will not have to start from scratch.

Israeli and Palestinian peace advocates have an important role in influencing the international community to advance such a move and refusing to abandon the vision of peace despite the current difficulties. It’s possible to be pleased with the favorable changes in the US and Israel, but not to fully satisfied. The energy that led to the hoped-for changes in the US and Israel must be translated into a move that saves us from despair. Leadership is the ability to combine a critical mind that identifies what needs to be done with a hopeful heart that believes change is possible. Let us become leaders on the road to peace.

הפוסט Now that we’re rid of Trump and Bibi, what’s next? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The two organizations — the IDF and the Foreign Ministry — are executing their tasks. The army demonstrates capabilities in the field of air force strikes on Hamas targets and also in the protection of the country’s citizens by the Iron Dome and warning systems. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has succeeded in its diplomatic efforts in providing the Israeli government with a wide range of latitude and international legitimacy for action.

In both cases, however, this tactical success fails to translate into sustainable achievement due to a lack of strategy. The IDF and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs do not set the policy, but they should boldly say to the political leadership that they are unable to achieve the long-term goals that are expected of them.

As long as the issue at hand is the narrow-angle of Israel’s right to defend itself against missile terrorism aimed at its citizens, there are successes, because it is a worthy and legitimate goal. But strategically there are no solutions to the Palestinian issue, of which Hamas is a part, neither in the military nor in PR.

We always use our sophisticated army as someone who holds a hammer in their hand and sees every problem as a nail. We nurture this army and each time we send it to another round with Hamas in which it demonstrates its formidable capabilities, but solves nothing. Military officers are constantly interviewed in the media today and detail in masculine voice techno-tactical issues and excite the public’s imagination about military capabilities.

On the other hand, we do not invest at all in the diplomacy and at the same time make allegations to the diplomats that there is criticism of Israel in world public opinion. So let me tell you a secret, there is no way to explain our policy. Not the lack of diplomatic action, not the prolonged occupation without a horizon, not the deliberate weakening of the pragmatic elements in Palestinian society, not the discriminatory law of absentee property in Jerusalem and not the violation of the status quo on the Temple Mount that is used by settler associations under government auspices that set the entire region on fire.

The Israeli public treats this campaign like its predecessors from a narrow-angle of a legitimate democracy’s confrontation with a terrorist organization, but the world sees shocking images from Gaza of the victims of these repeated rounds – dead and wounded civilians including many children (who for some reason the Israeli public does not see) and asks – what did you do to prevent this round of violence? What have you done in the diplomatic sphere? What did you do to prevent the continued occupation? What did you do to achieve justice for the residents of East Jerusalem and equality for the Arabs of Israel?

I feel very connected to our army as a former officer and parent of children who do and have done meaningful service. My heart also goes out to my former colleagues the diplomats, who are not less talented than the generals of the army and work around the clock in the current campaign and throughout the year. Meet, for example, the head of the Foreign Ministry’s public diplomacy division, Noam Katz, and the speaker, Lior Hayat, and you will quickly understand that these are super talented people, whom any foreign ministry would be blessed with. This is also true of all “anonymous soldiers” who deal with public opinion and media at the headquarters in Jerusalem and at about 100 of our missions abroad. They are forced to engage in useless “hasbara” (the Hebrew term for advocacy or propaganda) of unexplained policies.

Let them engage in true diplomacy and you will see results. Give them a political directive to engage in peace agreements with our neighbors as the Foreign Ministry did during the Rabin and Peres governments and you will see them demonstrate their impressive capabilities.

Both the best military in the region nor the weakened Foreign Ministry will not be able to prevent another round, will not be able to substantially weaken Hamas and will not bring peace and security to Israelis and the region without a coherent foreign policy to promote long-term arrangements. We must not fall into the trap of right-wing elements trying to convince us that we are doomed to live on our sword while maintaining a two-generation occupation regime for millions and that this baseless policy, which primarily harms our existence as a democracy, can be explained.

**The article was published on The Times of Israel, 25 May 2021

הפוסט There’s no military nor public diplomacy solution הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

However, this is an illusion because there is no tactical solution to the Gaza issue, neither the military responses nor the short-term settlement with Qatari funding. There is no military answer to the Gaza issue, not even in the hands of the most powerful army in the Middle East. There is also no ability to separate Gaza from the other elements of the Palestinian reality in the West Bank and among the Arab citizens of Israel.

Hamas represents a Palestinian public that will not disappear, Islamists who are not the majority of the Palestinian population. Hamas manages to gain popularity among non-Islamist Palestinians by taking advantage and stepping into a vacuum. When we ignore Palestinians’ personal aspirations, national symbols and Muslim traditions (which are common also to non-Islamist Muslims) we strengthen extremism.

The so-called Nation-State law, which discriminates against Israeli Arabs, the expulsion of Palestinian Jerusalemite families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, violations of the status quo on the Temple Mount/Haram El Sharif and police violence in general and especially within one of the holy sites of Islam all strengthen radicals who see nothing but opportunity.

The separation between Gaza and the West Bank that Israeli governments are trying to promote does not work, because there is no solution to Gaza without a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue.  The West Bank and Gaza are two different but common parts, just as liberal cosmopolitan Tel Aviv and religious nationalist Jerusalem cannot be separated.

The Israeli government is rewarding Hamas with funds from Qatar to achieve short term quiet and avoid engaging in the central issues between us and the Palestinians. At the same time, our government tends to weaken the moderate Palestinian elements who are interested in a non-violent solution to the conflict and believe that diplomacy rather than terrorism is the way to achieve their national aspirations.

There is an unwritten alliance of interests between Palestinian’s extremists and our extremists, who are now also represented in the Knesset. The extremists on both sides believe that chaos and violence strengthen them politically. This current round is another example of this pattern that is repeated over and over again, but we seem unable to learn from experience. This time we see this horrific violent radicalization within Israeli mixed cities.

Israel’s ongoing political situation is contributing to the chaos featuring a government that deals with the political and legal survival of the prime minister. A Minister of Internal Security who is trying to gain popularity in the Likud and in the Prime Minister circles by bravado and a Commissioner of Police who do not have the experience and training to deal with complex situations that have no violent solution. Racist and fascist extremists in Israeli society who became part of our legislature with the help of the prime minister are fueling the flames on our streets.

Of course, the Palestinian side must shoulder their share of the blame. Particularly disappointing is the lack of moderating leadership who will calm down the riots in the Arab cities within Israel.

As usual most of us, including many of my good friends stand by the flag when Israel is attacked and accuse me of focusing my criticisms on our side. They complain that I do not show patriotism when my people are under missile attacks.

My answer is that the establishment of our state and the realization of the Zionist dream require taking responsibility. We can engage endlessly in the pointless blame game like children in kindergarten who fight and tell the teacher that the other has started the fight.

I have no interest in the blame game, I have an expectation that we as the strong and sovereign side will take responsibility. Responsibility means learning from our mistakes and stop looking for faults of the other as an excuse. The core element of Zionism was turning Jews from victims of history to those who shape it. The way to do this is not by engaging in the mistakes or evil of others, but by behaving like a responsible adult. Not as a brat in a street brawl.

The Israeli government should have a comprehensive policy for the Palestinian issue, centered on strategic diplomacy with the Palestinian leadership dedicated to finding a solution to the conflict that will free us from repetitive futile patterns. At the same time, we must promote true equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Otherwise, the vacuum that our government creates will be once again filled by the extremists.

**The article was published on The Times of Israel, 13 May 2021

הפוסט Solution to Violence Must Be Strategic הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The Israeli government and the public are unaware of the dramatic change in US attitudes toward Israel, especially in the American Jewish community. This change reached new heights at the last conference attended (virtually due to the pandemic) by Democratic Party leaders in both houses of Congress and senior government representatives alongside leaders of all the religious denominations of American Jewry.

The J Street conference received minimal Israeli media coverage, which focused narrowly on comments made by leading progressive senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who both mentioned the importance of monitoring how Israel applies the $3.8 billion in US military aid received annually under former US president Barack Obama’s administration’s memorandum of understanding.

Israeli media falsely portrayed J Street as a marginal organization in which only members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party participate. In reality, at the conference, along with the senators mentioned, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also appeared alongside US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield and many other leaders of the Democratic party.

The lack of response to the conference in Israel stems from Israel’s inability to understand the general picture in the US, an understanding that is critical to our relationship with our most important ally. The special relationship with the US is a key element in Israel’s national security. So too, is the connection to the largest Jewish community in the world, outside of Israel, which is strategic to a state that defines itself as the nation state of the Jewish people.

For years we have become accustomed to all-encompassing American support regardless of our governments’ policies while relying on legacy Jewish organizations in the US to ensure that this situation lasts forever.

J Street was established because the vast majority of American Jews no longer agree that blindly supporting the Israeli government by established Jewish organizations ignores the values and opinions of the majority of American Jews. American Jews are tired of Israel expecting them to support the country financially and advance Israeli government positions through lobbying, while Israel ignores their values and positions and discriminates exclusively in favor of the Orthodox Jewish denomination.

Most American Jews seek a home and a voice for those who want to support Israel without sacrificing their progressive values.

Before the establishment of J Street, the only option for those who care about Israel but did not identify with Israeli government positions were to disengage or support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. With the growth and success of J Street, they now have a liberal Zionist option.

In a relatively short period of time, J Street has transformed itself from a “start-up” that was not given a chance to compete for impact with the institutionalized organizations into a significant force in American foreign policy in the Israeli context. A large number of Democratic candidates for US House and US Senate running in the 2020 elections sought and received J Street’s endorsement.

Keinon correct states that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican representatives did not attend the conference. But they were certainly invited: I myself sent the invitations to the prime minister and ambassador in Washington, and know that the invitations were received.

The reason that the Republicans and representatives of the Israeli government did not participate in our conference is that J Street is not another organization without taste and without color. This is an organization that represents a clear worldview that is inconsistent with today’s Republican Party, which in the era of former US president Donald Trump lost the moderate elements that it has had throughout history and aligned entirely with the position of Netanyahu’s coalition.

There has been a shift in the Democratic Party, not due to anti-Israel sentiments, as is commonly thought in Israel. The shift was toward a more critical stance due to Netanyahu’s abandonment of the bipartisan approach that Israel has taken since its inception and his decision to take a clear side in American politics, allying with Republican and Evangelical Christians. The shift was created because, in the Netanyahu era, Israel is abandoning the liberal values manifested in Declaration of Independence that connected the Democratic Party with the state.

There are important organizations that deal with Israeli-US relations and focus on the relations between the countries regardless of the values and policies that this alliance represents. J Street is not such an organization. For us, close relations that eliminate any chance for peace and violate Palestinian human rights are not a worthy goal. We certainly want close relations that strengthen Israel’s security and prosperity, but also those that help Israel achieve an arrangement that will prevent the continuation of the toxic status quo that leads to a dual-national catastrophe. We are promoting relations that will keep the morality of Israel alongside its security.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with J Street, no other organization represents the vast majority of the Jewish community and no other organization is closer to the Democratic Party, which is currently in the White House and has a majority in both houses of Congress. Those who care about US-Israel relations should listen to Herb Keinon.

This article was published in The Jerusalem Post, May 1st 2021.

הפוסט Israel is unaware of the change in US attitudes towards it הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

On the eve of Passover this year, I am most looking forward to the Mimuna holiday — a traditional Jewish Moroccan celebration and feast which immediately follows the end of Passover. The Mimuna is a holiday full of love for others, good neighborliness, hospitality and multiculturalism – the same values ​​that can also be expressed through Israel’s relations with its neighbors.

Personally, I am a “sabra” of Ashkenazi descent, but Mimuna is nonetheless my favorite holiday and I have always wished to receive an invitation from my Moroccan friends to celebrate. Not only because of the plethora of sweets (which are sure to throw me off my diet), but because of the values that ​​the Mimuna represents.

My love for the holiday developed under the influence of two Ashkenazis like me. Firstly, my political mentor Shimon Peres, who resolutely nurtured Israel’s relations with Morocco. Secondly, my father-in-law Dr. Dan Ronen, who was an expert on ethnic folklore, wrote a booklet on the Mimuna and for a year was the MC of the main Mimuna event in Jerusalem.

Peres had close relations with King Hassan II of Morocco and with the heads of the Jewish community in Morocco. He saw Morocco’s moderate diplomatic approach as having the potential to affect Israel’s relations with the entire region. The event that most prominently demonstrated Peres’ vision of the “New Middle East” – The same vision that was once harshly criticized by those who are promoting it today, was the Casablanca Economic Conference in 1995.

At the time, Morocco was one of the countries in which an Israeli mission was established in the wake of the Oslo Accords. Unfortunately, it was terminated following the intifada and the deterioration of relations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Despite the freeze in diplomatic relations between the two countries, Morocco remained open to Israeli tourists and business. Morocco also tried to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians, as it did between Israel and Egypt before the Camp David Accords. In the Palestinian context, Morocco has a special status as chairing the Jerusalem Committee of the Organization of Muslim States and therefore has a clear commitment to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict peacefully.

As part of a series of lectures this year on March 2^nd called “With the Face to the Maghreb”, the author, journalist and former MK Daniel Ben Simon, whose book “The Moroccans” was published in 2016, hosted Andre Azoulay, Special Adviser to the King of Morocco Muhammad VI and to his father King Hassan II.

Azoulay was a close friend of Peres’ and continued to serve today as a member of the International Board of Governors of the Peres Center for Peace and Innovation. In his lecture, Azoulay expressed his desire for “the normalization between Morocco and Israel to provide an opportunity for the entire region”.

“We have all long hoped for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In the 1990’s we were close and we missed a lot of opportunities, I think if we can help bring that spirit back it will be one of the important things that will contribute to the relations between Morocco and Israel,” Azoulay went on to say.

Morocco carries a sense of loss for the significant and vibrant Jewish community that left the country in the 1960’s, taking with it an important component of Moroccan multiculturalism. In Morocco, there exists a prevailing discourse of tolerance and acceptance of “the other”, based on a long tradition of reciprocity and mutual respect between members of the country’s three main religions. The Jewish community in Morocco had a history of open and broad-minded Judaism intertwined with universal values.

Our current representatives in Morocco, Ambassador David Govrin, who is a veteran diplomat with experience as ambassador to Egypt, and Einat Levy, an expert on Moroccan issues, are a great choice to renew diplomatic relations between countries.

It is imperative that the Israeli government use this opportunity to cultivate a spirit of reconciliation between neighbors – Arabs and Jews – and to advance the process of settling the conflict with the Palestinians while strengthening bilateral relations.

The Peres Center for Peace and Innovation is ready and willing to take part in this process and fulfill Peres’ legacy by using the expertise he has gained over his 25 years in peace projects in various disciplines – health, education, business and environment – and by harnessing the power of Israeli innovation to promote peace and “Tikun Olam” (repairing the world).

“Tirbachu and Tisadu (Have fun and dine)”!

**The article was published on The Times of Israel, 28 March 2021

הפוסט What has changed this Mimuna? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

There is not much enthusiasm among Hamas and Fatah for the reconciliation process and the upcoming elections. The hatred between the two organizations has not abated, and there are still many disagreements about the format of the election. Yet, the two organizations have realized that responding to the internal pressure of the Palestinian population and the international expectation of one legitimate address representing the Palestinian people is inevitable.

The current timing is also related to the change of administrations in Washington, which has already led to regional changes, the most notable of which is the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Trump administration tried to take credit for the reconciliation, but it actually happened due to Trump’s loss in the election. The embargo on Qatar on the part of Saudi Arabia and its allies began immediately after Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia; this made the Saudis believe they had American backing to do whatever they wish, both in Yemen and in Qatar.

The Israeli tendency to label all players as good or bad causes us to miss opportunities. Israel has interests to promote with all players – with the pro-Western Sunni alliance, with Qatar, with Turkey and with Hamas. The concept of frenemies, a combination between an enemy on certain issues and a friend on other issues, is necessary for effective diplomacy.

The Israeli right prefer Palestinian segregation because they see it as a justification for avoiding agreement with the Palestinians and the  territorial compromise involved. Our recent governments have been very comfortable saying that there is no Palestinian partner due to the split between Hamas and Fatah and whenever there was an attempt at reconciliation, they acted to thwart it.

The ceasefire agreement with Hamas, aided by Egypt, Qatar and the UN envoy, was tactically correct to prevent bloodshed, but strategically wrong. There is no solution for Gaza being detached from the West Bank, and there is no way to reach demilitarization and rehabilitation in Gaza without the Palestinian Authority having status in the Gaza Strip as well. The Palestinian Authority can’t have such status in the Gaza Strip without Hamas’ consent.

On the other side, the expectation in the Israeli left that Hamas will be marginalized and we will be able to move forward with the more secular and moderate elements in the PA ignores the fact that Hamas represents a very significant public among the Palestinians and is not about to disappear or surrender.

In order for Hamas to change to a more pragmatic approach, it needs a “ladder” to justify the ideological change. Such a “ladder” could be created as part of the reconciliation process if international players influence Hamas to refrain from using violence in order to promote their cause; thus, can begin a gradual process in which the military arm of Hamas passes on to the control of the elected Palestinian institutions. A document passed by the Palestinians to the Biden administration presents an agreement among all factions based on the principle of two states and to non-violent opposition only.

Such a process would lead to Hamas eventually accepting the terms of the “Arab Initiative” as already agreed in the “prisoners document” and it will become a political movement. There are examples of movements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have moderated and became political movements – as we see this currently in Tunisia. In the Egyptian context President Morsi honored the peace agreement with Israel when the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt after the election following the Arab Spring.

Reconciliation and elections are desirable Israeli interests as they may lead to a clear Palestinian address for us to achieve a settlement and also for deterrence. A prominent example of the lack of such an address is the tragic failure of the Israeli attempt to bring back home to the Israeli civilians and the bodies of the soldiers held by Hamas. As things stand now, we have no levers on Hamas to return Avera ​​Mengistu, Hisham A. Sayed, and Hadar Goldin And Oron Shaul – may their memory be blessed.

The attempt to create levers on Hamas by inflicting suffering on the Palestinian population in Gaza is neither moral nor practical, as it is exploding in the face of the residents of south Israel time and time again, and brings us closer to the criminal court in the Hague.

We all have bad memories from the previous elections of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which led to the victory of Hamas. Also, currently there are fears that the election will lead to a strengthening of the representation of more radical elements, but there is no escape from the need for internal and external legitimacy that require elections. The State of Israel cannot engineer the election results as we failed in an attempt to engineer Lebanese politics in alliance with the Christian “phalanges”.

Therefore, we should avoid the pressure on Hamas members in the West Bank to not run as was recently reported or to not allow the residents of East Jerusalem to participate in the elections as agreed in the Oslo Accords.

In order to help the victory of the moderates, who expressed their readiness for an agreement based on a two-state solution for two peoples, it is better that we avoid interfering and instead demonstrate that the moderate approach of diplomacy bears fruits.

This is in contrast to our actions in recent years, in which we “dried” up Abu Mazen and provided achievements to Hamas either by Qatari money or in the release of Hamas prisoners.

The success of the Palestinian reconciliation will provide the Biden administration and the post-election Israeli government the tools to promote a process that will prevent the binational catastrophe that lies ahead. It will also help the removal of the barriers to complete the process of regional normalization that will include Saudi Arabia. It was the Saudis that led the “Arab Initiative” and by adding them and Qatar to the normalization, it will lead to a dramatic change in Israel’s situation in the region. The Israeli public has already proven that they prefer normalization over annexation.

Regional normalization, which leads to regional stability and prosperity, also requires Palestinian normalization, so we must see in the process of reconciliation and the Palestinian elections an opportunity and not a threat.

**The article was published on The Times of Israel, 18 March 2021

הפוסט The Palestinian reconciliation is an opportunity הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The latest decision to vaccinate 120,000 Palestinians working in Israel is a step in the right direction, but all Palestinians should be our top priority for all the good reasons – moral, medical, as well as strategic.

From a moral point of view, there is no doubt that we have a responsibility and there is no point in quibbling about unnecessary legal disputes. According to the Israeli government, we have no responsibility for the Palestinians due to the transfer of responsibility for health to the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo Accords. There is a great deal of irony in the fact that the Israeli right-wing camp is suddenly presenting the Oslo Accords at the forefront of its arguments, after years of defaming the agreement, a defamation that even led to the assassination of prime minister Rabin. In addition, it is ironic that the argument about the International Criminal Court having no ruling authority on the Palestinian Authority is 180 degrees opposite to the argument on health, where we hold that this is not a legal entity under international law.

It is important to remember that the Oslo Accords were supposed to lead to a five-year process, at the end of which the temporary state of occupation made possible by international law would end. In reality, not only does the occupation continue, the Israeli government’s policy of promoting settlements and putting demographic pressure on the Palestinian population does not lead to an end to the occupation, but rather to its perpetuation. In addition, we have full control over the mobility of the Palestinians, and even over the population register of their residents. At the bottom line, we definitely have a moral responsibility to their health, as long as they do not have full control and independence as we do.

From a medical viewpoint, we and they are not really separate. Netanyahu was right when he said in an interview with Udi Segal (on Israeli TV Channel 13), that in this context, we are not an island state like Cyprus, New Zealand or Taiwan; but at the same time, Netanyahu misled the public by claiming that the Palestinians were the ones who infected us. The data show that the Palestinian morbidity was caused by contact with Israelis, by contacts that occurred due to political decisions regarding illness-laden flights from New York, Dubai and more.

As we know, Palestinians cannot fly abroad or cross into Jordan without our permission. That is, we could be an island state if we treated the entire area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean as one epidemiological unit, to which uncontrolled entrances should be prevented and all Israelis and Palestinians alike should be vaccinated.

Strategically, the use of vaccines as a lever, in order to improve Israel’s reputation is correct, but we could, with the help of vaccine diplomacy, promote relations with the Palestinians who have invaluable importance to our security and to our future far more so than the residents of Honduras, Guatemala, Hungary, or the Czech Republic to whom Israel offered vaccines. We could also coordinate aid to the Palestinians with the World Health Organization, with the new Biden administration, and with key European countries, which are very rightly concerned about the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians, as very prominently having been raised at the recent AHLC meeting.

We could become an example and role model for the strategic use of vaccine diplomacy. But instead, our government is trying its best to use the vaccines as a political gimmick, which does not have a diplomatic effect on anyone in the world, because its cynicism is transparent and clear.

Countries around the globe are adapting to a change in the leadership of the free world following the recent US elections. Even in our region – the Palestinians are working to promote elections. The Saudis, Egyptians, Turks are changing behavior because they understand that there is a new administration in Washington, for which civil rights and democracy matter.

Only the Israeli government mourns about Trump’s departure, and continues to act as if the world is still led by an inhumane narcissist who has irresponsibly left the World Health Organization in the midst of a global epidemic that cries out for global cooperation.

It is still not too late to correct and leverage the advantage we have in the field of vaccines, in order to do the right thing morally, medically and diplomatically, and to benefit ourselves through aid to the Palestinians.

**The article was published on The Jerusalem Post, 10 March 2021.

הפוסט Coronavirus: Israel must vaccinate our Palestinian neighbors הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

On one hand, the thought that Israeli officers will be prevented from leaving the borders of the state, or, God forbid, will be imprisoned and locked up, makes me cringe. Although I am a peace activist, I am not a pacifist. I have great appreciation for the IDF’s role in defending Israel, and in advancing the ability of Israel to promote peace. I have served in a significant position in the army and my children also served and are serving, as they were educated to do.

I am frightened that past and present military personnel will pay the price for the arrogance, distorted values and stupidity of the political echelon. As a graduate of the First Lebanon War, I witnessed firsthand the tragic folly of entering into Lebanon, and the long and unnecessary stay in Southern Lebanon.

I was much younger, but still remember the unnecessary and tragic Yom Kippur War.

If our leaders would have received the outstretched hand of the Egyptian president before instead of after the bloody war we could have avoided much suffering.

Our country is full of unnecessary graves and scarred souls and bodies of Israelis who wholeheartedly believed they were protecting the land. However, they were sent on missions that did not contribute to our protection, and in many cases, they, in fact, damaged our security.

It is not surprising that most senior IDF officials, members of the Mossad and of Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) become supporters of peace and the use of diplomatic tools after their retirement – they understand the damage that the current policies are causing to both the physical protection of the state and to our moral values.

Because of this, on the other hand, I look forward to developments that will constitute a wake-up call for us that we have to end the predicament in which we find ourselves. I am repeatedly shocked by the indifference of the Israeli public to the reality of the occupation, both morally and in terms of its strategic implications for the future of Zionism.

I am also welcoming any international recognition of Palestinian sovereignty and any Palestinian access to international organizations, with the hope that they will lead to the actual establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel and prevent the binational catastrophe, which the current toxic status quo points to.

Recently, the situation on the ground has worsened, partially because of the Trump administration’s support for the disastrous policies of the Netanyahu government. It is also due to the attempt of the Netanyahu government to establish facts on the ground before the Biden administration completes their appointments and starts full-time work. There has been an alarming rise in the measures designed to prevent the possibility of a two-state solution to the conflict by allowing new settlements, as well as an increase in settler violence against the Palestinian population under the auspices of protecting the settlers and their land instead of fighting against the injustices they are committing. These events are hardly reported in the Israeli media and do not interest the majority of the public.

How does one reconcile the horror of the idea that IDF officers will be arrested abroad, with the hope that the Israeli public will remember that we are still occupying another nation and that we will eventually pay a price for it?

I would certainly have preferred that the reminder of the moral and strategic problematic nature of the occupation would come from a less problematic institution, but since this is the given situation, it is important to promote serious consideration of the International Criminal Court decision. But we should not agree with the hysterical accusations of the so-called antisemitic motive of the ICC that we have already heard thrown into the air in a “Pavlovic response,” nor the calls to boycott the ICC, which was established as a lesson from the tragedy of the Jewish people.

We must call on the IDF to investigate any wrongdoings in a full and transparent manner and to ensure that no horrific acts are carried out under its auspices on the ground, as has been happening more and more recently.

We should work hard to end the occupation that eventually corrupts even basic moral individuals. We have to prevent our leaders from continuing to lead us in the current direction, which is a dead end to our future. I wish we didn’t need such problematic reminders to reconcile our problems on the ground.

**The article was published on The Jerusalem Post, 4 March 2021

הפוסט ICC investigation is Israel’s wake-up call הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

For years, the operations of KKL-JNF, which manages land for Jews only, has been a dangerous anti-democratic anachronism in a country where 20% of the citizenry is non-Jewish. But the new decision by the KKL-JNF’s executive committee to officially appropriate funds in order to purchase land for new settlement expansion in the West Bank is uniquely outrageous and harmful.

KKL-JNF is now acting in a fashion that violates international law, shows total disregard for the rights of Palestinians and dangerously undermines Israel’s future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people, along with the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The latest decision deepens the rift between Israel and most American Jews who support the vision of two states for two peoples and look at the settlement expansion project as a moral and strategic disaster. The Reform movement, the largest denomination of North American Jews, strongly condemned the KKL-JNF’s recent decision. JNF-USA, which is legally distinct from KKL-JNF, should take a clear stand against its Israeli counterpart’s new policy.

As a Zionist in all my heart and soul, I am appalled at the degree in which the term Zionism became a derogatory concept among the younger generation in the United States. Instead of Zionism being presented as the national movement of the Jewish people, deserving of the right to sovereignty like all people including the Palestinian people, Zionism is been perceived by many as a tool of occupation and racism.

After all, Zionism and national movements in general grew from liberal values, long before they were perverted, appropriated and abused by right-wing chauvinism. A damaging circular process has been created in which, in the name of Zionism, harmful, destructive acts are committed that cannot be reconciled with fundamental liberal values. Then, when liberal Jews dare to speak out again such immoral policies, they find themselves painted unfairly as “anti-Israel” or even “antisemitic” – further alienating them from Israel and Zionism.

We need to break this cycle, for the sake of Israel and our relationships with our friends and partners around the world.

The time has come for KKL-JNF to hand over the lands it holds to the Israel Lands Administration and to invest its resources in developmental and educational projects that improve the lives of all Israeli residents living on the periphery inside the Green Line – as the American JNF does.

The time has also come for us to remind ourselves what modern Zionism truly means as formulated by the founders of the state in the Declaration of Independence. Zionism is the formula that preserves, on the one hand, the connection between the State of Israel and the Jewish people, and on the other hand, constitutes an equal home for all Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of the state, regardless of religion, race, sex, ethnicity and sexual preference. Ultimately, we know that this formula can only be maintained via an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that allows for the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

KKL-JNF’s decision to help the settlement movement to expand further onto occupied Palestinian territory and to subvert the possibility of peace is not true Zionism – it imperils the Zionist dream.

**The article was published on The Jerusalem Post, 18 February 2021.

הפוסט How did Zionist symbol KKL-JNF become an organization that hurts Israel? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Most of his predecessors viewed the Foreign Ministry as a political stepping stone to the premiership, devoting few managerial resources to bolster the ministry’s impact and standing. Ashkenazi took the position very seriously, despite his very brief stint in office.

I have long believed that the Foreign Ministry required a leader groomed by the military in order to infuse the organization with a “fighting spirit”, bolster its staff’s eroded confidence and assertiveness, and hone professional practices. By the same token, I believe the Defense Ministry would benefit from having a civilian rather than an ex-general at its helm in order to ensure that the IDF serves overall national security policy, which is not only military in essence.

Indeed, Ashkenazi related to the Foreign Ministry as he did to the military units he commanded. He demanded uncompromising professionalism and integrated professional processes eroded over time by the staff’s sense of exclusion from national decision making. He restored the public servants of the MFA belief in the value of their professionalism, both in executing policy and in decision making, and urged them to translate their unique understanding of the global and bilateral arenas into effective influence.

Ashkenazi was exposed to the exceptional abilities of the Foreign Ministry staff when he served as Director General of the Defense Ministry. When he went on to serve as IDF chief-of-staff he recruited Haim Regev to work in his office. He knew Regev from his service at the congressional liaison office of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, where he was tasked with promoting Israel’s defense appropriation “wish list” in Congress.

Upon assuming the Foreign Minister’s position in 2020, Ashkenazi appointed Alon Ushpiz as Director General. The decision was to prove itself given Alon’s professionalism and keen intellect that brought the ministry’s abilities into play, especially in the normalization process that followed the Abraham Accords.

In terms of policy, Ashkenazi rehabilitated the ministry’s relationship with the European Union, which Netanyahu had used as a “punching bag” for years despite the strategic importance of the Brussels institutions for the State of Israel.

Unfortunately, the Israel public is not privy to the superlatives I hear from European diplomats about Ashkenazi and the Foreign Ministry under his leadership. Ashkenazi also deserves significant credit for making the US administration realize that normalization with Arab states was preferable to annexation, contrary to the political interests advanced by Netanyahu and Trump.

Despite the Prime Minister’s efforts to dwarf the Foreign Ministry and deploy the Mossad for “sexy” foreign policy tasks, Ashkenazi opted for a highly professional but low-key approach in contrast to the PR approach favored by the state’s top spy. For years, Israel’s defense agencies tended to sideline the Foreign Ministry, accusing it of leaks. Having been myself a victim of such a leak, I know that leaks generally emanate from the political rather than the professional echelons.

This was particularly obvious when news emerged of Netanyahu’s secret meeting with the Saudi Crown Prince, in which the Foreign Ministry was not involved. The leak caused significant damage to our burgeoning relations with the Saudis. The Mossad director also met with the outgoing US Secretary of State, excluding the Foreign Minister and breaching accepted practice. The closed-door meeting served the Prime Minister’s intention of showing who is in charge of Israeli foreign policy and was therefore leaked to a Politico reporter.

When Ashkenazi took office, I wrote him a public letter urging him not to treat the post as a temporary stopover on his way to the Defense Ministry following the Gantz-Netanyahu rotation. I argued that the Foreign Ministry poses a far more significant challenge to Israel’s national security given that the state’s defense posture is well established whereas the answer to most of our challenges lies in the diplomatic arena. I do not delude myself into thinking that Ashkenazi read my advice and acted on it. He performed as he did because he is a serious man and should be given full credit for his work, although he did not seek it.

Ashkenazi faces many challenges before he has to vacate the Foreign Minister’s perch. One of the more significant is convincing the government to learn from the mistakes of its adversarial relationship with the Obama Administration in order to ensure a seat at the table once the Biden Administration launches its international effort to improve the Iran nuclear deal.

Yet another challenge he faces is preventing the dangerous process of creeping, de facto annexation in the West Bank before the Biden Administration completes its foreign policy appointments and get organized. Creating such facts on the ground undermines efforts to preserve the option of the two-state solution that is in Israel’s best interests. For my colleagues at the Foreign Ministry, the next challenge will be maintaining Ashkenazi’s proactive spirit once the next minister is appointed.

Given the current era in which government ministers ignore government professionals, as illustrated daily by Finance Minister Katz, former Justice Minister and serving Public Security Minister Ohana and Education Minister Galant, Ashkenazi’s conduct is a breath of fresh air. I hope he has an opportunity to return to foreign policy service despite his party’s political mistakes.

Israel is crying out for political leadership able to create synergy between elected representatives and professional civil servants in a manner that places the state’s long-term policy goals ahead of their personal and political interests. Thank you, Foreign Minister Ashkenazi, for your contribution.

הפוסט A Thank You Letter to Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

For anyone for whom Zionism and humanism are important, especially those who remember the trauma of the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, it is hard to think of a more disturbing connection than the one we witnessed that night.

It was a historic event in many ways which harked back to images of the United States during the Civil War. It highlighted a phenomenon that should have been recognized before – Trump’s presidency tried to transform the US from a leader of the free world into a third-world country. Had he won another term, he would likely have succeeded in doing so, due to his shocking disregard for science on the issues of the corona and climate change, his relentless attack on the media and anyone who thinks differently from him, and finally, his unprecedented incitement against the US democratic process.

Trump and his playbook have become a model for an entire network of nationalists, racists and narcissists, which unfortunately includes not only Orbán in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil and others around the world, but also the Israeli Right. Moreover, the Israeli flag has been appropriated as one of the symbols of the struggle of these authoritarian populists. Most of them hate Jews, just as they hate anyone who is different in skin color, religion or values. But they really like Netanyahu’s Israel, which for them represents anti-Muslim machoism, anti-liberalism and a wonderful symbiosis with their idol, Donald Trump.

Right-wing commentators continue to explain that the Left, which criticizes Israeli policies, is antisemitic – a ridiculous claim for too many reasons to list here. Recently, for example, right-wing media commentators have portrayed those critical that Israel does not take responsibility for vaccinating the population in the Palestinian Authority and Gaza, as a sign of left-wing antisemitism. Particularly ironic is their claim that Israel has no such obligation, even though international law obliges the occupier to take care of the needs of the occupied, due to the transfer of powers to the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords.

For self-serving purposes, these commentators appear to suddenly support the Oslo Accords. Moreover, they appear unbothered by the moral and medical consequences of the fact that the Palestinians and Israel remain intertwined, both because of the number of Palestinians working in Israel and because of the number of settlers and our security forces among them.

As someone who opposes BDS and the attempt to blame Israel before examining the facts, I can testify that at times there is no lack of ignorance, naivety and even malice on the radical Left – but antisemitism?! Not only have there always been many Jews on the radical Left, but for many years, the ultra-Orthodox were anti-Zionists and some still retain this view today – does that make them antisemites?

Many contemporary antisemites are actually lovers of Israel. The classical Catholic antisemitism, which accused us of crucifying Jesus, has disappeared due to both theological changes and developments at the Vatican, especially with Pope Francis, who is a sworn lover of Jews. On the contrary, the new antisemitism hates Jews and loves Israel.

ANTISEMITISM IS a racist phenomenon and racism is a phenomenon that is mainly right-wing, just as we see among Trump supporters who believe in white Christian supremacy. These groups are an inspiration to extreme Right organizations, such as “La Familia” and “Flame” in Israel, who believe in Jewish supremacy and a “pure forever” Beitar Jerusalem.

People may be wondering why we are losing the support of liberals and progressives, a fast-growing demography in the US. People may be afraid that we are losing the support of the world’s most important and largest Jewish community. People may not understand why many in Europe have difficulty supporting Israel in recent years. The Israeli flag raised in the riots on Capitol Hill should provide the answers.

However, as a student of former president Shimon Peres, I am a hopeless optimist, so I will end with a positive scenario. Despite the horrific events on Capitol Hill, on the very same day we also witnessed some hopeful signs of an opposing trend: Republican Party leaders, including Vice President Mike Pence and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, finally distanced themselves from Trump.

In Georgia, a Black senator and a Jewish senator were elected for the first time in history and the exciting alliance between them reminded us of the friendship between Rev. Martin Luther King and Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Heschel. With their election, the Democrats won a majority in both houses of Congress, giving a greater opportunity to clear the rubble and repair the damage left behind by Trump.

It is precisely the awful images from Capitol Hill that we saw last Wednesday which will demonstrate the dangers of populism and racism to many in the US and around the world. As such, we can begin to see the pendulum of the historical dialectic return toward the liberal outlook we saw during the Obama administration’s eight years and in Europe since World War II.

Here too in Israel, there are signs that even the Right is beginning to understand that one must move away from the cult of personality and “Bibi-ism,” which has rendered the Likud, a party whose connection to Jabotinsky and Begin’s liberalism, as entirely coincidental.

There is also a new and encouraging trend in our politics of courting Arab candidates among parties that have previously distanced themselves from any contact with the Arab sector.

Perhaps the cliché, “it’s always darkest just before dawn,” will come true and the racist populist camp will lose control of politics, not only in the US but also here – soon in our time.

הפוסט New antisemitism hates Jews, loves Israel הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Many must be wondering why I choose to engage in the fate of the Labor Party, which many of the public perceive as obsolete, as well as the question of why it is important for Merav Michaeli to lead the party. It indeed saddens me to imagine the party that was so significant in the establishment of the state and deserves credit for many of the achievements we now take for granted disappearing in the upcoming elections. Moreover, unlike many others, Merav Michaeli has demonstrated her loyalty to the party’s values and remained true to her vow to the public not to join Netanyahu’s government. Beyond the plight of one party or another, or the future of Merav Michaeli, the true issue is, how will the future of the State of Israel look without women in leadership positions?

Most of the arguments about integrating women into politics and public life in general focus on the issue of equality and affirmative action. When the prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, was asked why he put together a gender equalized government, he replied: “We are living in 2015.” When the late US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked how many women should serve on the Supreme Court, she replied, “Nine,” clarifying that if for many years nine men held office, then there was nothing to prevent nine women from doing the same. Nonetheless, the need for promoting female leadership goes well beyond the issue of equality.

Anyone who follows what is happening in the world will notice that one of the lessons from the coronavirus crisis is that countries with female leadership, such as Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, and Taiwan have performed much better. In a relatively short period of time, the coronavirus crisis made blatantly obvious that change, which in the past was an evolutionary, linear process allowing time for adaptation, now accelerates exponentially. This phenomenon, which has been around for a while, challenges our human coping mechanisms. When change was linear, we could extrapolate from the past and the present into the future. This gave leaders the ability to predict and plan for events and processes that were likely to take place in the future. It enabled leaders to speak with certainty about what we were about to face and what action needed to be taken to better prepare for what lay ahead. Today with accelerated exponential changes due to the data and technology revolution, this is not possible. In this reality, there is a dire need for leaders who can help people cope with adaptive challenges. Also, there is great value in humility, in the ability to acknowledge mistakes and in the capacity to lead through a process of collective public learning to adequately deal with the challenges.

There appear to be biological reasons why men tend to publicly display hubris and self-confidence more than women. In primitive times, these traits may have served to give those men an advantage in deterring enemies, so that throughout the process of evolution there was a selection bias of men with these traits. However, in todays’ world, excessive self-confidence can be an obstacle to progress.

Certainly, one should never generalize. Golda Meir, as prime minister, did not excel at detecting the winds of change. Perhaps, if she had been more modest and perceptive, the Yom Kippur War might have been prevented. Moreover, there are men, including those with an impressive military record, who excel in intellectual modesty and capacity for learning. A good example is former commander-in-chief General Gadi Eisenkot, who knew how to admit his mistakes and accept responsibility, following an infiltration incident in the Golan Heights that occurred while he was in charge. Later, after Gallant’s nomination for chief of staff was disqualified, Eisenkot stated that he was not yet prepared to accept the position. In the upcoming elections, he displayed modesty when he decided that he needed more time to learn about politics before deciding to run.

Despite these examples, empirical testing shows that women have on average more of the necessary qualities needed to deal with the adaptive challenges of today. The entire world is internalizing this fact. In the previous US presidential election, Hillary Clinton won the majority of the general public’s votes, however, Trump won the electoral tally and we were all witness, over the past four years, to how tragic was his election. President-elect Joe Biden realized he must appoint a woman as his vice president and chose Kamala Harris. She is likely to be the next president after he completes his term. Nancy Pelosi, who has long been the leader of the House Democrats, immediately follows Harris in the US government hierarchy. For the first time in history, Biden also appointed a woman as secretary of the treasury and another woman as head of federal intelligence. Many attribute the success of the Georgia Democratic Party to the former Democratic minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives. and candidate for governor, Stacy Abrahams.

For the Nordic countries it has long been accepted that women make up most of the leadership. In Germany, which became the leader of the free world during the Trump era, Chancellor Merkel impressively leads her country and Europe, with modesty and skill.

It is distressing to see that in Israel, which claims to be the innovation nation, we linger behind in terms of the quality of leadership and in understanding the value of female leadership. It is crucial that we will have the option to vote for at least one party with women leadership out of so many parties in the coming elections.

**The article was published on The Times of Israel, 18 January 2021

הפוסט Now is the time for female leadership in Israel הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Biden will strive to improve the agreement, postpone the expiration date of the agreement (sunset provisions), improve the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and reach agreements on other issues on the agenda with Iran – the ballistic and other means of launching a bomb, undermining stability and promoting terrorism in the region. But the expectation that Biden will condition the return to the same reality before Trump unilaterally breached the agreement in significantly improving the agreement is unrealistic and even dangerous.

In order to reach an agreement on all issues, a long and arduous negotiation is needed, which requires aligning with the other powers that were partners to the agreement in order for the front against Iran to be effective. During the negotiations on the returning to negotiations, Iran will continue unmonitored to accumulate enriched uranium (it already has 12 times the amount of enriched uranium it had when Trump violated the agreement), and add sophisticated cascades of centrifuges. In addition, there is no chance that Iran, Russia and China will agree to return to negotiations before ending the JCPOA related sanctions which were unilaterally renewed by Trump.

There is great urgency to return to the agreement also due to the June elections in Iran in which the pragmatic camp, currently led by Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, is facing candidates backed by the Revolutionary Guards. The Revolutionary Guard candidates are extremists who prefer that the Iranian economy continue to falter rather than negotiate with the West and compromise.

The claim against immediate return to JCPOA (compliance for compliance) is that the Biden administration is relinquishing the leverage created as a result of the steps taken by Trump against the Iranian economy. In reality, there are many sanctions – unrelated to the JCPOA – that Biden can use as leverage. On top of that, the broad international coalition against Iran, which Biden would also try to extend to US Sunni allies in the region, would provide far more leverage over Iran than American pressure alone.

We have all seen in the years since Trump withdrew from the agreement that American pressure has failed to cause Iran to change policy, even though it has done much damage to the Iranian economy. In fact, the contrary is true. Economic pressure is of no value if it is not accompanied by a diplomatic route that will allow Iranian leaders to justify a policy change. In the absence of a “ladder” that the international community will give to Iran in order to “come down from the tree,” the Iranians will continue with the attitude the more that they are tormented, the more steadfast they will hold.

Contrary to what the detractors say, the Biden administration has no intention of allowing Iran to reach military nuclear capabilities. The Biden approach is that in order to prevent Iran from achieving military nuclear capabilities, diplomacy is needed alongside economic pressure. To this end, it is necessary to renew the international coalition vis-à-vis Iran and its expansion, and it is necessary to strengthen the pragmatic side in Iranian regime that favor the good of the Iranian economy over efforts to achieve Shiite hegemony in the Middle East.

The Israeli government needs to learn from the mistakes of its policies vis-à-vis the Obama administration. We must be a player that contributes to the international effort to stop Iran and refrain from pursuing a unilateral and confrontational policy toward the US and other powers. The Israeli confrontation with the Obama administration meant we were not part of the process of building the agreement, turning Israel into a divisive issue in American politics and tearing up the Jewish community, which largely supported Obama’s approach.

In order to stop Iran and to restore Israeli relations with the US and with the American Jewish community, the Israeli government must cooperate with the Biden government in its efforts to return to diplomacy with Iran from its first day in office, on January 20, not a moment too soon.

**The article was published on Jpost, 6 January 2021

הפוסט Restoring Iran nuclear deal is good for Israel הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Creating a political home for Likud Revisionist idealists who founded the party (Sa’ar is not one of them) is urgent. The dramatic distance of today’s Likud Party from Jabotinsky’s and the Revisionist movement’s values was succinctly expressed by coalition chairman Miki Zohar, when he stated that he is motivated by power, pride and money. It is impossible to ignore the chasm separating Zohar’s words from the five compassionate values expressed by Jabotinsky – provision of food, abode, clothing, education and healthcare – in respect to the responsibility of the state to its citizens.

For a person who was raised according to the values of the Labor movement, this change completes for me and other graduates of the Labor movement the process we went through, which ironically brings us together ideologically with the “princes,” the old aristocracy of the Revisionist movement.

I considered this while attending a demonstration in Balfour recently. There I met up with Knesset member Eli Avidar, a former colleague of mine in the Foreign Ministry. Eli and I first met as students at the Hebrew University, and he is the first member of Betar I met in my life.

Over the years, a change evolved in the two central factions of the Zionist movement, which brought them ideologically to a similar place. This is the realization that their original ideologies contradict modern liberal values.

I recall an example of this during president Shimon Peres’s visit to Cyprus, when I served as his political adviser. He met with the head of the socialist parliament, who asked Peres, “Now that you’ve switched from being a politician to being president, are you still a socialist?”

Peres replied that he knows of no person whose heart is not on the left side of his body. He explained that, in his eyes, socialism must adapt from being a rigid economic doctrine to one that embodies compassion for the weaker groups in society and integrates them into the economy in a manner that does not contradict the economic necessity for a free market.

In this context, a defining moment was reflected in a response of Dan Meridor, one of the Revisionist princes, during an interview with Nahum Barnea of Yediot Aharonot, following his failure in the Likud primaries for the 19th Knesset elections. Barnea asked what he thought were the reasons for his failure. Meridor replied that many of the Likud members whom he approached for support retorted that since he supported the two-state solution, they would not vote for him. When Meridor replied that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also supported the two-state solution in his Bar-Ilan speech, they replied, “Yes, but you mean it!”

Beyond the disparity reflected in this statement regarding Netanyahu’s unreliability, Meridor’s explanation expressed the chasm that formed between the values of the Revisionist “princes”/old aristocracy like himself – Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert, Ronnie Bar-On and even the current president of Israel. They understood that the State of Israel had already fulfilled Jabotinsky’s vision of power, and that today the proverbial iron curtain could yield to political compromises to better serve the needs of the country.

CONTRARY TO these liberal attitudes that bring together those who were raised both in the Labor and in the Revisionist movements, the current Likud Party is characterized by anti-liberal populists. The Likud today has established an association between Steve Bannon’s school of ideological populism in the US, Yoram Hazony and Gadi Taub in Israel – the expression of which can be seen in the Orbán regime in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Duterte in the Philippines and in the route Trump attempted to take America – alongside Netanyahu’s cynical opportunism, including his yea-sayers who attempt to wrest him from judgment day.

In Netanyahu’s Likud, the reigning ideological approach is the one led in Israel by research institutes such as Mida and Kohelet. This approach was dubbed by Fareed Zakaria as that of “illiberal democracy” in which democracy is interpreted as majoritarianism. This is a system in which those who have won a temporary majority can rule without checks, balances and constraints, without separation of authorities, without gatekeepers, without a professional, opinionated public sector and without rights to minorities.

This approach serves the need to portray the charges against Netanyahu as a conspiracy steered by the old elites, a deep state which attempts to distort the will of the elector. This tactic puts pressure on the professional legal system and also on the financial system, sanctioning Likud ministers to rob the public coffers for their own political interests.

It does not appear that Sa’ar’s party will be a home for liberals. Although he rightly challenges the Likud’s corruption and personality cult, he unfortunately does not dispute the equally dangerous nationalism.

The party that is yet to be formed should embody the battle for the future of Israeli democracy, the struggle between liberals and populists. Nationalism that leads to one nation-state, essentially an apartheid state, does not reflect modern liberal values.

The liberal former Likudniks should be our partners in this struggle, as losing would be simply surrendering the Zionist vision that united all those who signed the Declaration of Independence from both the Labor and the Revisionist movements.

**The article was published on Jpost, 4 January 2021

הפוסט Sa’ar’s exit is Likud’s chance to redefine ideological boundary הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Actually, this should come as no surprise, considering similar partnerships that we have long been witness to between anti-liberal, anti-pluralist elements that would have been considered adversaries due to their ethnic, religious and sectorial affiliation.

Some examples are in order. For one, we have long witnessed a connection between the Evangelical religious Right in the US that is on the same side of the political divide as Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews, both in America and Israel. Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jewish voters support the same candidates in elections and favor appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Both view their fellows of more liberal denominations and practice – liberal Jews in the eyes of Orthodox Jews and liberal Christians in the eyes of Evangelicals – as political enemies.

Another example is the cooperation between leaders of populist right-wing parties in Europe, Brazil, and Asia, some of whom have distinctly antisemitic backgrounds, and the Israeli government. These populist leaders view the conservative Israeli government as an ally against Muslim immigrants and a partner that shuns the essence of the liberal state – the courts, the media, and an open-minded, vocal civil society.

We are also witness to a pattern where the Israeli government has long supported perpetuation of Hamas rule in Gaza. Israel assists Hamas by streaming funds from Qatar and by various leniencies. At the same time, Israel comes down hard on the secular, compromising leadership of the Palestinian Authority. The element connecting the Israeli government and Hamas is strong opposition to any political compromise.

Is it possible that the beliefs connecting those who do not respect minority rights, who do not respect the right of LGBT people to love and marry as they please, who do not respect women’s rights to choose whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy or to refuse being a victim of polygamy, are stronger than their ethnic and religious affiliations? Apparently, that is usually the case.

This is a reactionary phenomenon related to globalization, progress and science, all inherent to pluralism and liberal ideals. It is this reaction that unites the anti-pluralistic fringes into alliances that would never have been imagined.

As far as Abbas the Islamist is concerned, the connection with secular elements, nationalists and even communists in the Joint List is far less natural than the connection with the Israeli religious Right, which sees secularism as a threat, including women’s rights, LGBT rights, and other liberal values.

Perhaps Abbas and Netanyahu could serve us liberals as an example. Together, we could choose to cease using the debate over the historical narrative between Arabs and Jews to divide our camp. Instead, we could choose to unite the pluralistic elements of our society around universal liberal values that serve both Arabs and Jews. They could serve as an example of how we can rally around a united political camp of Arabs and Jews, in opposition to the conservative forces.

It is imaginable that a unified camp of Arab and Jewish liberals could connect with liberal Jews in the US who also want the State of Israel to support the rights of minorities, promote religious pluralism and prevent religious coercion.

Perhaps it is precisely this strange alliance between Ra’am and the Likud that can challenge the old political order and establish a political home, one able to channel the energies of the young protesters from Balfour and the bridges throughout Israel, a home capable of restoring the vision of the pioneers who drafted Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

Such a political home would serve to align us with our extended family – the countries of the free and liberal world.

**The article was published on Jpost, 28 December 2020.

הפוסט Netanyahu’s cooperation with far Right, Islamists unsurprising הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

We tend to treat each country as a unified, homogeneous, rational player and adopt policies accordingly. In reality, almost each and every country is composed of many players who influence policy, both within and outside of government. This is also true of nondemocratic countries. Time and again, we fail to recognize their impact on internal processes in various countries. It has become our blind spot in policy decision-making.

This phenomenon was researched by Prof. Graham Allison (I had the privilege to be his student at the Kennedy School of Government). In his book Essence of Decision, he analyzes the decision-making of president Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ultimately, Kennedy was able to solve the conflict with the Soviet Union, which brought the two countries to the precipice of a nuclear war, because he understood the complexities of the different perspectives in the Kremlin.

We have seen this process play out in our own arena in various ways over recent years. The Israeli government, for example, has ignored the Democratic Party in the US and, by extension, the sentiments of most American Jews, causing long-term damage to our relations with the United States and with the most important Diaspora community.

We have also erred in our understanding of the need to empower moderate elements in Palestinian society and consequently strengthened the extremist supporters of terrorism.

We have also treated Iran as though it were one, cohesive, uniform whole, which in its entirety wants to eliminate us. In reality, there are different shades within the ayatollahs’ regime and the Iranian public.

All these mistakes are in danger of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies which prevent us from advancing our long-term interests. Too often, we talk about the “American position,” the “Iranian position” or the “Palestinian position,” when there are different positions in each country that influence the decision-making process and must be taken into account.

For example, the Biden administration will have to consider the reality in which there are about 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump and will not disappear just because Joe Biden was elected by around seven million more Americans. The Democrats might lose one of the Georgia Senate races on January 5, giving the Republicans a majority in the Senate, and Biden will have a hard time advancing moves that require congressional approval.

Iran is also expected to hold a presidential election in June, and it is currently estimated that the more moderate camp, headed currently by President Hassan Rouhani, will lose. Sweeping statements about Iran rejoicing over Trump’s loss do not consider the complexity within Iran. Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif did want Trump to lose because they would like to see a return to diplomacy in general and the nuclear deal in particular. On the other hand, the ultra-extremists supported by the Revolutionary Guards prefer a Trump administration, which justifies their opposition to the agreement.

This is one of the reasons president Barack Obama sought to reach an agreement with Iran faster than we had expected, and it is also the reason Biden is striving to return to the agreement as soon as possible. They both understand that an Iranian presidency that does not prioritize Iran’s hegemony in the Middle East, which prefers a functioning Iranian economy, and is willing to compromise to that end, should be exploited.

Biden rightly understands that Iranian suffering due to the unilateral sanctions imposed by Trump is not enough to stop the nuclear program, which has progressed dramatically since the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, and that achieving this requires an agreement and international legitimacy.

It has been speculated that Biden’s ability to return to the agreement will impact the outcome of the Iran election. In other words, the failure of diplomacy will allow more extremist elements to rise to power, with whom it is more difficult to reach an agreement and curb Iran’s military nuclear program.

The recent assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh certainly strengthens all players who are opposed to an agreement and reject the diplomatic route – in Iran, Israel and the US. Understanding this complexity explains the cold response from Democratic and European elements to the assassination, which was viewed as an attempt by Trump and Netanyahu to entice an Iranian response, rendering it impossible for the United States and the P5+1 powers to return to diplomacy.

Another example of the need for understanding such complexity is the way in which the majority of the Israeli public considers the Palestinians to be one united entity, which is supposedly uniformly opposed to an agreement with Israel. In reality, Palestinian society is divided into many different factions and positions.

It is especially important to understand the significant difference between the Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah, which is interested in a settlement with Israel, and the Hamas leadership, which is not interested in a political compromise, but only in short-term arrangements. The idea that all Palestinians reject peace plays into the hands of Hamas and its leaders.

In this context, there is a similar interest on the right side of Israeli politics, the Evangelical Right in the United States and Hamas, none of which are interested in a political compromise. On the other hand, there is a partnership of interests between the PA, Arab countries, Europe and the US Democratic Party, which have a common interest in an agreement based on the two states for two peoples solution.

It is important to understand that in Israel, too, there is complexity beyond Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. For many years, polls have indicated that most Israelis support a diplomatic solution and an agreement with the Palestinians, even if it includes territorial compromise. However, this majority is not politically expressed, due to the lack of leadership on Israel’s Left and the success of the wrongheaded spin, which some regard as an outright manipulation, that we have no partner for a settlement on the Palestinian side.

It is to be hoped that the Biden administration will not view Netanyahu and his government as the be-all and end-all and will be able to conduct itself vis-à-vis Israel in a way that strengthens the majority of the public which supports a return to diplomacy and an agreement.

Such an understanding would allow for cooperation between the forces that are interested in a two-state solution, encompassing the majority in the United States, Israel and Palestinian society.

This complex viewpoint is also important to instill within American Jewry, as its liberal majority appears in danger of moving ever further away from an Israel perceived as conservative.

It is important that we make it clear to our brothers and sisters in the United States that there are other voices in Israel, people who want a peace settlement, who believe in minority rights and social justice, and who do not oppose progressive and liberal Judaism.
This complex understanding will help us in setting smart policies and also in dealing with liberals across the world who are critical of our government’s policies but are also potential partners.

**The article was published on Jpost, 21 December 2020

הפוסט The importance of understanding complexity <br> in other countries הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

In the Israeli context, the period leading up to President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20 is especially dangerous. With nothing to lose, the Trump administration could give us more of the “poisoned gifts” he has not yet had time to give, or has had difficulty giving so far.

On Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s last visit to Israel we had an example of this, but there are many more and even more dangerous “poisoned gifts.”

The Evangelist Pompeo, who intends to run for one of the two senate seats in Kansas, sees this period as a great political opportunity to strengthen his position among his political base. After all, the Evangelicals do not want any chance of a settlement between us and the Palestinians, since such an arrangement would prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy of a “battle of Gog and Magog between the sons of light and the sons of darkness in Armageddon (Megiddo),” and its wake, with whoever remaining alive converting to Christianity because they have witnessed the return of Jesus and are convinced he is bringing salvation.

US Ambassador David Friedman, who is more of an ambassador to the Yesha Council than to the United States, also has the opportunity to break free from the barriers of the professional echelon in the State Department and assist his settler friends and his religious faith.

For Trump, who really has no ideology, unless narcissism counts, this is a time when it can be shown that he still rules and he really does not care about the implications for Israel or for the United States.

For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there is no impediment to continuing to undermine bipartisan support for Israel and the connection between Israel and the Democratic Party and most of the American Jewish community, if it is possible to obtain the support of those looking to vote for Yamina Party’s Naftali Bennett, who is threatening him in the polls.

Thus, for the first time in history, we received a visit from an American official in a settlement and a declaration to abolish the separation between products made in the settlements and products made within the 1967 lines. For dessert, we received official support for the Israeli government’s unfounded claim of antisemitism by the BDS movement.

According to many polls, we learn that most Democrats and most American Jews oppose BDS, but at the same time oppose outlawing BDS, because that would violate the right to nonviolent free expression, which is unconstitutional for American liberals. (Conservatives are known to prefer the unlimited right of citizens to bear arms).

The Israeli Right is attempting to argue that those who oppose the policy of occupation and settlements in the world are traitors to their people (when it comes to Diaspora Jews) or just antisemitic (when it comes to non-Jews). This argument, which expresses a dark mental tyranny, severely harms Israeli interests, because it turns many of Israel’s true friends into enemies for the “sin” for not agreeing with elements of the right-wing government’s policies.

The connection between BDS and antisemitism sounds so ridiculous and absurd to ears that have not been exposed to the brainwashing of the Israeli government, evidenced by the many Jewish supporters of BDS. In addition, it is clear to anyone on the ground that antisemitism is the domain of their opponents on the other side of the political map, those who support white supremacy in alignment with their racism.

Abolishing the distinction between settlement products and Israeli products made within the 1967 lines will ultimately hurt Israel, because it eliminates the choice made by many of those who criticize the occupation and the settlements but support the existence of Israel within the 1967 lines or with agreed-upon territorial exchanges. Many of them will be moved to boycott any Israeli product.

ANOTHER GIFT, Jonathan Pollard’s return to Israel, is welcomed because he is not the main culprit in this affair that caused so much damage to Israeli-US relations. The main culprits were those who sent him. He was just a small fish who betrayed his country for money and offered his services to other countries. However, it is important that Israelis are aware of the opposition of so many of our friends in the United States to his release.

As someone who helped president Shimon Peres’s determined efforts to free Pollard, I know that the American intelligence community was steadfast in their opposition to his release. I also remember how during the Wye River talks in 1998, in which I participated, CIA chief George Tenet threatened to resign when Netanyahu sought Pollard’s release, in order to politically sweeten the compromises he had to make as part of the agreement on Hebron. Tenet, who was a close friend of our intelligence agencies and a strong supporter of Israel, saw the Pollard affair as a betrayal causing serious damage to the intelligence relationship with Israel.

So did American Jewry, who were harmed by the Pollard affair because they have been accused widely of dual loyalty, and as a result, for many years Jews had difficulty being accepted into US intelligence agencies and continuing to support Israel. At least it can be hoped that Netanyahu will not celebrate Pollard’s return for political gain in Israel in a way that harms important communities and supporters of Israel in the United States.

The most worrying “poisoned gifts” are those that may still be delivered to us before the inauguration of the new president. The building permits in Givat Hamatos and the apparent permit for construction in the E1 area are an attempt to block any possibility of an arrangement in Jerusalem. E1 will cut the West Bank into a northern canton and a southern canton and will prevent the integration of east Jerusalem and the holy sites for Palestinians within the Palestinian space, and Givat Hamatos will create a buffer that will cut east Jerusalem from Bethlehem and encircle Beit Safafa in Jewish neighborhoods on all sides.

All of us who believe in a two-state solution and fear the dangers to the future of Zionism in a situation where we will have to choose between being the national home of the Jewish people and being a democracy – must press Blue and White ministers to wake up.

They must prevent the steps of “creeping annexation,” which is no less dangerous than the intentions of annexation repealed by virtue of the Abraham Accords. We must avoid the presents that the most dangerous Santa Claus for Israel in modern history is still planning for us, between Thanksgiving, Black Friday sales and Christmas.

The article was published on The Jerusalem Post, 2 December 2020

הפוסט Donald Trump’s legacy leaves behind poisoned gifts for Israel הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

I had the honor of getting to know both Biden and Erekat due to their close ties with president Shimon Peres, with whom I worked for many years as a political adviser. Biden and Erekat each reflect in their own way one of Peres’s most significant personal and political traits: the belief that a person can shape his or her own tomorrow, the belief that the positive element in the human psyche can be the dominant element, and the belief that there is no fundamental difference between people who share a concrete commitment to dialogue and to being a partner for peace.

Biden will replace a president who represents the exact opposite of this outlook (which is portrayed as naïve). President Donald Trump is cynical, mocks the truth and is devoid of analytical ability and judgment. He is a friend and admirer of dictators. For Trump, the international arena is a field of competition, not a space for shared interests. Biden will work to restore the status of international institutions, of values and of human brotherhood.

For decades, Erekat worked against the prevailing Palestinian sentiment that there was no Israeli partner for peace now or in the future. He suffered severe criticism and was accused of collaborating with the Israelis. But his belief in a future of compromise and peace with Israel grew out of an optimistic perception that the future can be better and that human beings can make this reality.

Biden’s election should teach us not to despair even if populist nationalists appear to have a tight grip on power and sizeable support. Many Israelis have lost hope that a peace settlement with the Palestinians can be achieved. Many have lost hope because they are convinced there is no partner on the Palestinian side or that there is little public appetite on the Israeli side. Biden’s victory proves that anything is possible but that what we need is determination and leadership.

Erekat’s death shows that we do not have the luxury of waiting until the time is ripe on our side or the Palestinian side. If we wait for a political change here or there, or for the Biden administration to take office, to secure congressional approval of nominations in key positions and only after to formulate a strategy, we may no longer have Palestinian leaders like we did with Erekat and now have with Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) – leaders who believe in peace, in a two-state solution and who do not think it is possible to achieve a Palestinian state through violence.

IF WE WAIT too long, we may find that instead of negotiating partners we will be left with fanatical extremist supporters of terrorism, or those who despair of a two-state solution and believe that over time a binational state will translate a demographic majority into internationally-supported sovereignty.

Contrary to popular belief, we have plenty of cards in our favor to promote a two-state solution with the support of the US government. We have a supportive region which – despite the attempt to spin the Abraham Accords as if the Palestinian cause is no longer relevant – still sees two states as the preferred and only solution. The Arab Peace Initiative remains on the table, even if normalization with some countries began before reaching an agreement. There is a high probability that these countries, and especially Saudi Arabia, will demand from Washington that the vision of the Arab Peace Initiative is implemented as a part of this welcome normalization.

If Shimon Peres were alive today, he would be talking to his friend President-elect Biden, and reminding him how no one believed that his vision of a new Middle East could come true, yet here it is, coming true gradually before our eyes. But if we do not advance towards an agreement with the Palestinians, this new Middle East will explode in our face. The death of the ultimate diplomat Erekat must remind us that hope is not enough, there must also be a sense of urgency.

In his gripping and illuminating book Shimon Peres: An Insider’s Account of the Man and the Struggle for a New Middle East, Avi Gil, Peres’s close adviser, quotes a statement by Peres that perfectly reflects the humane philosophy that guided him: “I don’t consider myself an expert in Arabs, but I understand people, and the Arabs are people like everyone else.”

A humanist like Biden, unlike his bigoted predecessor, understands this, and so we have a great opportunity ahead of us. But there is not much time, and as Peres once said, “History is like a galloping horse, if you don’t jump upon it, you will be left behind”.

**The article was published on Jpost, 28 November 2020

הפוסט Biden’s victory, Erekat’s death teach valuable lessons for peace camp הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

From a strategic standpoint, the trend that jeopardizes the great value that the US attaches to Israel is the diminishing strategic importance of the Middle East region to the US. This region was previously the most significant energy supplier of the US, but today the US itself has become an energy exporter. US interventions in the Middle East have recently ended in failure, from the going-all-the-way invasion of Iraq, to “leading from behind” in Libya and ending in helplessness on the Syrian issue.

For Israel, the ability to rely on American support for the region, which has been an important component of our defense, is eroding. As an example, the future of Syria is currently decided by Turkey, Syria and Russia, while the US controls no levers there. As for Iran, the US has found itself in “splendid” isolation in the UN Security Council (alongside the Dominican Republic) in an attempt to extend the embargo on arms sales to Iran.

From a political standpoint, an alarming trend stems from a change happening over the years in what was once a special relationship between the two countries based on bipartisan support and the avoidance of turning Israel into an issue that is politically controversial. Trump and Netanyahu have acted contrary to this, and we are witnessing a very worrying trend in which the liberal public in the US (that has grown demographically in the transition from a white and Protestant majority state to a country of minorities) is moving away from Israel, which is increasingly perceived as conservative and as an arm of the Republican Party.

This distancing is beginning to show its signs among new lawmakers in Congress, who no longer see the special relationship with Israel as an important value and strategic asset of the US. Worse is the impact on the American Jewish community, which is the largest and most important Jewish community outside Israel. There are trends of ambivalence and sometimes even hostility towards Israel, which in recent years has moved away from the liberal values of non-Orthodox Judaism.

What can be done to maintain the US’ strategic commitment to Israel and to restore bipartisan support? The process of the US distancing itself from the Middle East requires Israel to change its traditional policy of opposing the signing of a defense pact enshrined in American law. The Israeli opposition stems from fears such an agreement would reduce Israel’s maneuvering room in the region. However, this argument is eroded in light of the fact that the real threats to Israel today are asymmetric, and our military power cannot prevent them. It is actually through “tying our hands” and refraining from of futile military reactions when provoked, and in parallel generating American motivation to effectively deter our enemies through pulling diplomatic and economic levers, that will achieve much more.

הפוסט How can Israel mend relations with White House following political change? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

In addition, I wondered how this apocalyptic message is consistent with the attempt to bring American Jews to visit Israel and invest in it, and with us Israelis to raise our children in a country on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. I do not intend to diminish the Iranian strategic challenge and the importance to prevent Iran from achieving military nuclear capabilities, but a more rational and less hysterical perspective would benefit Israel.

This alarmist approach was one of the reasons for the conflicts the Netanyahu government had with the Obama-Biden administration. A new perspective would benefit the ability of Israel to work jointly with the Biden-Harris administration on a coordinated approach.

The prevailing axiom in our area is that Iran poses an existential threat, and that its efforts to achieve the ultimate weapon require us to use any means possible to prevent it. As part of our zigzagging between paranoia and hubris, we hear that Iran is a strong power that threatens the future of the Middle East, and the next day that Iran is on the verge of collapse if only we take one step or another. Both statements are far from reality. I would like to present a more balanced approach to Iran and the threat posed by it.

There are many similarities between Iran and Israel. According to foreign sources, Israel achieved military nuclear capabilities in the 1960s and was the sixth country in the world to do so. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the five permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, Britain, France, China) have recognized nuclear weapons, but since then – India, Pakistan and North Korea have already declared nuclear weapons in their possession. Iran is not on the list, and even if it will be, Iran’s abilities are a long way from ours.

Iran’s motivation to acquire nuclear weapons, which is presented to us mainly as an aspiration for regional hegemony, is not different than Israel’s motivation, which stems from existential anxiety and the goal of defense and deterrence.

Iran is surrounded by enemies, represents a hated Persian minority in an area where an Arab and Turkish majority and represents an outcast Shi’ite minority in an area with a vast majority of Sunnis. Iran was traumatized by the war with Iraq, in which about a million Iranians were killed and wounded. As you may recall, the West supported Iraq.

Iran has chosen Israel as a target for its rhetoric because it pays off in terms of Iran’s status in the region, but Israel is not the reason for Iran’s motivation to acquire nuclear weapons.

As in Israel, the Iranian public is one of the most educated and creative in the world. The Iranian people, from all over the Muslim world, are most similar to us Israelis.

The governments of Israel and Iran are similar in the disproportionate influence of religious leaders and the lack of separation between religion and state, as opposed to liberal democracies. Israel often talks about the lack of democracy in Iran, but in the global ranking of democracies, Iran is ahead of Saudi Arabia, which we see as a moderate country. In Iran, it is remembered that the West supported the tyranny of the shah and that the United States assisted in a coup that brought the shah to power instead of a semi-democratic Mosaddegh regime. Israel, on the other hand, is in the process of declining in the democracy index.

Extremist elements in Iran have grown stronger thanks to the hysterical treatment of Iran by Israel and the United States. During the Gulf War, the Bush administration overthrew Iran’s enemy in Iraq – the Sunni Ba’ath party – and turned it into a chaotic Shi’ite-dominated state. Israel helped Iran export the revolution to Lebanon during its long stay in Lebanon after an unnecessary war (in which I participated) that turned Hezbollah into a legitimate organization in the eyes of the Lebanese.

Netanyahu encouraged president George Bush to overthrow the Ba’athist regime in Iraq. Netanyahu encouraged President Donald Trump to abandon the JCPOA agreement between Iran and the powers (P5 + 1). The abandonment of the agreement dismantled the international coalition that imposed crippling sanctions on Iran, which eventually brought Iran into negotiations; weakened Rouhani’s moderate leadership, which prefers a functioning economy to regional hegemony, strengthened extremist Revolutionary Guards, and brought Iran closer to a nuclear weapon.

I still remember as a diplomat serving in the US that the line we presented was that sanctions were not enough to bring about a change in Iranian policy, and after the agreement was signed, that if only they had continued with the sanctions, Iran would have surrendered.

I remember the concern we expressed during the negotiations about the possibility that president Barack Obama would include regional agreements with Iran. And after the agreement was signed, Obama was accused of failing to reach a regional agreement that would prevent Iran from promoting terrorism. The alarmist Israeli position has caused harm and continues to do so. Israel is perceived as inconsistent, failing to convince the Europeans, Russians and Chinese, whose cooperation is necessary.

Israel must be part of an international coalition trying to reach an agreement with Iran that will prevent it from reaching a nuclear bomb, but it must be understood that an agreement requires compromise. Israel must prevent Iran from transferring weapons to Hezbollah, but alongside military action, smart diplomacy must be exercised vis-à-vis Lebanon, where the mechanism of negotiations about the naval border can serve as an opportunity. Israel needs to find ways to reach out to the Iranian people and make a clear separation between our attitude toward the ayatollah’s regime and our attitude toward the general public.

The Iranian people are a proud people who do not support the rule of the ayatollahs, but want the change to come from within and not from outside intervention. A day will come and this proud people will change the political reality in Iran and the Arab Spring will also become the “Persian Spring.”

One can find Iranian exiles in the West who will say that an overthrow of the regime by US force will be welcomed there with flowers, as there were Iraqi exiles who claimed this before the attack on Iraq, and we know how that ended.

Another very important point of similarity between the Iranian and Israeli governments is that they are the only governments in the world that do not support the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and both benefit politically from this conflict as well as from the conflict between them.

The Iranian position is understandable, the only way the apocalyptic calls of its leaders against Israel be realized is if we fail to reach a two-state solution with the Palestinians and the status quo will eliminate us demographically or morally. But in this case, it is us eliminating Zionism, not the Iranians.

The possible change of leadership in the US is an opportunity for Israel to change course to a more appropriate policy also in terms of the Iranian challenge.

**The article was published on Jpost, 14 November 2020.

הפוסט Israel must prepare for a change in US policy toward Iran הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

This issue has been highlighted since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States and as radical voices on the left grow in volume across the nation, which seems to have caused an irreparable rift between Israel and U.S. Jewry.

הפוסט Israel, American Jews and the Democratic dichotomy הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Many people might think that this answer sounds trivial, but human nature actually leans toward trying to win against the other, rather than aspiring to promote one’s interests without doing so at the other party’s expense.

Maybe it is the instincts that remained in the human race since the times when man struggled to survive in the jungle and the choice was between victory or death. However, in the modern world, this inclination does not serve us well. On the contrary. The interesting fact is that in Hebrew, there is a translation to the English term “zero-sum game” but there is no translation to the term “win-win.” Maybe the reason is that the Jewish people remained in survival mode later into the modern age, and now that we have our own state and the strongest army in the region, we still instinctively feel that our existence is threatened.

The realization that there is no conflict between empathy and assertive advocacy of our interests is necessary for effective diplomacy. The job of a diplomat is to advance beneficial arrangements with friends as well as enemies. Understanding the other side’s interests, even when the other side is an enemy, improves our ability to advance our own interests and to create a joint value.

There are joint interests with enemies, as we can learn from the way Israel promotes its relations with Qatar, even though Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood movement that is hostile to us. This is based on the understanding that Qatar has leverage on Hamas that we do not have, and neither do our Egyptian partners, and that we need this kind of leverage and mechanism to prevent and end the cycles of fighting. It is a shame that we ignore our natural partners for an arrangement with the Fatah movement and use Qatar to strengthen their rivals, Hamas, at Fatah’s expense.

Another example to a correct win-win attitude is in the attempt to advance the relationships with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar simultaneously, even though they represent opposite coalitions in their approaches. On the other hand, the attempt to market the agreement with the Emirates as a victory over the Palestinians contradicts Israel’s long-term interests to achieve an agreement with the Palestinians.

The challenge is that finding the common ground is in many cases less popular politically because the public expects to see “victories” and not compromises that are less dramatic and sexy.

One example from American diplomacy is the trade war that Trump declared on the Chinese economy. Even if the US is justified in its demand to change Chinese conduct, a trade war hurts the world and the American economy, instead of improving the situation by conducting negotiations with Chinese interests in mind.

Trump prefers to blame China, and the World Health Organization for the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of trying to advance international cooperation in preventing the spread of the virus. In contrast, the Obama administration fought the Ebola pandemic through international cooperation when the disease appeared in Africa, instead of blaming the Africans.

PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. Bush’s attempt to defeat terrorism by eliminating the Ba’ath regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, brought the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS and the empowerment of Iran due to the defeat of her enemies on both geographic borders. Iraq – Iran’s former nemesis – turned into a chaotic country under Shia control.

In contrast stands the unpopular decision of president Obama not to attack Syria after it used chemical weapons, and the choice to cooperate with Russia in clearing the chemical weapons from Syria. This decision did not eliminate all chemical weapons, but it did dispose of most of it, an essential change that enables the State of Israel to stop producing and distributing gas masks to its citizens. Trump’s choice, on the other hand, to launch 59 cruise missiles into Syria achieved no change, and the US lost all leverage which turned to the hands of Russia, Iran and Turkey.

Another example is President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA nuclear agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran, which resulted in Iran advancing closer to having a nuclear bomb; crushing the international coalition that was created by the Obama administration and empowering the extreme forces in the Iranian regime headed by the Revolutionary Guards. At the same time, the moderates who preferred a functioning Iranian economy over regional hegemony were weakened.

It is obvious that we can’t ignore domestic politics, and that leaders need to provide their citizens with victories, but it is the leaders’ responsibility to explain to the public that compromises are the way to achieve more than through “victories.”

This attitude is true also in matters of hasbara, public diplomacy. Many people think the main role of diplomats is to win in arguments about the legitimacy of Israeli policy. My own experience taught me that the role of diplomats is not to win the debate, but to win hearts and minds. Winning hearts and minds is achievable through dialogue and engagement, not through argument. Arguments only persuade those who are already persuaded.

Based on the current reality of our populistic leadership, the role of diplomats is to insist on advancing solutions that lead to the creation of value. The futile attempt to win the blame game does not solve anything and does not advance the state’s true interests.

The classical example of a win-win approach is the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It will enable Israel to be the state of the Jewish people and a democracy at the same time, according to the Zionist vision, while enabling the Palestinians self-determination and the end of occupation. Israeli diplomacy should strive to achieve this solution as its main goal.

**The article was published on Jpost, 23 October 2020.

*Photo: Yossi Zamir

הפוסט A win-win approach for Israelis, Palestinians is a two-state solution הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Nonetheless, a careful monitoring of his decisions provides several guiding principles, which we will try to describe here, keeping in mind that some are inherently contradictory and therefore cannot guarantee exact forecasts of his moves, although they do supply a certain level of predictability. Psychological tools may be more effective in analyzing Trump’s decisions, but I will try to do so using the tools of a former diplomat.

Four principles have shaped Trump’s foreign policy to date:

1. Narcissism

Trump’s belief in being the ultimate negotiator and his desire for credit in this regard have underpinned many of his initiatives. Such was the case with his effort to orchestrate the “Deal of the Century” between Israel and the Palestinians (the holy grail of all conflicts) without realizing that there are two sides to every conflict, and with his unprecedented and bizarre summit with the president of North Korea.

Trump’s attitude toward foreign leaders also stems from the extent to which they shower him with the accolades that he believes he deserves. This explains his coolness toward German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, despite the clear US interests in its relationship with Germany. Trump tends to gravitate toward like-minded narcissists – Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro and Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte, while giving a cold shoulder to leaders with more restrained egos.

2. The opposite of Obama

Trump sought to brand himself as Barack Obama’s opposite throughout his election campaign and has shaped his presidential decisions accordingly. He withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal engineered by Obama, although he would have embraced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and trumpeted the achievement had someone presented him with the agreement and told him he could take credit for it.

Trump pulled the US out of Obama’s free trade Trans-Pacific Partnership even though it perfectly corresponded with his China isolation policy in the Pacific Rim region. He eventually opted for a trade war with China, which, rather than isolating China, is harming the US and global economy. Trump abrogated the North American Free Trade Agreement deal with Mexico and Canada, only to sign a similar agreement under a different name. Trump abandoned US leadership on climate change issues, and domestically sought to overturn Obama’s healthcare reform – attempts for which the US is paying dearly as it confronts COVID-19.

3. “America First”

This approach is in fact an extension of his personal narcissism to the national arena. Trump has dismissed the traditional US preference for operating through international organizations and promoting alliances – because they require concessions vis-à-vis the interests of other states.

The “America First” approach differs innately from the attempt for exceptionalism that guided US foreign policy, embracing an international role for the US in advancing its values around the world. Trump views the traditional exceptionalism approach and advancement of American values as a waste of resources. Trump’s decisions are guided solely by the potential economic value of relations with other countries, rather than by global leadership ambitions. That was why he avoided leading an international campaign against COVID-19, tried to blame China for the virus and pulled the US out of the World Health Organization – in marked contrast to the Obama administration’s successful world leadership in confronting and eradicating the Ebola virus before it reached American shores.

4. Appeasing the political base

Trump regards the Evangelical right as a loyal base of support and seeks to appease its theological interests in the international arena, not out of identification with its values but out of pure political opportunism. The same goes for key conservative donors, such as Sheldon Adelson. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights are telling examples of this attitude. The embassy transfer was designed in part to help a Republican candidate running for the Senate in special Alabama elections where the Evangelical vote is critical.

Trump’s guiding principles often clash, reflecting his tendency to zigzag and change his mind. The high turnover rate and firings of key officials in foreign policy contexts also stems from this flip-flopping on various issues.

Under pressure from Evangelical supporters and Adelson, Trump backed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s annexation intention, which backfired when confronted with his desire to advance major US arms sales to the Gulf (some claim his economic interest was personal, too). Economic interests eventually overcame his annexation support. Trump’s decision might have also stemmed from his conviction that the evangelists would vote for him in any case and not for the liberal, Catholic Biden, and from the fact that most are not from the key swing states that will decide the elections. Such states would appreciate jobs and deals generated by arms sales, especially in the coronavirus-induced economic downturn.

Trump’s policy on the US presence in Iraq and Syria was another case of contradicting decision. He was inclined to stop the investment of US resources and abandon regional leadership but because this policy fit in with the Obama-led trend (Pivot to Asia), it became less attractive. On the other hand, his base was advocating an aggressive policy on Syria and Iran. These contradictions explain the firing of 59 cruise missiles at Syria and on the other hand the decision to avoid retaliation for the Iranian assault on Saudi oil facilities. The contradiction also explains the flip-flop between his declared decision to pull US forces out of Syria and the opposite decision that followed to maintain forces there to protect oil installations.

In the Asian context, a clash was also evident between Trump’s narcissistic ambition to achieve an unprecedented agreement with North Korea and the need to display a tough policy toward China and other states in the region. The narcissism prompted the summit with Kim Jong Un, but the event was not prepared properly because Trump believed his very presence and personality would achieve a breakthrough. Trump canceled joint military exercises with South Korea, undermining the traditional US alliance with Seoul, in order to achieve that breakthrough vis-à-vis North Korea, but the summit ended in a stinging failure.

A Biden victory would restore US policy to its past rational, predictable path. A Trump victory would leave us guessing, and hopefully the principles described here might be of help. We must understand that Trump’s support for the current Israeli government positions does not stem from ideology or strategy, since these terms are not relevant to his decisions and there is no guarantee of its continuity should he win a second term.

**The article was published on Jpost, 12 October 2020.

הפוסט Making a desperate attempt to decipher Trump’s foreign policy הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Years ago, on my first mission as a diplomat, Joel Singer, then the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser and chief negotiator of the Oslo Accords, answered a question that I still remember. During an event at the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy in 1997, Singer was asked what the difference was between the requirement of Netanyahu (who had recently been elected prime minister) to ensure Israel’s security before signing any settlement, and the approach of Yitzhak Rabin, who was also very mindful as an ex-military man of the need to ensure Israel’s security.

Singer replied that although both of them were equally mindful of Israel’s security, there was a difference which could be illustrated with the following anecdote: A father was asked by his son to borrow the car for an evening. The father conditions the loan of the car upon his son doing the homework. Just like that father, Rabin indeed preconditioned any settlement upon ensuring Israel’s security, but he also helped the Palestinians meet this requirement, while Netanyahu is like that father who requires his son to do his homework, but hopes he does not do it so he does not have to give him the car.

The agreement with the United Arab Emirates makes one wonder whether Netanyahu will actually implement Peres’s vision of a “new Middle East,” which for years was ridiculed by the Right. Netanyahu does indeed use the tactics that Peres envisioned, but he does so in order to achieve the contrary result. Peres aimed at achieving an economic peace as a means to reach a regional settlement that included a settlement with the Palestinians. Netanyahu, on the other hand, sees economic peace and regional normalization as a tactic that allows him to ignore the Palestinians.

The benefits of Israel’s integration with the region could not be overstated. However, in the absence of a settlement with the Palestinians, Israel might become a binational state and yet another Arab state or a Middle Eastern tyranny while moving away from the Zionist vision. Singer’s metaphor is relevant to this debate too.

Peres and Netanyahu believed in leveraging Israel’s economic, security and technological advantages to achieve regional normalization. Peres’s vision, postulating that the Start-Up Nation could help create a Start-Up Region, is now implemented by the Peres Center for Peace and Innovation. Peres tirelessly promoted Israel’s relations with the Gulf and Maghreb countries, and had he been alive today, he would have been happy to see the signing of Israel’s peace agreement with an Arab state.

Peres, however, believed that these moves must be combined with a political settlement with the Palestinians, which in his view was critical to the democratic nature of the Jewish nation-state.

Peres’s vision has not disappeared, but only recently has the Israeli public become aware of it. The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 marks the turning point. In the past, Arab states did not see Israel part of the Middle East, and used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to distract public opinion from civil rights violations and technological backwardness in their countries. The Arab Peace Initiative, however, reflects the understanding that Israel is not going anywhere, and can even help the region prosper.

The Iranian threat and the threat of Sunni al-Qaeda jihadists have reinforced the understanding that Israel and other pro-Western countries in the region are being targeted by the same treats, and that Israel is not the problem, but part of the solution. The Arab Spring, which was perceived as a threat in Israel, actually reinforced these trends.

Had Peres been alive and in a position of influence, he would have leveraged the agreement with the UAE toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than ignoring it. It is to be hoped that Trump and Netanyahu will advance Peres’s vision, even if that was not their intention. Suspending the annexation was certainly an important step in this direction.

**The article was published on The Jerusalem Post, 16 September 2020.

הפוסט The agreement may have advanced Shimon Peres’ vision of peace הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The agreement has a significant win-win-win potential as so far as it is leveraged to advance a Israeli-Palestinian accord. However, the agreement could be harmful if it is used to avoid an agreement with the Palestinian and bypass the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The gains for Israel are evident. First and foremost, the agreement establishes diplomatic and economic relations with the UAE and may open the door for normalization with additional Arab states. As to the more strategic issue of promoting an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, preventing annexation is certainly important but not sufficient.

The Israel-UAE agreement might become a strategic achievement if the UAE chooses to play a role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Demonstrating pro-peace leadership by the UAE (such as its effort to suspend annexation due to the agreement) is especially important in view of the ineffective diplomacy exercised by the current US administration. Qatar’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also problematic because it amounts merely to transferring funds to Gaza, and results in strengthening Hamas rather than the moderate leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

The Israel-UAE agreement is far more positive than the empty, or even harmful gestures that Trump gave Israel (and his evangelical supporters) – relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights, and withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran. Relocating the embassy did not change Jerusalem’s status in the slightest, but it hurt the American leverage by deepening the rift between the Trump’s administration and the Palestinians. Recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan resulted in the pathetic renaming of a settlement in the Golan to “Trump Heights”. Furthermore, it prevents the US from becoming a significant player on issues involving international law. The withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the consequent dismantling of the international coalition against Iran was detrimental to Israel. The ensuing damage became evident just recently, when the US failed to pass a resolution to extend the arms embargo on Iran in the UN Security Council.

In contrast, if the UAE wisely exerts its influence to create levers toward advancing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative from 2002, then the tactical benefit of the UAE’s agreement with Israel will become a strategic benefit.

In spite being a small country, the UAE has considerable regional influence. Its talented leader Bin Zayed has powerful ties with many international players – Kushner in the US, Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Dahlan in Palestinian politics (who may regain an influential position in the campaign to replace Abbas), and Amb. Dermer (Israel’s ambassador to the US) and American Jewish leaders with the mediation of UAE Ambassador to the US al-Otaiba. The UAE also has an economic impact and leverage on the Israeli business sector and can contribute to the development of the Palestinian Authority.

Notwithstanding, the tactical achievement for Israel from the agreement with the UAE will become a strategic damage if Netanyahu and Trump use it to demonstrate that resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is not necessary, and that regional normalization can supposedly be achieved in the absence of progress towards Israeli-Palestinian peace. Normalization is indeed important, but it will not save Israel from the tragedy of a bi-national state.

Contrary to the prevailing view in Israel, the number of opportunities to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians has increased dramatically since 2002 and increased even further after the Arab Spring. The agreement with the UAE brings to the surface what has been going on for years under the radar. There is growing Arab acceptance of Israel as a legitimate entity in the region, provide that it accepts the principle of a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

The entire region is ripe to promote an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that is in line with Israeli interests. The Arab Peace Initiative, which can serve as a basis for negotiations (and which may be modified as required by the parties), already includes an all-Arab offer for recognition of Israel within the 1967 borders; territorial exchange that will allow 80 percent of settlers remain in their homes; recognizing West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel while having special arrangement for the Old City; and a “just and agreed” solution to the refugee problem which is acceptable to Israel.

Abbas has already agreed to all these conditions, including to a demilitarized state. He agreed to give up the idea of a Palestinian army, and only demands that the Israeli army be replaced by an international or American force to end the occupation. What is missing today is political leadership that will take advantage of the new positive regional context to rescue Israel from the toxic status quo, which is leading us to a bi-national state.

It is hoped that the agreement with the UAE will bring about the required pro-peace leadership, which will transform the tactical achievement into a strategic one, and which will advance the two-state solution. Only this will enable Israel to truly be a part of the Middle East.

**The Article was published on The Jewish News, 7 September 2020.

הפוסט If UAE deal ushers in pro-peace leaders its achievement will be strategic הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Israel’s way to deal with the tactical threats of the BDS movement in recent years has greatly contributed to the distancing of liberal and progressive groups away from Israel, hence endangering Israel’s long-standing relations with the US Democratic Party, most American Jewish communities and most European countries. This has become a significant strategic challenge, that is amplified by advancing legislation against freedom of expression, and silencing criticism, which are considered sacred liberal values.

Israel’s instinctive response to the BDS challenge, as is the case with most of the challenges we face, was to perceive the movement as an existential threat, to seek solutions of military-security nature, and to brand it as antisemitic. However, the BDS movement posed a marginal threat to Israel’s security and economic prosperity, while associating it with antisemitic movements was detrimental to both the fight against antisemitism and the fight against BDS. Israel’s use of semi-military means to thwart threats well demonstrates the meaning of the phrase “whoever has a hammer in his hand sees every problem as a nail”. However, the means used are not suitable to address this challenge and are even harmful.

The BDS movement uses the non-violent tactics that civil society organizations used in the past against the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Western BDS proponents are typically politically liberal and progressive, and many among them are Jews who oppose Israeli occupation and settlements in the West Bank, and who believe that only international pressure would bring about change.

antisemitism on the other hand, like other expressions of xenophobia and racism, originates from politically right-wing movements. The association between the BDS movement and antisemites is harmful; first, because when the diagnosis is wrong it is difficult to develop a prognosis; second, because it legitimizes antisemitism among many young people, who might wrongly conclude that antisemitism is legitimate if antisemitism equals criticizing Israeli policy.

Branding BDS as antisemitism is perceived as hypocritical because it puts us in the same group with populist conservative leaders – Trump in the US, Orban in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil and others – who are all supported by antisemites. who are now also supportive of Israel because they perceive Israel as sharing their xenophobic and especially anti-Muslim sentiments.

To fight the BDS movement, Israel must increase contact with liberal and progressive circles and dialogue with them, even if they are critical of certain aspects of Israel’s policy. As regard antisemitism, the way to cope with it is through alliances with other minorities and through forming a broad coalition against racism and xenophobia, rather than using the term antisemitism against anyone who dares to criticize Israel or Zionism.

Our insistence on distinguishing the Holocaust from other incidences of genocide to fight antisemitism, while being completely indifferent or even encouraging Islamophobia, for example, is immoral and doomed to failure.

During a discussion in the Knesset State Audit Affairs Committee, headed by MK Ofer Shelah (July 28), which I attended as a representative of the Mitvim Institute, I was impressed by the presentation of the new Director General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs Ronen Menalis who claimed that a new and more effective approach to respond to the challenge exists.

I was also encouraged by the understanding presented by Menalis, that Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be a key player in addressing BDS due to the knowledge and unique position of its representatives among target audiences. It is to be hoped that a new era will indeed open in this aspect of Israel’s foreign policy, alongside the new spirit of empowerment felt recently in the Foreign Ministry.

The article was originally published on Jewish News, August 6th 2010.

הפוסט The way Israel dealt with BDS played into the hands of its enemies הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Under Trump, Israel’s most important strategic friend – the US has become far less influential in the international arena and in our region, greatly diminishing its ability to exert influence on our behalf in international institutions and on states that are important to us.

Trump has made the US irrelevant to any arrangement with the Palestinians (arrangements critical to Israel’s ability to provide a democratic national home for the Jewish people) by completely ignoring the existence of the other side to the conflict and thus losing American influence on the Palestinians.

Trump made the US irrelevant in terms of blocking Iran’s nuclear program after unilaterally pulling out of the Iran deal (JCPOA) and dismantling the effective international coalition established by the Obama Administration against a nuclear Iran and empowering the fanatic extreme forces within Iran.

Trump made the US into a passive bystander in Syria and vis-à-vis the presence of Shiite militias on our northern border. Nowadays, Russia, Turkey and Iran are the ones determining these issues, which are so crucial for Israel.

Trump forced Israel to take a stand in his futile and senseless trade war with China against Israel’s economic interests.

Trump’s favoritism toward the Israeli government, in contrast to his cold shoulder to US strategic allies in NATO and Asia, has placed Israel among a group of authoritarian and populist leaders and distanced it from the liberal camp that constitutes a majority in the US and Europe. This closeness has fatally undermined US bipartisan support for Israel and our ties between with US Jewry.

For years, the American Jewish establishment sanctified its support for Israeli government positions without judging its policies and without examining whether they conform to the values of the American Jewish community, whether they are good for the Jewish people, for the US and even for Israel.

The question of “what is good for Israel” is obviously a legitimate argument, but the Trump presidency has made many Jews, who tended to support our government’s policies no matter what, realize that they could be critical of the Israeli government and at the same time committed to the state.

Trump’s Presidency made it clear to them that they can operate within the law against Israeli government policy, just as they can resist the policies of their elected President in their country within the framework of the law.

The symbiotic ties between Netanyahu and Trump made many American Jews realize that they do not have to choose between their liberal values and their love of the US and of the nation state of the Jewish people.

Trump’s shocking values – his xenophobic racism, misogyny, and contempt for anyone who does not think as he does, whether in the US or the international arena, made clear the extent to which such a distinction is necessary.

For years, the American Jewish establishment supported Israeli government policy even though most American Jews are liberals and large numbers even progressives, and although the values and policies of Israel’s government often run counter to their own. They continued to support governments that viewed them as second-class Jews if they were not Orthodox, and regarded their support for the two-state solution as a sign of defeatism or even Jewish self-hate.

For years, this position of the Jewish establishment prevented American administrations from adopting a proactive approach to advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace, because Jewish organizations exerted pressure to ensure that every US step was coordinated with the Likud government that opposed any agreement the Palestinians might have accepted.

The positions we are starting to hear from the Democratic Party stir up hope that the US will revert to being a true friend of Israel, restoring its standing in the world and the region by virtue of its diplomatic skills and its policies. This friend would be a significant player vis-à-vis our enemies and a significant player who can help us end the status quo with the Palestinians that threatens the future of the Zionist vision. For me, that is the true pro-Israel position.

The article was published by Ynetnews on 19 July 2020

הפוסט Who Decided Trump Was Good for Israel? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The values underpinning the relationship: The Puritan pilgrims that arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620 Americas regarded themselves as the builders of the New Jerusalem envisioned by the biblical prophets. This theme and ethos were adopted by the founding fathers in writing the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. Over a century later, the spirit of the US revolution and principles of the Constitution would inspire the founders of Zionism. Many Americans still regard Israel as a sister state peopled by immigrants who established a just, democratic, liberal society after the removal of the English control

Shared interests: Since President Truman’s recognition of Israel 11 minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared its independence, Israeli leaders have aspired to close ties with the US as leader of the free world and the strongest global power. Energy deposits in the Gulf critical to the American and global economy would soon turn the Middle East into a strategic target of US foreign policy. Israel was a US partner in the Cold War and in its war against terrorism, enabling the US to avoid boots on the ground unlike those it deployed in defense of other partnerships in South Korea or West Germany.

Israel’s political influence: Israel enjoyed bipartisan US support for years, with Democrats and Republicans both treating it as an issue transcending their political divide. The pro-Israel forces were and still are well organized and politically strong, deeply involved in US politics and the media. The American Jewish community is only two percent of the population (more than 70 percent Democrats) but to an extent beyond their numbers in donations and influence in politics. The pro-Israel AIPAC lobby, with its professionalism and determination, buoyed by the myth of Jewish influence, became the most powerful and effective foreign policy lobbying group in Washington. As for Israel’s Christian evangelical supporters, they are almost all Republican voters but their large numbers, some 80 million, and organizational capacities are impressive. They believe that support for Israel is a religious imperative that will result in resurrection.

It would seem, then, that all is well and the “special relationship” is robust and deeply rooted. In fact, not all is well because of troubling trends in all three areas.

Values: Based on Donald Trump’s election and policies as President, one might assume that the US shift toward conservative values and its disdain for liberal democracy are similar to Israel’s. Demographics prove otherwise. In Israel, they are in fact pulling to the right given the high ultra-Orthodox birthrate and other factors, such as late marriage age of liberals. In the US, on the other hand, the percentage of minorities leaning to progressive values is growing.

Interests: The US is losing interest in the Middle East, to a large extent justifiably so. It is no longer dependent on the region’s energy resources and all its major interventions in the Middle East have failed – full-scale military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, “leading from behind” in Libya and avoiding action on Syria.

Politics: Israel has become a partisan issue in US politics. The sense among large swathes of the Democratic Party base is that Israel has tied its destiny to the Republicans. The distancing by progressive liberals from Israel is beginning to manifest itself in Congress. Unprecedented criticism of Israel and calls to condition US aid on Israeli policies have also emerged in the Democratic presidential campaign. This trend includes the Jewish community which mostly identifies as liberal and votes for Democratic presidents. Israeli annexation in the West Bank sometime between July 1 and the November elections would further exacerbate things given Democratic voters’ vehement opposition to unilateral moves and violation of international law.

How can Israel remedy the problem?

Israel must return to bipartisan diplomacy with the US and build bridges to progressive and minority elements. Israel must embrace the US Jewish community regardless of political views and streams of Judaism. Israel’s ties with the world’s largest Jewish Diaspora are not only vital to the relationship between states, they stem from Israel’s very mission as the nation state of the Jewish people.

In order to keep the Americans in the Middle East, Israel must promote a contractual defense pact with the US anchored in legislation. Contrary to prevailing views, a defense pact would advance peace by deterring military adventurism. It will increase the US commitment to Israel’s defense, but also incentive to promote peace in the Middle East, and increase the US interest in determining Israel’s borders (diplomacy is far less expensive than wars).

Should the US administration change hands in January 2021, Israel must return to the security plan formulated by Gen. John Allen together with the IDF’s Planning Directorate for the defense of Israel’s Eastern border. The plan drafted at the behest of then-Secretary of State Kerry includes technological means and a US presence in the Jordan Valley and would help cement the US commitment to the region and to Israel’s security.

Israel should also advance civil society links with progressive American individuals and organizations who are unaware that many Israel share their worldview and are engaged in promoting justice regardless of the administrations in either state. A bi-national foundation to promote Tikkun Olam, if formed, could support cooperation between non for-profit organizations and between USAID and Israel’s foreign aid arm, MASHAV.

Israeli public diplomacy should engage with US civil society in a positive manner rather than in detrimental useless arguments and hasbara (public diplomacy). Israel has much to offer the US but our defensive approach makes us appear less relevant and less attractive.

In conclusion, Israel’s relations with the US are more important than its ties with any country in the world and their value is nothing short of strategic. Despite the deep and robust nature of the relations, current trends are greatly troubling and unless we work quickly to address them, Israel’s strategic posture would suffer a fatal blow.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Israel and the US: Is the Special Relationship Still Special? הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The political right’s hawkish approach stems from a pessimistic, victimized attitude that believes the entire world is against us, that no one can be trusted, that we are under constant existential threat and that anyone who criticizes Israeli policy is a closet anti-Semite or a traitor. For the left, on the other hand, the advent of Zionism turned the Jews from victims of history to masters of their fate, severing us from the trauma of exile and imbuing us with a sense of security and optimism about our place in the world and the region.

While Israel has become a regional power with world-renowned defense and economic capabilities, many Israelis continue to feel the existential threat that marked our history. Our leaders have fanned these sentiments in recent years, whether out of certain authentic personality traits or as a tool for political manipulation.

In order to examine how foreign policy based on self-assurance and initiative differs from foreign policy driven by a sense of victimization and pessimism, I will touch on three geo-strategic challenges confronting Israel: The Iranian threat, the Arab Spring and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Iranian threat

The pessimistic approach – Iran emphatically calls for Israel’s annihilation and seeks to develop the ultimate weapon to accomplish its goal. This is an existential threat that justifies all preventive measures. Iran is also attempting to attain regional hegemony against Israel through proxies – Hezbollah in the north, Shiite militias in Syria and Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Gaza. This is the central challenge for Israel’s national security, and all the rest pales in comparison. Israeli diplomacy must focus on the Iranian threat.

The optimistic approach – Israel’s interests lie in participation in an international effort to counter Iran and not in a hegemonic position at the forefront of the campaign. Alarmist attitudes toward the issue distort decision-making. Even if Iran obtains nuclear weapons at some point, Israel is a formidable rival with second-strike capability. The US-led international coalition imposed coordinated sanctions against Iran and eventually achieved the JCPOA between Iran and the P5+1. While imperfect, the agreement significantly delayed an Iranian nuclear breakout A diplomatic initiative vis-à-vis the Palestinians would greatly bolster Israel’s ability to join a regional and Western alliance against Iran.

The Arab Sprin

The pessimistic approach – The so-called “Arab Spring” is actually an “Islamist Winter”. Even if initially led by liberals protesting dictatorships, better-organized Islamist forces quickly assumed leadership of this movement, fostering anti-Israel sentiment. Peace agreements with Israel are out of the questions until the “dust settles” and we know who has the upper hand, and where. This is no time for diplomacy and Israel should focus instead on demonstrating its military capabilities.

The optimistic approach – The Arab Spring created greater openness toward Israel on the part of regional regimes that view Israel as part of the solution to the Sunni and Shiite jihadist threat. Israel’s ties with the Gulf States have improved, and the level of counter-terrorism cooperation with Egypt in Gaza and the Sinai is at a record high. Since the Arab Spring, businesspeople are also more open to Israeli capacities and technology. The regional shift provides an opportunity to adopt a diplomatic initiative rather than opting for isolation. Absent negotiations with the Palestinians, Israel cannot break through the glass ceiling to its integration in the region.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The pessimistic approach – Prospects of an arrangement with the Palestinians are non-existent and all Israel can do is manage the conflict. The Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state and give up the right of return. They have turned down every opportunity to reach agreement; when we withdrew from Gaza, we got in return a terrorist organization and missiles on our communities. Withdrawal from the West Bank would result in missiles on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Israel’s economic hubs. We must rely on our military power until the Palestinians realize they have no choice but to accept our control.

The optimistic approach – The rejectionist approach has shifted from the Palestinian to the Israeli side, and a change in our attitude could result in a breakthrough. Gone are the days when the Palestinian leadership advocated terrorism and rejected every peace initiative. Since Mahmoud Abbas replaced Arafat at the head of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian leadership has taken an official and practical stand against terrorism. Given an Israeli partner, Abbas believes in bilateral diplomacy; absent one, he turns towards multilateral diplomacy. He instructs his security forces to cooperate with the Shin Bet and IDF in countering Hamas terrorism. He has accepted the principle of land swaps and the demand for a disarmed Palestinian state. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative is still on the table, promising normalized relations with Israel should it move toward a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians. The initiative urges an agreed solution (which means an Israeli veto) to the refugee problem. Moderate Palestinians still constitute a majority despite all we have done to undermine their choice of diplomacy and security coordination. Israel must promote an initiative to resolve the conflict. Conditions are ripe for such a move once there is political will.

The vast majority of security veterans, diplomats and retired government officials free to express their views believe Israel is stronger than ever and should take advantage of opportunities rather than cowering against threats.

We are able to initiate an arrangement with the Palestinians that would preserve Israel as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people and dramatically improve our situation in the region. A pro-active policy would re-open the doors to the club of liberal European democracies, which are our important partners in terms of values and trade. The optimistic approach would facilitate bipartisan US support and re-engagement with the American Jewish community.

Perhaps the threat of annexation will give rise to the emergence of a diplomatic initiative led by the center-left in a spirit of self-assurance and hope rather than fear and victimhood. Absent an optimistic and pro-active approach, we would not have declared our independence and would not have signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have changed our strategic position. The name of our anthem is “Hatikva”, Hebrew for “the hope”, not “Hapachad”, Hebrew for “the fear”.

The article was published by The Jerusalem Post on 10 June 2020

הפוסט Hope and Optimism Should be Key Pillars of Israel’s Foreign Policy הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Despite its undeniable standing as a sustainable regional power, Israel continues to conduct itself like a state battling for survival. While the state’s key challenges lie in the field of diplomacy and soft power, its politicians present them through a military prism even as security experts caution that military might cannot solve Israel’s fundamental problems.

Israel has been the strongest power in the region and one of the strongest in the world for years. You and your colleagues in the defense establishment are responsible for that remarkable achievement that turned the burning embers of the Holocaust into a Jewish regional power in a relatively short time in historical perspective.

Nonetheless, as the Americans found out in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, even the strongest military in the world lacks solutions to modern challenges. The IDF, which enjoys its strongest advantage ever over our enemies, cannot achieve a decisive victory because that term no longer applies in the modern battlefield.

Whether in terms of relations with our enemies or the ability to translate our military might into a better life for our people, the solutions all lie in the diplomatic arena. Diplomacy also plays a decisive role for Israel’s export-oriented economy that owes its international standing to its innovative capacity. With most challenges becoming increasingly global – pandemics, climate change, curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the response can only be found in the diplomatic arena, not in military arsenals.

Nonetheless, from its infancy, successive Israeli prime ministers have weakened the Foreign Ministry for various reasons, some political (from the days of Ben Gurion’s clashes with Sharett and up to the present), others stemming from our survival complex. We have always opted to look for answers in the wrong place. In recent years, the situation has deteriorated. The Foreign Ministry has sustained deep budget cuts, with many of its tasks outsourced to other ministries and its unique expertise in the international arena excluded from the decision-making process on core issues of diplomacy.

While cabinet meetings always include presentations and assessments by military officers, who often also propose solutions, the Foreign Ministry is largely absent, and its professional opinions are not heard. The explanation for this phenomenon is also to be found in the Foreign Ministry itself, which has grown accustomed to staying out of issues that touch on politics, although every core issue obviously has a political bearing, and often vice versa. Foreign Ministry staff have come to believe that their role is limited to conveying to the world decisions made by other people in other ministries. Rather than having significant impact on decision making, the Foreign Ministry has positioned itself as an agency dedicated to public diplomacy and logistics abroad.

You served as chief-of-staff when the IDF adopted a courageous professional stance against an Israeli attack on Iran, which had a decisive effect on the Prime Minister’s decision. On the other hand, it is hard to think of a position taken by the Foreign Ministry that differed from that of decision makers, simply because the Ministry preferred to wait for diplomatic instructions rather than contribute to shaping them.

Diplomats, like military officers, are obviously bound by the decisions of the elected echelon, but their job is also to represent their professional stand with determination and to ensure that their familiarity with the global arena is taken into consideration.

As for substance, following are the issues of the highest priority.

The Foreign Ministry’s most important role is to advance the peace agreements with our neighbors, and in that context, the most urgent priority is to ensure that in the window of time between July and November, no unilateral moves are made that irrevocably exclude a future arrangement based on the two-state principle. The twostate solution is essential to Israel’s preservation as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people, as well as to our strategic relations with Jordan, Egypt and the pro-Western, anti-jihadist axis in the Middle East. Unilateral moves would also undermine the lifesaving security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the PA’s ability to administer the lives of millions of Palestinians, whose lives we have no interest in running. It is also vital that we maintain the potential for bilateral and regional channels to an accommodation with the Palestinians rather than having these issues dealt with by the International Criminal Court and various BDS arenas.

Bipartisanship has constituted the basis for Israel’s special standing with successive US administrations, Congress and public opinion. In recent years, Israel is being perceived as affiliated with the Republican Party, dealing a fatal blow to the special relationship with the world’s leading power. The loss of bipartisan support also severely undermines our ties with US Jewry, our most important Diaspora community, the majority of which backs the Democrats and steers clear of Israel.

The vast majority of world Jewry, and especially in North America, is gradually distancing itself from Israel, put off by the state’s growing tendency toward segregation, extremism, and its reluctance to accept the different streams of Judaism, their needs, views and concerns. Israel’s political establishment tends to prefer ties with Christian evangelists and Orthodox Jews and to treat liberal Jewish communities that make up the vast majority of US Jewry, as irrelevant at best and as non-Jews in the worst-case scenario. This poses an immediate and present danger to the cohesion of the Jewish people, its links with the State of Israel and to a large extent the security of the state, which also relies on the solidarity of Diaspora Jewry with Israel.

Government policy of recent years distances the State of Israel from the Zionist vision of a model, egalitarian society that protects the rights of minorities and empowers the disadvantaged. These values are the foundation on which Israel’s innate alliance with liberal democratic states rests. However, the erosion of this foundation is generating growing aloofness on the part of democratic, liberal nations toward Israel. The government clearly prefers alliances with states led by dictators, nationalists and racists, among them some with anti-Semitic past and/or current anti-Semitic leanings. This process directly endangers the Jewish communities in those countries, where minority rights are crucial for the Jews, both morally and strategically.

In summing up, I urge you to treat the Foreign Minister’s role as an unusual opportunity to influence Israel’s future significantly, to make a difference as a politician and to make your mark on history. Your success is our success, and the sooner you achieve it, the better.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט A Letter to Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The Coronavirus crisis will pass. Humanity will eventually develop a vaccine and find the way to eradicate the virus or develop immunity to the pathogen. The global economy will be hard hit, as will ours, but will recover. The State of Israel is blessed with unusually creative forces that will eventually lead it out of the economic crisis stronger, more resilient and with greater prominence on the world stage.

On the other hand, the danger of annexation is irreversible – it will wipe out the Palestinian Authority and its life-saving security coordination with Israel, boost radical Palestinian forces and pose a real threat to one of Israel’s major strategic assets, the stability of the Hashemite Kingdom. Annexation will finalize the divorce between Israel and the US Democratic Party and deepen the alienation of the liberal progressive majority in the most important country in the world and Israel’s greatest ally.

Annexation will push away the majority of the US Jewish community and alienate most Diaspora Jewry, dealing a fatal blow to our existence as the nation state of the Jewish people. Europe, Israel’s most important trade partner, will lose interest in ties with a state that perpetuates occupation. The claim that the occupation was thrust upon us and cannot be ended absent a partner on the other side will shatter. Pro-Western Arab states with which we have a strategic partnership against Iran, ISIS and al-Qaida, will be unable to withstand popular pressure and growing hatred of Israel for burying prospects of a solution to the Palestinian issue, which continues to be a festering sore in the Muslim Arab world. The option of a bilateral solution will disappear and the Israeli-Palestinian issue will be dealt with by the International Criminal Court in The Hague and by the forces of BDS in civil society.

Yes, a number of friends will stand by our side – mostly members of the racist, populist alliance affiliated with the traditional anti-Semitic camp, which supports us now only because at this point in history they see Islam and Middle Eastern refugees as a greater threat to their ethnic purity than the Jews. Yes, on this holiday celebrating our freedom, we will be making a decision pushing us irrevocably into the camp of those leaders who do not believe in freedom and minority rights.

The tragedy is magnified further by the fact that those making possible this coalition agreement are people who understand the threat, who support the two-state solution and who are about to sacrifice it on the altar of the manipulated Corona emergency. In the spirit of the Passover holiday that we just celebrated – they could have placed the sovereignty issue at the top of the agenda where it deserves to be (“dayenu” – as we sing in the Seder, it would have been enough), but they did not. They could have refused to join the government to avoid legitimizing the annexation (“dayenu”, it would have been enough), but they did not. They could have taken advantage of the majority of Knesset members they had on their side to prevent the formation of this government (“dayenu”, it would have been enough), but they did not.

To draw a parallel to the four sons described in the Passover Haggadah, regrettably, the political simpletons hooked up with the wicked sons who are bent on eradicating the vision of the Declaration of Independence, rather than joining the wise sons who favor a liberal alliance consisting of minorities of all stripes. That is how we arrived at this point in time that threatens our liberty even after marking the holiday of freedom and threatening the Zionist vision when we are about to mark our independence.

הפוסט This Day of Independence, We Are in Danger of Risking the Zionist Dream הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Surprisingly, all those interviewed hold similar views despite their different political stripes. However, they are suggesting tactical solutions, rather than strategic and diplomatic goals, which are therefore bound to be short-term in nature.

A strategic approach to Gaza must relate to the overall Palestinian issue, not just to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The policy of recent Israeli governments separating the Gaza issue from the West Bank one has convinced Israelis that this split is, indeed, the desired goal. But it is a flawed assumption. Ironically, the Trump plan, which undermines prospects of peace in many respects, pointed to the inevitable solution of linking Gaza and the West Bank.

Any solution to the Gaza issue must include the Palestinian Authority (PA). But we have made the PA irrelevant to Gaza and thus achieved a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Israeli government has thwarted all attempts at rapprochement between Gaza and the PA. Such was the case when PA President Mahmoud Abbas sought to hold Palestinian elections, or when he tried to form a government of technocrats that could have enabled Hamas to move forward vis-à-vis Israel without initially abandoning its ideology.

We have weakened the PA by refusing to credit and encourage its non-violent, pro-diplomacy policies. From his first day on the job, Abbas sought agreement, if possible through bilateral negotiations, and if not, by appealing to multinational organizations.

We have turned his attempts at dialogue with Israel into pathetic overtures by continuing to build in the settlements and using negotiations to buy time and create facts on the ground. When the Palestinians tried to achieve their aims by taking multilateral steps, we dubbed their measures “diplomatic terrorism” and exerted pressure on the Americans to block them, even though the same measures – appealing to the UN – gained Israel its own independence.

While Abbas supports a two-state solution and recognition of Israel in its 1967 borders with land swaps, and even accepts the principle of a demilitarized Palestinian state, we insist instead on dealing with Hamas, which rejects our existence. Whereas Abbas continues to instruct his security forces to cooperate with the IDF and Shin Bet in foiling terror attacks, and is therefore accused by many Palestinians of collaboration with Israel, we reward Hamas with benefits and payments from Qatar.

A strategic, long-term solution to the Gaza issue is linked to renewal of the diplomatic process with the PA, and to the encouragement of a technocratic unity government in Gaza with which gradual progress can be made on demilitarization and rehabilitation. A long-term solution must be diplomatic. All our previous attempts to create deterrence have taught us that there is no military solution.

We currently have much better Palestinian partners for peace than we had in the past. The terrorist Arafat has been replaced by Abbas, who reviles terrorism; the three “No’s” (no to peace with Israel, no to recognition of Israel, no to negotiations with Israel) of the 1967 Arab League summit in Khartoum have been replaced by the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The key message of that initiative is, “please move ahead with a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian issue so that we can normalize relations with you based on the understanding that Israel could constitute part of the solution to regional problems, rather than the problem itself”.

While all these positive changes were occurring around us, our leaders continued to explain why Israel has no Palestinian partner and to empower Hamas. That is why Israeli discourse keeps going back to the same tactical suggestions that resolve nothing. These solutions only sound logical absent of a strategic alternative. But such an alternative exists and it requires courageous and sober leadership rather than political slogans and hollow clichés.

Nadav Tamir is a Board Member at Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies; a former diplomat and policy advisor to President Peres.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט The Solution to Gaza is a Diplomatic One הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

However, the plan published by the Trump administration contradicts the interests of the State of Israel, distances us from the two-state solution and is published during very problematic political times. As a result, it will likely do more harm than good.

The two-state solution is an existential interest for Israel. It is a necessary component of the Zionist dream, in which the State of Israel is both the state of the Jewish people and a democracy characterized by complete equality for all its citizens. Yet the two-state solution is unattainable while Palestinian interests are ignored and Palestinian leaders are excluded from the peace process. I would expect Israeli leadership to be capable of making that clear to an American president.

In the past, Prime Minister Sharon tried to convince the Bush administration not to force democracy on conflict-ridden Iraq; Prime Minister Olmert sought to influence the same administration not to push for Palestinian elections at that point in time. Neither succeeded, but in hindsight, both did the right thing, as an ally should.

The Palestinians are rejecting the Trump plan outright, so it will not lead to a settlement. But from it we must try to extract components that will help achieve a settlement in the future. Of importance is the fact that a Palestinian state will be established, even according to Trump’s vision, and that it must have a capital in East Jerusalem as well as an American embassy there.

Contrary to common perception, our ability to promote true peace is stronger now than ever before. In the Palestinian leadership of today, Israel has infinitely better partners for peace than it had in Oslo and Camp David. The leaders of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah understand that terrorism has hurt them just as it has done damage in Israel, and they are trying to achieve independence through non-violent means. The regional context is also more favorable than in the past; most Arab countries see Israel as part of the solution to the problems this region faces, rather than as the problem itself, as they have in the past. This is reflected in the Arab Peace Initiative, which is endorsed time and again at the summits of Arab states and which did not exist during Oslo and Camp David.

In addition, the majority of the Israeli public supports a two-state solution, as evidenced in polls conducted over the past twenty years, even though this wasn’t reflected in the election results in Israel, because our leaders have preferred to instill fear, suppress hope for peace, and remove the Palestinian issue from the agenda.

To the extent that the Trump plan leads to annexation, it will not only keep us away from a solution of two states for two peoples. It will also damage regional stability, our relationship with Jordan and security coordination with the Palestinian Authority, which has led to relative calm and a significant reduction in terror.

Consequently, those who come to power in the upcoming Israeli elections should take significant diplomatic steps that will provide for a real peace plan. They should do so in coordination with the international community, rather than allowing themselves to be dragged on by false initiatives that do not merit the support of most of the international community or the Democratic Party in the US. Israeli leaders must make it clear to our American friends that this is not the way to advance the long-term interests of the State of Israel.

Nadav Tamir is a Board Member at Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies; a former diplomat and policy advisor to President Peres

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Israel Needs a Real Peace Plan הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

הפוסט The Trump Plan: Not the Way to Advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

An unbearable gap exists between professionals in the civil service, most of whom are prevented from expressing themselves in public, who understand that issues of peace and diplomacy should take center stage in public discourse and the state’s strategic order of preference, and politicians who regard such matters as trivial. The politicians stoke the sense of public fear, which then takes them hostage to public opinion, rather than dealing with the many opportunities on our doorstep.

The anti-Israel boycott movement (BDS) illustrates how we have turned a tactical threat that does not endanger Israel’s security or prosperity into an existential threat. Israel’s aggressive policies vis-à-vis the movement violate freedom of expression, which liberal audiences view as a key human right. This, in turn, plays into the hands of those promoting BDS because it alienates many groups deterred by the government’s anti-liberal policies. The Foreign Ministry is familiar with Israel’s target audiences more than any other government agency and is supposed to present the diplomatic angle at government discussions, but it is often excluded from sessions with decision makers and is not a party to shaping policy.

Israeli politicians are distancing themselves from the values of liberal democracies, which most Diaspora Jewry holds dear, too. With short-term considerations in mind, they prefer alliances with populist leaders who have a record of anti-Semitism. In so doing, they sin against the values defined by the founders of the state in its proclamation of independence as well as against the stated purpose of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

Israel must not regard Diaspora Jewry as simply a cash cow, a political lobby and a pool for immigration. It must engage with those the state views as an integral part of its national project. Diaspora Jews should be invited to voice their views on Israel-related issues, and Israel should appreciate their involvement even when the views are critical. We must create ways for Jews to be critical of government policy and at the same time love and support the State of Israel.

The issue of relations with Diaspora Jewry is intertwined with that of the Arab Israeli minority. For Diaspora Jews, equality for the Arabs in Israel is a fundamental liberal axiom just as is their expectation of the rights they demand for themselves in their countries of residence. There is a measure of hypocrisy in Israeli criticism leveled at Israel’s Arab citizens over their identification with their Palestinian brothers, while expecting US Jews to identify with Israel. Nonetheless, there is room for optimism.

While Israelis are being exposed often to messages of fear and incitement, polls consistently indicate that a majority favors the two-state for two people solution. Despite it all, many elements that were absent in the past now enable the promotion of this solution. The Arab Peace Initiative accepts the principle of two states within the 1967 borders with certain territorial exchanges as well as Israel’s veto of the number of refugees allowed to return. The Palestinian Authority’s current leadership does not believe violence serves its people and is seeking a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

A change of Israeli leadership, which may be in the offing, could lead Israel and the Palestinians toward a new road that would save the State of Israel’s liberal Zionist dream. When that happens, Israel will no longer have to choose between its character as the nation state of the Jewish people and being a democracy that protects the rights of its minorities.

Nadav Tamir is a Board Member at Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies; a former diplomat and policy advisor to President Peres. This article is based on his remarks at the 2019 Annual Conference of the Mitvim Institute, held in cooperation with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Time for Diplomatic Optimism 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.