Current Affairs

Having read Yair Lapid’s argument for change in Israel there is one lesson and that is not to take anything coming out of the mouth of Netanyahu as having any value when in  negotiation. In announcing Trump’s proposal for his 20 point peace plan, there is a realisation that Netanyahu had decided to destroy the essence of the plan from day one. The integral argument of Netanyahu spoken in Hebrew not English, (as though there aren’t translators or AI bots that won’t translate) was that he has no intention of agreeing to disengagement.

The essence of the plan is that the IDF withdrawal to pre-determined lines allowing Gaza to get medicine and food supplies into the strip, which Gaza desperately needs. So if the argument is that there is going to be drawn-out negotiation in Egypt, the negotiations will be a challenge to Netanyahu’s coalition. In Hebrew Netanyahu argued that Israel was going to consolidate its position and for his supporters not to worry as nothing was going to change. It is extraordinary that Trump did not pick up on the nuances of Netanyahu’s interpretation of how the 20 point plan could be managed, when there are so many variables coming from the Israeli cabinet.

There is a language that Netanyahu understands and that is being ignored by the US, and if the President does not pick up the phone and give him access to the White House, Netanyahu’s ability to make demands and manipulate Trump to sabotage the agreement will be negated. If Trump wants the Noble peace prize then he needs to start consulting other party leaders in the Knesset, (whether he will want to hear these voices is a question that needs to be asked) essentially building a broad consensus within the Knesset, building a body of arguments and speakers willing to underpin the essence of Trump’s plan to the Israeli public. 

Though the plan is being accepted as a proposal that may have some consensus within Israel, Yair Lapid argues that Israeli society is still in shock from the events of 7^th October. But there has to be a realisation that what makes the Israeli state so powerful in the Middle East, is not just the backing of US assets, but also European historical relationships not just in the Middle East but also the wider world. 

This may not make sense to Israelis or US, but Europe has promoted Israel extensively with a relationship that has provided the Israeli state with the resources to manage its economy. Any challenge to Israel’s financial well-being will of course be met with rebuke from Washington, but it was no accident that Netanyahu argued for a Spartan state that would isolate the state from the world and international markets. 

However, Netanyahu’s argument for a Spartan economy was quickly destroyed after the stock market fell 20 points as investors became jittery that Israel could not withstand international pressure if it was isolated from world markets. It was also a sign that Israel is dependent on international markets rather than the internal market, which caused the slide in the stock market and led to the cabinet understanding that a Spartan state would be a market where currency variations would be dominant and the internal market would experience hyper-inflation caused by the states isolation. 

Trump is arguing that Israel will become an integral market within the Middle East and that the Accords that have so far been impossible to get, will in future come into play. It may not be in Netanyahu’s play-book to accept that Israel is part of the wider Middle East, but the possibilities for the state in these markets will enable Israel to find  wealth that would enable it to prosper and gain a peace the state has not experienced.

Of course Israel is not in any position to meet the Saudi demands for a Palestinian state, but the opportunity to build from the elements in the 20 Point peace agreement will in future create foundations for Israel/Palestinian talks, a possible peace treaty and a Palestinian state. It is not so much that Israel doesn’t have many options, because all the peace treaties that have been put forward in the past have been sabotaged by Netanyahu. But the trap is whether Israel will reach any accord, which is the main question coming from Trump’s deal. But the idea of becoming a self exiled state challenges the future, democratically (if the West Bank is annexed), physically if the state becomes isolated or is marginalised through arguments that the state is no longer a democracy due to the presence of Palestinians in greater Israel.

The short sightedness of politicians who endorse a greater Israel is the question of democracy and whether the arguments they present can contain Palestinians within so called homelands, based on the apartheid South African model. The questions that would be asked would challenge the Israeli state significantly, already Israelis practice a system verging on apartheid through different coloured number plates, identity cards signifying ethnicity, which forces Palestinians into security queues before they can get to school, university or work. 

There are also questions of land confiscation, which are happening now in the West Bank. Settlers with guns are forcing Palestinians from land they have farmed for generations and though Palestinians have provided documentation to the authorities that they own the land, settlers at gunpoint (with the connivance of the state) are forcing the Palestinian farmers off their own land. There have been attacks on communities and rogue Israeli supremacists are wildly killing anybody who argues with the settler community taking the land illegally.

Israel has lost the moral high ground, it is being humiliated around the world as more countries recognise a two state solution. The hard headed politicians in Israel are squeezing the life blood from its position as an industrial, commercial and artisan community that has managed to create a state through international investment. 

Questions are surrounding the military, politicians and the prime minister and their ability to manage the events on 7th October, is more a political argument created by the failure of government and its disinvestment from low tech military resources. The supremacy of the Israeli military economic argument has been questioned and though the intelligence community gained success in Lebanon and Iran, the failure of the high tech intelligence community in Gaza is very much at the forefront of political arguments that will take place in the coming years.

Where Israel goes from here is very much in the air. It really needs a new outlook that will take the state on a brave voyage around the Middle East, which will ultimately be its destination as a future commercial, industrial and creative power. But it will take a strong Knesset to manage the machinations of a messianic class that does not recognise the states many short comings. If the state does not look outwardly and concentrates on all that differentiates the individual from the Palestinian argument, then those who refuse to be part of the argument will be lost, (Palestinian and Israeli), and those with a harder interpretation of a peace settlement will be empowered by an economy and state entangled in internecine fighting that rips the country apart.