CHATHAM HOUSE
Israel’s wars have sustained the destructive leadership which brought it to this crisis
A year after 7 October, a viable alternative to the Netanyahu government is needed – alongside international support for those willing to invest in peace.
Expert comment
Published 3 October 2024 4 minute READ
Professor Yossi Mekelberg
Senior Consulting Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme
The first anniversary of the Hamas atrocities of 7 October and the horrific bloodshed that followed was always going to be a difficult time. What makes it worse is that war is still raging in Gaza Strip, the hostages haven’t been returned, millions of Palestinians live in inhuman conditions and the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have escalated in recent weeks, leading to more bloodshed and devastation. More pain seems inevitable from the latest missile attack and likely retaliation between Iran and Israel.
There are many sources of this tragic state of affairs, but above all it has been a failure of leadership, at both domestic and international levels.
The loss of life, the destruction and above all the loss of hope for a better future is heart-wrenching. However, it is also a time for reflection and reckonings about how both Israelis and Palestinians reached this lowest ever point in their relations.
There are many sources of this tragic state of affairs, but above all it has been a failure of leadership, at both domestic and international levels.
That failure goes back far further than a year. Individual and collective decisions to allow – sometimes to encourage – the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to fester for so many decades eventually made the latest, most deadly confrontation inevitable. Counterintuitively, it is the conflict that perpetuates these leaderships, which are either incompetent or extremist or both, and which thrive on cynically exploiting human traits of fear and distrust of the other to gain and maintain power.
A change of leadership
group of protestors hold megaphones and signs in the street
The World Today
Related content
Israel must reject Netanyahu and begin radical reform to heal its trauma
---------------------
To break this cycle, it is imperative to drastically change the security discourse in Israel, one that has for so long been based purely on military power, with no political vision of peace, coexistence and reconciliation.
This is only possible with the removal of Benjamin Netanyahu from office. To be sure, ending his reign will not heal the divisions within Israeli society, nor solve the stalemate in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict overnight. But his ‘stop at nothing’ approach to political survival has consistently overshadowed the country’s politics, society and foreign affairs at a time when progress is needed in all these areas. He remains the bottleneck in Israeli politics and without his removal there is no space for change.
A viable alternative
That space, however, must be filled by an opposition offering something bolder than a softer version of Netanyahu’s government and its opposition to a two-state solution. For years, Netanyahu’s ‘grand plan’ has been to divide Palestinian leadership, thereby preventing a peace agreement based on a two-state solution from ever materializing.
He has done this by allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be funnelled to Hamas so as to maintain its rivalry with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. This plan backfired on 7 October with the most horrendous consequences and exposed the profound need to replace ‘divide and rule’ with an approach that aims to unite, empower and coexist.
Related content
Israel-Palestine: Is peace possible?
So far, Israel’s opposition leadership – including Benny Gantz, who is seen by many as a potential successor to Netanyahu – has failed to offer this different vision. Gantz only represents a less confrontational version of the current approach. His discourse has remained focused on enhancing military capabilities, rather than addressing the cause of this conflict – that is, the occupation.
Where alternatives are offered, they are not supported with action. Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition, told the UN General Assembly only two years ago that a two-state solution is the only way forward, yet he abstained on a recent vote on Palestinian statehood in the Knesset.
Furthermore, those protesting against Netanyahu’s so-called judicial reforms have artificially separated two connected issues: that of defending Israel’s democracy and working towards the two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestine question. The occupation is one of the key reasons for the deterioration of Israel’s democracy. By refusing to demand its end, Gantz and others who have opposed Netanyahu have merely tinkered at the edges of the status quo, rather than provided an alternative vision for the country.
Exploiting division
Even before 7 October, Israel was in the grip of a social, political and constitutional crisis. The sixth Netanyahu government, established in December 2022, magnified these deep divisions to ensure its survival, forming a coalition with the most ultra-nationalist, religious and anti-democratic elements in Israel. A new leadership must take the opposite approach and address, rather than exploit, the resentment of secular people towards ultra-religious groups over military and educational requirements. There is also a need to confront fundamental questions about how to define a Jewish state.
There is a need to confront fundamental questions about how to define a Jewish state.
Under Netanyahu’s coalition, the exemption of ultra-orthodox youth from military service has mostly remained in place, despite a Supreme Court ruling extending the draft to them. Netanyahu also allowed his political allies to remain exempt from the obligation to study core subjects such as mathematics, physics and foreign languages at school.
The result is understandable resentment from the secular (and majority) part of Israeli society over the inequity of the burden to risk their lives for the country’s security and contribute to its prosperity. This resentment is sharpened during war and the related economic pressures.
Netanyahu’s reliance on his coalition partners caused him to cave in to them when he needed their support. This saw him hand over control of key ministries to the far-right, enabling them to expand settlements in the West Bank and entrench the occupation, as part of their goal of annexing the entire territory.
In the past, far-right groups like today’s ‘Religious Zionist’ and ‘Jewish Power’ parties, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir respectively, were banned from participating in elections for racist incitement. This legal imperative should return under a fresh government.
International responsibility
Regional and international leaders must also demonstrate they will not tolerate the expansion of settlements or settler violence against Palestinians. So far, international sanctions have been sporadic, but more should be imposed on individuals and institutions who are central to the consolidation and extension of the occupation.
Bolder action is also required on Palestinian self-determination. There are endless UN resolutions, votes and public statements on the need to bring about a two-state solution to the Israel–Palestine conflict (dating back to 1948), but a recognition of Palestinian statehood by the UN Security Council has been blocked by the US and others, including the UK.
US and European formal recognition of Palestinian statehood is necessary to break the stalemate in the peace process.
US and European formal recognition of Palestinian statehood is necessary to break the stalemate in the peace process. This will not only have a symbolic effect but also help rebalance the asymmetry in the power relations between Israelis and Palestinians in future peace negotiations.
The international community has failed too in its obligations to maintain peace along the Israel–Lebanon border. UN Security Council resolution 1701, which followed the previous Israel–Hezbollah war and intended to avoid a similar outbreak of hostilities, has not been implemented. Instead, there has been an inadequate peacekeeping force along the border which, alongside a failed Lebanese state unable to control Hezbollah, has left the area constantly on the verge of war.
Image — A protester holds a sign calling for a deal during a demonstration calling for a hostage deal and against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government on 24 August 2024 in Tel Aviv, Israel. Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images.
Topics
Democracy and political participation Peacekeeping and intervention
Regions
Israel and Palestine
Departments
Middle East and North Africa Programme
There must also be clear consequences for any Israeli government which maintains a belligerent approach. Where conflict is pursued, the US and other countries including the UK must go further to limit the supply of ammunition and weaponry that by its use might violate the laws of war, without damaging Israel’s ability to defend itself.
An Israel tank with an Israel flag on top moves towards Rafah during the wider military operation in the Gaza Strip on May 29, 2024.
Related content
The ICJ and ICC put Israel on notice but cannot stop the war
----------------------
Equally, clear incentives for those who favour the path of peace and reconciliation would influence Israel’s behaviour. Normalization with other countries in the region remains the ultimate reward for a move towards a Palestinian state. But there are other levers to pull, including the prospect of a special defence arrangement with NATO or furthering joint economic projects and access to new markets.
There is no magic wand to change this situation dramatically or quickly, but first and foremost it requires forces and voices within Israeli and Palestinian society to be brave enough to suggest new approaches. Creative proposals do exist: one such model is of an Israeli–Palestinian confederation, in which a shared administration of Israelis and Palestinians work alongside each group’s respective governments.
The introduction of such ideas to Israel’s political discourse would be a powerful departure from the status quo that has caused so much destruction, even if they are not adopted. It is essential that those who want to lead take action to dislodge the stalemate, foster negotiation and most importantly, offer the prospect of peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Related content
The Houthis have cracked down brutally on Yemeni civil society. A strategic response is required
In the region, better structured alliances will be crucial: Gulf Cooperation Council countries should be brought into a consistent and clarified security relationship with the US, UK and other Western allies. Concerned non-Arab countries like Azerbaijan and Turkey could also be better engaged.
In the military sphere, groups like Shia paramilitaries in Iraq and the Houthis must be hit hard every time they attack US and other targets. Iranian arms and oil smuggling must also be better combatted.
There might be a place for carrots as well as sticks: Iran could once again be offered a place within a new regional order if they decide to become the pragmatic actors they nearly became under former president Rafsanjani.
In 1973 Henry Kissinger seems to have believed that all that was achievable by outside actors in the region was the absence or war rather than the construction of order. But his efforts laid the foundations for the 1978 Camp David Accords, which fundamentally changed the regional security order for the better. If ever there was a time for renewed thinking about what another new order might involve, it is now.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment