The 15th Annual Conference - February 2 2022 | INSS

INSS 15th Annual International Conference

February 2, 2022

Sessions

Brig. Gen. (res.) Assaf Orion spoke with Israel’s ambassador to Beijing, Irit Ben-Abba, about Israel-China relations, which marked 30 years in January. Orion asked about Israel’s place in the “strategic competition” between the United States and China. Amb. Ben-Abba noted that the relations between the great powers are at a low point, with China identifying an American desire for global division and enlisting countries against China. The deep gap between them is only deepening. As for Israel, the United States is a very important partner for the State of Israel, a central component of its national security, but still, Israel sees room for economic cooperation with China. The potential in China is enormous, and it is not a market that Israel wants to ignore. Risks exist, along with opportunities. We should exploit this potential for the benefit of Israeli economic growth and development, as well as in the fields of cultural relations, academic partnerships, partnerships between the nations, and meetings between young people. All the worlds of normal relations between countries should continue between Israel and China, and Israel should succeed in finding the ability to work together with China while not harming its own the national and security interests. In addition, China is still tightly closed due to COVID-19.

 

Orion noted that the challenge in relations with China is not only due to the US, but also a function of the strategic partnership between China and Iran, Beijing’s traditional support for the Palestinians, and its sharp criticism of Israel, for example in Operation Guardian of the Walls. The Ambassador clarified that China’s policy on the region was defined when the People’s Republic of China was established, and it is unlikely to change until a solution is found to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nonetheless, China expresses support for Israel’s need for self-defense, and tries to set aside the disagreements and advance the issues for which there is a broad base for cooperation – in the economic and commercial field. When it comes to Iran, the State of Israel of course has deep disagreements with China and it expresses them at every opportunity.

 

The Ambassador emphasized that 2022 will be of major importance, as in October the Communist Party will convene for its Congress, which is held once every five years, and will decide on extending the term of President Xi Jinping for the next five years. This is a year of substantial decisions regarding the future leadership of China, and regarding the continuation of China’s isolation from the world, due to COVID-19.

In 2020, at the height of the lockdowns and recurring elections and the economic and social crisis, a group of 65 participants from 8 different organizations came together in order to formulate an answer to the question: “How can we find a shared vision for Israeli society given the disagreements that exist?”

After 8 months of work, a document was put together that points to three issues: (1) social solidarity; (2) trust among individuals in society, and between society and the country’s authorities; (3) governance in Israel.

The members of the panel at the Annual Conference that was moderated by Brig. Gen. (res.) Dr. Meir Elran shared insights and experiences that they acquired during the joint work. Elran began by emphasizing the different and even contrasting backgrounds of the participants: “We brought up the disagreements that are so characteristic of us, and we succeeded in putting together a joint document despite those disagreements.” Elran also described the difficulty in recruiting the participants, some of whom left during the process.

Former Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Gadi Eisenkot emphasized that the document can serve as an opportunity to implement aspects of the Declaration of Independence, and called on all citizens to take part in building up the country based on the foundations of full and equal citizenship. He clarified that it is important to internalize that the lack of solidarity harms national security. Eisenkot added that the leadership must demonstrate courage and imbue the idea of a Jewish and democratic state with content, through belonging and hope for all citizens, and through providing the various groups with confidence that the country is not trying to change them. Adv. Dr. Moran Nagid, head of the society and governance division of the Kohelet Forum, claimed that it is possible to live together even in a reality of disagreement. Nagid believes that we should distance ourselves from values that have the potential for conflict, and instead emphasize the boundaries of legitimate discourse. The welcome diversity will be expressed when we succeed in conducting a simpler and more authentic dialogue.

Prof. Mohammed Wattad, Dean of Law at Zefat Academic College and a senior researcher at INSS, joined in saying that it is important to ensure that voices are heard that do not receive a central stage. He pointed out that people live with one another but not together, and thus a challenging dialogue should be conducted: only thus will the discourse not become a mute discourse. When people succeed in speaking, he said, they succeed in listening; when they listen, they think. He noted that he sees the very writing of the document as a sign of success in identifying our shared Israeli identity. 

Dr. Gali Sembira, former CEO of Shaharit, added and emphasized the attentiveness to the pain of the other, which was part of the writing process. She noted that the document taught her that there are partnerships between our own identities, and between our identities and the identities of the other. Hence she calls for ceasing to define groups in dichotomous terms and promoting dialogue that focuses on the common good.

Dr. Shira Efron and Israel’s Minister of Environmental Protection, Tamar Zandberg, discussed the importance of the government placing a priority on coping with climate change, as well as the challenges and opportunities for regional partnerships. Also discussed was Israel’s need to take responsibility for climate change as a country that emits greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Key to the government’s policy and actions are the State Comptroller’s Report and the need for a law on climate issues. Minister Zandberg said that “we will be very seriously affected by climate change due to our location on the globe, and the hot and dry climate that we are located in.” She added that “we will suffer drought and warming beyond what will happen in other regions of the world,” and emphasized that “a few years ago we already crossed the 1.5 degree rise that the whole world is committed to preventing, and thus the rise in sea level, desertification, drought, warming, flooding, wildfires – all of these scenarios will hit the Middle East more seriously. Thus for the survival of our citizens, this demands that we be optimally prepared.” In response to a question on the connection between climate change and national security, Minister Zandberg responded that INSS was one of the first to bring up the subject on the national level and that “this year the NSC for the first time included the issue of climate in its reference scenarios.” According to her, “this was presented to the political-security cabinet and to the Ministerial Committee on Preparedness.” She clarified that the impacts on national security will be reflected in “challenges to the stability of regimes, due to struggles over resources such as water, emissions, and the movement of populations that may come knocking on our door.” However, the Minister emphasized that the climate crisis can also be an opportunity for regional partnerships that Israel can lead. “Regional partnerships directly help regional stability and security and thus Israel’s immediate interests,” she said. Regarding cooperation on the Palestinian issue, according to Zandberg, “we need to understand that the environment doesn’t have borders.” The Minister shared that during the summer she met with her Palestinian counterpart, “and we agreed on several projects to pursue together.” Zandberg emphasized that cooperation would contribute to stability between the two nations, and “improve the quality of life of people in the entire region.” According to Zandberg, interest in climate change is here to stay: “This train has left the station and is proceeding in only one direction. When you look at climate change preparedness reports in the United States and Europe, you see that the issue is at the top of their priorities. Israel’s location – regional, geographical, geopolitical – simply doesn’t allow us not to take it into consideration as a threat to national security, as a paramount national challenge that Israel must prepare for.”

Moderator: Dr. Gallia Lindenstrauss, senior research fellow at INSS

Participants: Tony Badran, research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington; Dr. Haggay Etkes, economist and senior research fellow at INSS; Orna Mizrahi, senior research fellow and coordinator of Lebanon research at INSS

         

The panel discussed the future of the collapsing Lebanese state, and in particular the question of whether and how Lebanon can be rebuilt. During the discussion the deteriorating economic situation of Lebanon was presented. According to the speakers, the current situation arose due to a failed economic system over the years, an elite that only looked out for its own narrow interests and refrained from taking steps that would benefit the general public, and the situation’s exploitation by Hezbollah, which is taking over the mechanisms of the Lebanese state and enabling the deepening of Iran’s control. It was stated that most of the international community is indifferent and is not working against Hezbollah and Iran, which continue to take over the country. The little economic aid that is currently provided, mainly by the United States and France, slows the descent into the abyss only slightly. According to the speakers, in the current situation, change will only come from a large-scale international and regional effort to aid Lebanon and strengthen the camp of Hezbollah opponents in Lebanon in order to weaken Hezbollah and reduce Iran’s negative impact in the country. At the same time, significant reconstruction of the economic system in Lebanon is needed, alongside deep reforms in the internal system to develop the country and restore functioning mechanisms. In the context of Israeli policy, it was claimed that at the present stage Israel should work with its friends behind the scenes in an attempt to induce the international community to take action to aid and rebuild Lebanon. The message to the international community and the regional system is not to give up on Lebanon and not to let it fall entirely into the hands of Hezbollah and Iran. This is especially true in looking to the future, vis-à-vis the possibility that the sanctions against Iran will be lifted, in which case Iran will be less restrained than today, and resources will be freed up for deepening its takeover of Lebanon. In such a situation Israel will face a dilemma of coming to terms with the existing situation or deciding to take proactive action against Hezbollah and Iran.

 

Dr. Zipi Israeli, head of the public opinion program at INSS, and researcher Ruth Pines discussed the findings of the INSS 2022 National Security Index public opinion survey.

Regarding the future of Israeli society: is Israeli society facing internal conflict, or is there hope for a shared path? Israeli explained that there are several warning signals that must be heeded: “A large portion of the Jewish population (52 percent) feels that “groups that I do not agree with shape the agenda in Israel in contrast with my values.” A considerable portion of the public (46 percent) believes that “the group that I belong to is being silenced,” and that “in Israel groups that have a different way of life than mine are gaining strength, and in the future will prevent me from maintaining my way of life” (56 percent).  

Nevertheless, Israeli noted that there is hope for a shared future, and that even though in the discourse there is a widespread sense of lack of public solidarity, “the majority of the Jewish population (64 percent) feels that their common denominator with the majority of the Jews in Israel is greater than the differences,” and the majority (56 percent) agreed that “all Jews are responsible for one another.”

The survey revealed that the majority of the public (66 percent) is more worried about internal threats than external ones. Dr. Israeli clarified that it is possible that this stems from years that are relatively quiet militarily – “without wars, disagreements grow.” In addition, the public feels that the country is having more difficulty coping with domestic challenges. As a result, she explained, 61 percent think that social spending should be prioritized over defense spending.

Regarding the internal tensions, 43 percent of the Jewish public is most worried about the tension between Arabs and Jews in Israel, far beyond other tensions. The events of last May increased fears and suspicion between the Jewish and Arab populations. Israeli explained that “on the macro level, the Jewish population’s attitude to the Arab population over the years has been “respect it and suspect it.” The vast majority of the Jewish population is very worried about a recurrence in the near future of events similar to those of last May. Regarding the question “What is the main cause of the clashes between Jews and Arabs in Israel?” Israeli responded that the public believes that “the trouble will come from Jerusalem,” as this is the most sensitive issue with the potential to ignite the entire Middle East.

On the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the majority of the public, about 60 percent, continues to support taking steps to separate from the Palestinians now! in order to prevent a descent into a reality of a single bi-national state. That said, for the first time in years, the Jewish public’s support for the two-state solution dropped below 50 percent. Pines noted that the survey shows that the public is interested in political change regarding the conflict. In contrast with the prevailing sense, the public does not choose the option of maintaining the status quo, out of the various options presented to it.

For many years now the value of a state with a Jewish majority is the most important for the Jewish public in Israel (42 percent), higher than a democratic state (30 percent), a state of peace (15 percent,) and the complete Land of Israel (13 percent).

Greetings by Dr. Abdulla bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s Undersecretary for Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chairman of Derasat

The Iran panel discussed the nuclear talks in Vienna and the prospects of their leading to a return to the agreement, or alternatively, a cessation of the talks without achieving the objective. The moderator of the panel, Sima Shine, head of the Iran program at INSS, presented the crossroads that the sides are at. On the one hand, Iran’s nuclear program continues to move forward and Iran will soon be a nuclear threshold state, while on the other hand, the Iranians are continuing to drag their feet at the Vienna talks. The big question is, what will be the outcome of the negotiations, as despite 10 months since the talks began, it is not possible to forecast their results. Will the talks conclude ub an agreement, and if so, what kind of agreement will it be? If not, what are the regional consequences, and how can the region’s countries and the US act to prevent Iran from moving forward in its nuclear program?

Four participants took part in the panel. Senator Joseph Lieberman, Chairman of UANI, analyzed the American angle and declared that there are two possible scenarios, failure to achieve an agreement, or a bad agreement. He personally prefers the option of not reaching an agreement over a bad agreement and assesses that this will be the result. Dr. Ebtesam al-Ketbi, head of the Emirates Policy Center, brought up the desire of the region’s countries to take part in the negotiations in order to enable them to express their demands and concerns. In addition, she claimed that the JCPOA is already insufficient to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Ambassador Zvi Magen, head of the INSS Russia program, represented the Russian position, which supports Iran’s return to the nuclear deal but simultaneously holds that Iran has the right to continue a civilian nuclear program as well as its space and missile programs. Israel’s position was summarized by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin, who emphasized Iran’s recent major progress in its nuclear program, which includes the enrichment of uranium to high levels and accumulation of enough enriched material for a first bomb. According to Yadlin, former head of INSS and former head of IDF Military Intelligence, a “longer and stronger” agreement that the Biden administration hoped for is no longer relevant, and the only options for an agreement are a return to the 2015 agreement, which has lost parts of its effectiveness, or the “less for less” option that aims to stop Iran’s progress but not roll it back, with both of the options being very problematic. 

Brig. Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel spoke with INSS senior research fellow Ambassador Zvi Magen about the developments between Russia and Ukraine, against the background of the rising tension and the expected consequences on the level of the international system. On the question of whether Russia is expected to invade Ukrainian territory, Amb. Magen responded that no one knows how far Russia’s President Putin will go, including his inner circle. Nonetheless, Magen believes that Putin does not intend to get entangled in a large-scale war in Ukrainian territory. Dekel asked whether there are signs that can indicate that Russia has decided on a military attack, such as an influence campaign to harm the morale of Ukrainian troops. Magen responded that he expects subversive Russian actions, intelligence warfare, and psychological warfare as a preliminary stage of a military attack. According to him, Russia is trying to undermine Ukraine’s internal stability and attempting to take control of the government using subversive methods, with a civil war that will overthrow the regime. If this doesn’t succeed, the military option will arise. Dekel asked Magen whether in the eyes of the Russian public Ukraine should be part of Russia. Magen responded that a large portion of the Russian population indeed supports Putin and sees the breakup of the Soviet Union as one of the greatest disasters that occurred in the 20th century.

 

Finally, Dekel related to the recent joint Russian-Syrian flyover that passed through the skies of the Golan Heights; he asked Magen whether Russia is trying to exploit the crisis that has reached international proportions in order to change the rules of the game that have taken shape in the State of Israel’s northern arena. Magen responded that in his view, the flyover was directed against the United States. Its aim was to demonstrate to the United States that if it continues the pressure of the sanctions on Russia, then Moscow will have recourse to its extensive toolbox, beyond the borders of Ukraine and Europe, including in the Middle East. When it comes to Israel, Russia occasionally examines Israel’s operational boundaries with demonstrative measures, but avoids military confrontation with the IDF due to its assessment of Israel’s military capabilities and concern that escalation would harm the survival of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. 

As part of the INSS 15th Annual International Conference, a panel discussion was held on Will the United States Abandon the Middle East? The panel was moderated by Col. (res.) Adv. Pnina Sharvit Baruch, with the participation of Ms. Dana Stroul and Mr. David Schenker. The discussion addressed the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East.

With regard to the prevailing perception in the general public that the US is withdrawing from the Middle East and that this process can strengthen countries such as Russia, China, and Iran, the speakers emphasized that the US continues to maintain its central military and diplomatic presence in the region. Ms. Stroul emphasized that closer relations between countries in the region and other great powers such as Russia and China are not necessarily a zero-sum game that come at the expense of relations with the US, although on issues with a military impact on the US, such as technology and research and development, there is a need for honest dialogue. Mr. Schenker emphasized that the US has a central role in placing pressure on Iran, first on the nuclear issue, but also on other issues such as its support for armed militias.  

On the question of whether the US reluctance to use force and deploy its forces limits its influence in the region, it was noted that the Biden administration has made use of force on several occasions, including for the purpose of protecting allies and shared interests. Mr. Schenker noted, however, that how the US withdrew from Afghanistan harmed its credibility. Ms. Stroul clarified that it is important to explain to the American public the logic of the use of force, in light of the domestic discourse on the issue.

On the question of whether Israel will receive American support in the case of a war on the northern border that causes civilian casualties, the two participants emphasized the American support in previous campaigns. Mr. Schenker noted that support for Israel is still bipartisan, in particular in relation to Hezbollah and Iranian proxies.

As for fulfilling the potential of the Abraham Accords, Ms. Stroul noted that they can be a turning point in the region, including with respect to creating unity vis-à-vis Iran, and for civilian aspects such as tourism, business, and agriculture, and that the Biden administration wants to strengthen and expand the Accords to additional countries.

Regarding human rights issues, Mr. Schenker believed that the current administration is emphasizing the issue more on the declarative level, but in practice the policy is similar to the policy of the Trump administration, and a pragmatic approach is pursued that stems from understanding that there is a need to prioritize among various goals. Ms. Stroul emphasized that promoting human rights is on the administration’s agenda, and that some measures on the issue are carried out with countries covertly.

As for the fragile coalition in Israel, Ms. Stroul emphasized that the Biden administration is committed to the two-state solution, but understands that at the current time the sides are not ready for this. Consequently, there is a focus on steps that enable maintaining the possibility of renewing the negotiations in the future. Mr. Schenker believes that the administration is aware of the political situation in Israel, and consequently on certain issues such as opening an American consulate in East Jerusalem, it is exerting less pressure.

During the Annual Conference, INSS Managing Director Brig. Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel spoke with former Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and Chief of Staff Ehud Barak. On the Iranian nuclear issue, Barak noted that considering all the possible scenarios and consequences of the results of the negotiations with Iran, within months we could find ourselves alone in a reality in which Iran is a nuclear threshold state. Consequently, Israel has no choice but to take two actions: continuing to work to prevent this with the help of diplomacy, and simultaneously, preparing for a situation in which Iran is a nuclear threshold country. The understanding is that Iran will decide alone when it wants to possess nuclear weapons in practice.

Barak added that the real danger of a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran is not that of a nuclear attack. As in the case of North Korea, Iran is not expected to use the bomb, because it understands the consequences of such an action, but with the help of a nuclear bomb Iran will achieve immunity against military involvement in overthrowing the regime, will establish a kind of strategic balance of power with Israel, and will provide backing to the activity of its proxies in the Middle East. Barak clarified that for 50 years Israel has been engaged in preparing for a situation in which one of its neighbors in the first or second circle achieves nuclear weapons. The significance of a nuclear Iran is the collapse of the NPT regime (the treaty on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons), and then every dictator will be able to develop nuclear capability for himself. This could lead to a situation where in 20 years, a terrorist group will possess a nuclear device and will be able to send a simple bomb inside a container to the port of New York, Rotterdam, or Ashdod.

Regarding the question of Israel’s possible actions, Barak answered that if Israel doesn’t have the ability to carry out a surgical operation that delays Iran from having a nuclear bomb by two or three years, then it is not clear whether it is correct to attack Iran, because such an action could become Iran’s source of legitimacy to run full speed toward nuclear weapons. Barak said that even when the Iraqi reactor and the Syrian reactor were destroyed, the nuclear delay could not be estimated at more than three years, because both Iraq and Syria could pay a premium to the production company and build another reactor. In practice, Israel’s action erased the nuclear programs of those countries. 

On the Palestinian issue, Barak warned that the inability to say clearly where Israel is headed constitutes the avoidance of a fundamental question for our future. Israel cannot be both a Jewish and democratic state and permanently rule over the Palestinians in all of the territory of the West Bank. He emphasized that this would be the collapse of the Zionist project. In his opinion, the moment a government is formed that is more homogenous than the current one, it must clearly determine a boundary line within the Land of Israel, based on the route of the security barrier, where to the west a solid Jewish majority is maintained for generations. On this basis, Israel would agree to discuss a demilitarized and sustainable Palestinian state, with security control remaining in the hands of Israel in the entire territory.

On the issue of domestic challenges and the problem of governance, Barak said that the state’s authority over its citizens is a necessary condition for the existence of a normal society, and this must be imposed with an iron fist in every corner. The country cannot accept violence and disregard for the country’s laws.

Barak concluded by saying that he is optimistic. Israel is the strongest country in the region militarily and economically, Israel has a qualitative and technological edge, and the country’s leaders must act wisely with the American political system and US Jewry in order to receive backing and a diplomatic safety net.

Defense Minister Gantz at the INSS Annual Conference: Against the Backdrop of the Crisis in the Lebanese Army, Israel Relayed an Offer of Aid

Minister of Defense Benny Gantz closed the Annual Conference of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) with a pre-recorded speech, in which he referred to the implementation of the decisions made during the past year, which he presented as a year of decisions, and with their implementation, to the strategic opportunities on the agenda during the coming year.

Gantz revealed that the previous week he conveyed an offer through IDF figures via UNIFIL to provide specific aid to the Lebanese Army: “Lebanon has become an island of instability, unfortunately, and Lebanon’s citizens are not our enemies. Therefore, this year on four occasions I offered aid to Lebanon, including during the past week in a message conveyed to the commander of UNIFIL. In a focused manner we are seeking to aid the Lebanese Army, which suffers from a shortage of basic supplies and has lost over 5,000 soldiers, who have left it recently, in contrast with the increasing strength of Hezbollah with Iran’s direct support.”

Following this, the Minister of Defense related to developments in Syria: “We are monitoring the situation, and see Syria’s renewed connections with Jordan and other moderate countries in the region in a positive light. We will continue to prevent the Iranian entrenchment that is consuming Syria from the inside. This is a supreme interest of the Syrian nation and the Syrian regime – to stabilize, to remove the Iranian forces from its territory, and to enable the country to recover.”

Regarding the Iranian threat, Gantz said: “In the shadow of the negotiations taking place in Vienna, I am certain that the United States, from a perspective of global security and regional stability, will continue to work to stop the Iranian nuclear project. Our armies and defense establishments maintain constant contact and are currently advancing operative cooperation with respect to the possibility of an Iranian nuclear breakout.”

Regarding strengthening regional partnerships, Gantz said: “This year we turned the Abraham Accords from a statement of intent into a reality of economic and defense cooperation. These actions strengthen regional stability and create a moderate front that includes countries with whom the agreements have not yet come to fruition as partners. This year we will have many opportunities to strengthen these relations and Israel’s defense interests. This is the case with the countries of Europe who are helping considerably in efforts to curb Iran, as well as with additional countries in the Gulf and with Turkey. All of this is through a realistic perspective, in accordance with shared interests, while we maintain and strengthen our deep and important alliance with Greece and Cyprus.”

Brig. Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel, managing director of INSS