Sir Frank Lowy, Chairman of the INSS Board of Directors • Prof. Manuel Trajtenberg, Executive Director, INSS
Sessions
The Prime Minister opened his speech with an overview of the new government’s efforts. In foreign relations Israel improved relations that had cooled between Israel and the world, and in routine security the situation in the south has maintained calm, and the government is working on curbing the deterioration in the West Bank. In the domestic arena the government stopped the political maelstrom and now the public arena is focused more on citizens and less on the leader.
In the external sphere, “we need to read the situation well,” said the Prime Minister. “The Middle East is changing all the time” and Israel must work flexibly “to acquire friends and neutralize enemies.” “The US remains our closest friend, but Washington has its own set of interests that do not always overlap with those of Israel. The US interest in the region is decreasing in light of the changing strategic reality.” The Prime Minister explained that “in the geopolitical arena there is no vacuum. The US place in the region can be filled, God forbid, by forces of terrorism and hate; conversely, Israel could fill that role.” He added that “the foundation of friendship that has been created with our neighbors can be a multi-dimensional regional alliance that together will work against the extremist forces that are undermining the region’s stability.”
Regarding the nuclear deal, the Prime Minister said that the government “hopes that the talks in Vienna will end without an agreement, because the agreement in question is not good for Israel” and added that “if an agreement is signed and if the flow of dollars to Iran is renewed, its aggressiveness will only intensify in the region.” Therefore, “Israel will be ready, and no agreement will stop us from taking action to defend Israel’s citizens.”
In the domestic sphere, Prime Minister Bennett said that in order to maintain a lively democratic country within a dangerous and unstable region, Israel must work toward “economic growth and military buildup.” “The State of Israel needs a very strong economy,” Bennett explained. “A prosperous country can invest in military strengthening and force buildup and open up a huge gap over our adversary in order to strengthen deterrence and prevent the use of force.” In order to achieve this, the Prime Minister explained that “technological capability is the secret.”
“The current equation of the expensive interception of each Qassam rocket is not sustainable,” and added that “within a year the IDF will put a laser interception system into operation.” This advanced reality will lead to “Israel being surrounded by a laser wall that will protect against aerial threats and deny the enemy the strongest card it has against us,” and thus the equation will be reversed: “They will invest a lot and we will invest a little,” he added, and said “in this way we will produce major assets in order to create support and alliances.”
The Prime Minister concluded by saying that “the coming years will shape the face of the country for future generations. The government has the responsibility to build up force and prepare Israel for the coming decades economically and militarily.”
On the opening evening of the INSS Annual Conference, the Executive Director of the Institute, Prof. Manuel Trajtenberg, and United States Ambassador to Israel Mr. Thomas Nides held a discussion on the topic of Israel-United States relations during the era of the Biden administration, and in light of international developments – at whose center is the return to the nuclear talks with Iran. Ambassador Nides, who considers himself a Zionist Jew, said that when he assumed his post in Israel he had one goal, and it was “to strengthen the Jewish democratic state,” through “a commitment to Israel’s security, while preserving the two-state vision, and maintaining the Israeli economic miracle, in part by making the most of the Abraham Accords and utilizing Israel’s capabilities as a start-up nation.” In response to Prof. Trajtenberg’s question regarding the impact of voices from the Democratic-progressive camp, which is less supportive of Israel, on the future of relations between the countries, the Ambassador emphasized that “the vast majority of the Democratic Party supports the State of Israel.” Even if there is a minority in the party that projects hostility toward Israel, “the US commitment to Israel is firm.” The Ambassador responded to the Prime Minister’s speech that immediately preceded the discussion, during which Prime Minister Bennett claimed that Washington has a set of its own interests that do not always overlap with Israel’s interests, and noted the US focus on the Russia-Ukraine border, which diverts attention from the development of the Iranian nuclear threat. In relating to this, Ambassador Nides said that “the US will not allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons” and that the US administration can focus on several issues simultaneously. It is dealing with the crisis between Russia and Ukraine, but at the same time, is not neglecting the fulfillment of its commitment to Israel that Iran will not achieve nuclear capabilities. The Ambassador reemphasized that the US “will not tolerate a situation in which Iran possesses nuclear weapons.” Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Ambassador said that “the Biden administration is committed to the two-state solution, and this is also the position of many Israelis.” He added that “the current administration supports the Palestinian people economically based on the belief that they deserve respect and security, like the Israelis.”
On the opening evening of the INSS Annual Conference, an international simulation conducted by the Institute was presented. The simulation examined an attempt to bring about an Israeli-Palestinian agreement by means of an international conference, following a military escalation. Following the presentation of the simulation, Brig. Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel spoke with former Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Gadi Eisenkot, a senior research fellow at the Institute, and with former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a member of the INSS Board of Directors.
Click here to read about the simulation
First, Lt. Gen. (ret.) Eisenkot was asked about Israel’s opposition to the convening of an international conference to resolve the conflict. Eisenkot answered that for the State of Israel, getting drawn into an international conference during a multi-arena escalation would place it in a position of weakness. The State of Israel needs to come to negotiations over the country’s future from a position of strength, power, and advantage, and not as a result of being drawn into violent incidents or external compulsion.
Ms. Livni emphasized the need to formulate a vision for the State of Israel, in order to pursue diplomatic political moves that are important for its future. The interests, strategy, and tactics must be derived from the vision. The central challenge is that the vision of the State of Israel is in dispute and thus it is difficult to go to an international conference when there is no consensus within Israel. She highlighted that many people in Israel have expressed a sigh of relief about the fact that the world is not dealing with the Palestinian issue and is not pushing Israel. But the consequence is that we are continuing to travel in an undefined direction, and we do not know where it will lead us. Without a shared national “Waze,” the car that the country is driving in is deteriorating little by little toward a single state.
Eisenkot reinforced Livni’s words and suggested making the Declaration of Independence a foundational document for Israeli society and for the State of Israel. The lack of a political horizon sustains the idea of a single state, which is gaining traction among young Palestinians. Israel needs to indicate what it wants based on long-term interests, from a position of confidence and a desire to take initiative. Based on these, Israel should set milestones and build a bridge to a better future for the two nations. Nevertheless, he expressed concern that due to the political and social situation in Israel, it is not currently possible to make fateful decisions. However, it is possible to indicate the long-term objective.
Livni added that Israel is in an identity crisis and therefore it is hard pressed to make fateful decisions, but it is important to recognize that the majority of the public opposes a single bi-national state. “The public needs to understand that those who represent the principle of two states for two nations do so not in order to ensure a Palestinian state but to ensure the State of Israel’s future. Our history as a nation in Israel has proven that after making difficult decisions, cohesion is formed around them. During the establishment of the State and the signing of the peace agreement with Egypt there were groups that vehemently opposed these steps, but over the years these groups also adopted them.”
Eisenkot said in conclusion that “when it’s quiet, people ask, ‘why should we initiate diplomatic processes?’ and when there’s an escalation, they say that it’s not the time for negotiations in order not to be seen as the weaker side. If the understanding is that the basic national interests are a Jewish, democratic, advanced, egalitarian, and tolerant state, a state that is a source of identification for the world’s Jews, a member of the international community and he regional system, we need to take decisive decisions about the State of Israel’s identity and future, despite all the disagreements that exist in Israeli society.”
Foreign Minister and Chairman of Yesh Atid Yair Lapid spoke at the INSS 15th Annual International Conference
“We won’t let extremists lead us into the abyss,” Minister Lapid stated in his speech. “The right way to manage a country is to understand that change is inevitable, and precisely therefore it needs to be managed with caution and with equanimity.”
“The moment the political realm fans the flames of conflicts instead of resolving them, the country enters a tailspin that it can’t get out of,” the Minister added. “The government arose out of our understanding that this is a time of trial. The purpose of this government – and in this it differs from all of its predecessors – is not to advance one side of the political map, but to bring Israel together. To unite Israeli society and strengthen the State of Israel.”
“The greatest threat to us is losing the cohesiveness of Israeli society,” Minister Lapid emphasized. “Without internal resilience, we are unable to contend with Iran, with Hezbollah, with the attempt to depict us as an apartheid state. In order to cope with these challenges, we need to connect all corners of Israeli society for a unity of the sane versus extremists; of center and stability versus the complete chaos of the last few years.”
Minister Lapid concluded his speech by saying that “when the government was established, there was some talk of it being a government of the political right, left, Arabs, and center. I want to challenge this description: it is a centrist government. It’s true that all the partners have their own opinions, but when it comes to deeds, this is a government that is constantly striving toward the center. Our aim is not to win an argument, but to improve the lives of citizens. This government has stabilized despite all of the predictions, because it developed its nature. It has character. This is a centrist, Israeli, Zionist and fair government, and it’s here to work. This is what the State of Israel needs now.”