If we zoom out from the harrowing crimes endured by Israeli citizens and detach ourselves from the profound anguish and despair, a distinct picture unfolds, marking a pivotal juncture in Israel's history. This is a moment demanding the Israeli people to make difficult decisions.
There are several characteristics of the Israeli approach that can be seen as responsible for the recent failures in Israel. The Israeli mentality views all structures, from the constitutional structure to the borders of the state – as temporary. The thought that time plays in our favor has encouraged a pattern of inaction that has characterized many governments – "sit and do not act." The principle that inaction is the best action has permeated all levels, from regional strategy through policy, especially in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we maintain the status quo, they thought, the Palestinian national movement will die out and disappear on its own.
Instead of seeing this approach as one reflecting cowardice or conservatism, thought leaders introduced the concept of ambiguity to the discourse, to give it a nuance of sophistication. From nuclear strategy to the question of Israel's constitutional structure, ambiguity allowed significant room for legal maneuvering. Not without reason, in the face of such a worldview, a "definitive" approach also developed among extremist elected officials and among the axis of evil (Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah). We fled the need to make ultimate decisions and were caught unprepared on the black Saturday of October 7. Now, we are must re-examine and make fundamental decisions about the Israeli reality.
We live in a tough neighborhood. It is similar to a pot sitting on the stove, sometimes on low heat, other times on high heat. Netanyahu's policy was to raise the heat to the highest levels, to encourage extremists on both sides – to strengthen Hamas and weaken the Palestinian Authority, to strengthen the supporters of Kahanism and turn centrists into traitors. The thought was that the high temperature would eventually evaporate the rivals, without the need for real resolution. Unfortunately, the pot exploded, and since then we have learned that the temporary arrangement must end. Interestingly, the perceptions of both the right and the left collapsed – the right now understands that there is no peace for peace, and that the Palestinian problem exists; and the left understands that Palestinian self-rule will end in chaos and violence.
As a first step, we must act in the opposite way and deliberately and actively lower the flame and reduce the scope and intensity of the conflict.
We must fight uncompromisingly against extremists and encourage moderates with the intention of leading to a political settlement. We will end our control over the Palestinians, but not for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, because now it is clear that such a state will continue to perpetuate and exacerbate the levels of violence in the region. Since the Palestinians are not ready to rule themselves, the West Bank and Gaza must be reassigned to an international mandate, led by Arab states. Gaza should come under Egyptian control, which will grant it special autonomous semi-city-state status. The West Bank should have Palestinian autonomy under Jordanian sovereignty.
Such a solution requires a serious geopolitical approach. Israel is not part of the Middle East, it cannot integrate into it culturally or nationally. However, cold, pragmatic political agreements, similar to the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt, are imperative if we want to isolate and eliminate the extremists on the Palestinian side.
Iran of today has geographical and economic continuity eastward all the way to China, and it constantly seeks to push and expand toward the Mediterranean Sea. Israel does not possess the same strategic depth, but what could perhaps replace it, is the connection to the West. Strengthening ties with Europe and pursuing membership in a regional defense alliance can provide Israel with a similar strategic depth. Such an alliance would be the defense umbrella that other countries in the Middle East, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, need in the face of Iranian pressure. Within the framework of regional defense, these countries would also have an interest in taking control over Palestinian autonomy in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. As has been proven, the Palestinian extremists have the power to destabilize and endanger the regimes of the moderate countries.
The most crucial part of this Israeli strategic thought is fortification of the Israeli state. On October 7, we learned that a highly developed and resourceful military, growing from a fractured, sick society, would not be able to realize its full potential. As our enemy understood, a torn society cannot function effectively when faced with a sudden and enveloping attack. The success of Hamas's attack is evidence of Israel's internal weakness. Therefore, any Israeli strategy must take as an axiom the understanding that Israel's national security is rooted first and foremost in internal resilience.
Fortifying internal resilience is the iron wall of Israel. The enhancement of internal resilience in Israel encompasses a sequence of structural reforms with the goal of fortifying the state's institutions and aligning Israel's character and structure closely with that of Western republics. The political ethos of the West, underpinned by the principle that citizens are sovereign and that government operates within the bounds of a constitution with comprehensive oversight and control mechanisms over governmental policies, creates a strong state.
As we proposed in an Israeli Covenant we authored, structural reforms in Israel should encompass a variety of measures. Firstly, the establishment of an Israeli civic identity for the state. During the attack on October7, there was no differentiation; various groups within the population were targeted. The common denominator shaping our collective destiny is a formal document called the Identity Document. Such a perspective necessitates the separation of religion from the state, since the state is an image representing all its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, religious or secular.
Moreover, a reform of the electoral system is required and a transition to a regional electoral system, which will give representation to all parts of society. A new regional regime is also required, to which powers will be delegated from the government, because now we see how dysfunctional the state is while the local authorities manage day-to-day life in Israel. After implementing these conditions, we can talk about writing an Israeli constitution that will make Israel a country with effective mechanisms for the agreed resolution of social disputes.
Historical crisis, in its nature, accelerates processes. We should not let this crisis go to waste but take the opportunity to carry out structural reforms and forcefully lead Israel to a new promising era.
*The writer is the head of the Institute for Israeli Thought and lectures at Ono Academic College