The Middle East needs a stable Israel

Amitava Mukherjee

(amitavamukherjee253@gmail.com)

At the end of the 1948 war, when the newly-born state of Israel virtually defeated the combined attacks from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Palestinian Arabs, John Bagot Glubb, or Glubb Pasha, as he was widely known, the Commander of Transjordan’s Arab Legion, the most powerful army in the then Middle East, commented that unless the Arab countries could transform their socio-political structure and desist from internecine struggles rather than fighting Zionism, prospects for Arab nationalism vis-à-Israel would be bleak.

Today, the yardstick cannot be the same in judging the outcome of the ongoing war between Israel and the Hamas, which rules in the Gaza Strip. Israel is militarily way ahead of other Arab nations, some of whom have borne the brunt of the Israeli stick and, as a result, are too willing to make up with Tel Aviv. But Israeli society and politics are now vertically divided, which has finally made the seemingly impossible possible. The fact that Hamas could muster the courage to strike merrily inside Israel stems to a great extent from the cleavage that current Israeli politics now presents.

There is another pertinent angle. Israel is a multi-party democracy in a region full of kingdoms and autocratic rulers. So, for the sake of progressive pluralism, the existence of a democratic Israel is necessary. But Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has a tinge of theocracy. This runs contrary to Israel’s long years of democracy. So, not only the terrorist ideas of Hamas and Hezbollah, but churning within Israel is also a cause for sudden outbursts of violence in the Middle East.

Let us first look at the internal turmoil that Israel has been passing through. The reason for it has been provided by Netanyahu’s coalition government, the one that preceded the present national unity government in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu himself belongs to the Likud Party, an organization known for Zionist religious conservatism. But balance in state administrative affairs, enunciated by Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, and later followed by Shimom Peres, was largely absent during Netanyahyu’s stewardship. Both Ben Gurion and Peres were from the Labour Party, and it is no coincidence that the gradual petering out of the Labour Party’s influence in Israeli society has contributed to the growth of severe schism in the Zionist state.

Netanyahu’s coalition is composed of not only rightist parties but ultra-orthodox ones too. Three names can be cited here whose presence in the coalition has raised deep resentment among a large section of Israeli citizens. They are Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism Party), Itamar Ben Gvir (Jewish Power), and Aryeh Deri (Shas Party). Of them, Bezalel Smotrich ardently advocates for the expansion of Jewish settlements, supports the annexation of West Bank areas, and wants to align Israeli social practices with traditional Jewish religious law. Ben Gvir was convicted in 2007 for inciting racism and supporting terrorism. Smotrich is Israel’s finance minister as well as a minister within the defence ministry with some responsibilities over the West Bank administration, and Ben Gvir, the country’s national security minister, speaks volumes for the actual goal of Netanyahu’s administration.

Whatever the turn of the war scenario, Israel as a state is under severe internal strain, which is not good for the Middle East. It is inevitable, as Zionism has always relied on orthodox Jewish tenets for sustenance. This is the reason why a secular and practical man like David Ben Gurion had compromised with orthodox Jewry. Again, this is also the reason why Israel has deliberately kept the relationship between the church and the state in a vague and grey area.

Israel has no written constitution, and the country relies on norms and mores. This can also be explained as a deliberate state policy, as any written constitution would have to clearly state the position of religion in state matters. The country has not decided whether members of the ultra-orthodox sects should serve in the army or not. There are also no set rules to decide the relationship between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian Arab minority community.

These gaps in state policies may stand in the way of stability in the Middle East. Netanyahu has made the situation worse. In his attempt to curtail the power of the judiciary to block any government decision on grounds of’reasonableness’, the Israeli Prime Minister has alienated the lion’s share of his country’s population. Thousands of people have come out to protest against the government’s surreptitious attempt. It was an attempt to drive the last nail into the already strained Israeli democracy’s coffin.

Hamas has utilised this chance. Israeli military intelligence had forewarned the government about such a possibility. That warning had come in the early part of this year. According to the military intelligence department, the “anti-Israeli axis led by Iran,” including Hezbollah and Hamas, appears to be emboldened by Israeli domestic discord and some purported Israel-US differences. This last point is very important, and it has also contributed to Hamas reaching a final decision to carry out armed attacks on Israel. Netanyahu was indiscreet enough to interfere with US foreign policy. Through his old contacts in the US administration, the present Prime Minister of Israel has vigorously opposed Barack Obama’s efforts to strike a nuclear agreement with Iran. Although, with the victory of Donald Trump, the structure of US administration changed after Barack Obama, Netanyahu’s aggressive campaigning against a particular US foreign policy initiative did not endear him to US diplomats.

Apparently, the Israeli intelligence system has not found Iranian involvement in the Hamas attack. However, a US Congressional Research Service (CRS) paper from September 2023 quotes a media report that says that Iran and its allies are not “necessarily interested in a direct, all-out clash” but are “willing to risk more daring offensive operations”. This is exactly what Hamas did in southern Israel. If the CRS report is read between the lines, then it would appear that Iran’s recent diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East may have been undertaken to provide Hamas with an advantageous grounding situation before its daring operations. Referring to the abovementioned media report, the CRS paper went on to say that “Iran may calculate that it has bolstered its position vis-à-vis Israel and the United States because Iran and the Syrian regime have improved their relations with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab governments”. The thing that immediately comes to mind is the Iran-Saudi Arabian rapprochement, brokered by China.

Israel is the fourth-happiest country on earth after Finland, Denmark, and Iceland. Every Israeli political leader should see to it that his country continues to remain happy because only a happy Israel can make the turbulent Middle East calm and peaceful.