How Israel Can Minimize Existential Threats Against It. By Yehezkel Dror.

How Israel can minimize existential threats against it. By Yehezkel Dror. Haaretz, November 21, 2013. Also here.

Dror:

Israel, like many other countries, often uses the term “vital interests.” Yet this phrase is vague and is often a source of contention. This is precisely why the term is suitable for diplomacy and public relations, but when it is used in the context of government or state affairs, “vital interests” must be clearly defined, with a focus on critical interests.

 

Israel’s top priority, though not its only one, is to prevent existential threats to the country. Israel is among the few states in the world facing existential danger. Due to the fierce opposition to its existence among many in the Arab and Islamic worlds, the possibility exists of a lethal attack against Israel – in the event that a fanatical enemy gets its hands on nuclear or more innovative biological weapons. Therefore, minimizing this risk to the greatest extent possible is Israel’s top priority.

 

Achieving this requires four grand strategies: Preventing hostile groups from acquiring means that could endanger our existence; maintaining total deterrence – including sending an unequivocal message that anyone threatening Israel’s existence will be annihilated; preserving and strengthening Israel’s special relationship with the United States; and reducing the reasons for such threats against Israel, mainly by advancing real peace with our neighbors.

 

Israel is doing a good job with regard to the first three strategies listed above. It is making an impressive effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (even if it may have been preferable to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities a year ago while pursuing a comprehensive peace deal). At the same time, Pakistan also has nuclear weapons, and without appropriate global enforcement, there is no long-term guarantee that fanatic states or terrorist groups can be prevented from obtaining weapons that pose an existential threat to Israel.

 

Hence the cardinal importance of deterrence. Israel’s ambiguity with regard to its alleged nuclear program is the correct policy and establishes a credible image of deterrence. However, the effectiveness of deterrence isn’t fool-proof, especially when facing enemies who will do their utmost – including sacrificing themselves – simply to kill Jews.

 

The special relationship Israel has with the U.S. remains strong, however it’s impossible to guarantee it will continue in the same vein under any and all circumstances. American interests are not always identical to Israeli ones – just look at the disagreements on the Iranian issue for example. U.S. support for Israel may decrease due to changes in the former’s global standing, changes in its domestic politics and opposition to Israeli policies. Therefore, we must acknowledge our dependence on the U.S. and work to strengthen ties with it – even if that entails steps that Israel may not like, so long as they don’t endanger Israel’s existence or core values. Overall, unless Israel makes any major missteps, it can rely on U.S. backing.

 

As far as the fourth strategy goes – seeking a comprehensive peace – Israel fares poorer. While the agreements with Egypt and Jordan have proven themselves in terms of security matters, Israel still does not adequately recognize the importance of a comprehensive regional peace as a critical component of its national security – even if its stability is not fully ensured in this volatile region.

 

It is doubtful whether Israel is willing to pay the price required for an agreement with the Palestinians, even if they back down from unreasonable demands. At the same time, the Palestinian issue, as important as it is, is not critical to Israel’s existential security. What is more critical is the absence of an overall Israeli strategy for achieving regional peace and improving its relations with Islamic nations and groups. Some efforts are being made, but they are far from the critical mass required for reducing the long-term existential dangers posed by the deep-rooted rejection of our existence in the “Dar al-Islam” (“Home of Islam”).

 

This serious failure stems from sharp disagreements about values perceived as critical for Israel’s future. Many regard the settlements in Judea and Samaria and exclusive Israeli control over all of Jerusalem as an existential interest, while many others regard the advancement of peace as a more important concern.

 

Israel’s Achilles’ heel is its inability to decide – socially, politically and among its leaders – on these difficult dilemmas, and this could pose its greatest existential threat. It leads to procrastination in terms of statecraft, instead of initiatives to seek a comprehensive regional peace that is essential to Israel’s long-term security. Eliminating this dangerous “black hole” in Israeli statecraft depends mainly on the leadership of the prime minister.