The bi-national state undermines its “Jewishness.” The Palestinian cause is more dangerous to Israel than the Iranian nuclear

While Israeli researchers and politicians saw the Palestinian issue as the most dangerous for their state, the participants in the Israeli “National Security” conference refrained from describing the “Iranian nuclear” as an existential threat, and chose to call it a regional strategic danger in an effort to push the idea of ​​forming a “regional defense alliance against Iran.”

Occupied Jerusalem- Estimates from the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Research at Tel Aviv University concluded that the Palestinian issue is more dangerous to Israel than the Iranian nuclear project, which was considered one of the most prominent challenges in the Middle East, at a time when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains at the core of Tel Aviv’s security challenges.

The conference – which was held in its 15th edition under the title “It is time for decisive decisions” over two days and ended on Wednesday – discussed the future challenges of Israel internally and externally.

He dealt with the readiness of Israeli society to take decisive decisions on internal issues related to the “Jewish state” and the conflict with the secular, the challenges facing democracy and the religious state that governs the Torah, and the tribal challenge in Israeli society.

Israeli assessments of security challenges depended on the northern front with Lebanon, where the Israelis fear the collapse of the Lebanese state due to the political closure, the influence of Hezbollah, and the economic crisis that afflicts it. Security assessments unanimously agree that this has negative repercussions on Israel, up to the point of confrontation and war.

Speakers at the annual conference of the Institute of “National Security” at Tel Aviv University (Israeli Press)

Peace conference.. or war on the fronts

The participants in the National Security Conference agreed on the absence of consensus among the Jews to end the conflict with the Palestinians and accept the two-state solution, which indicates a trend towards establishing one state for all between the sea and the river, and undermining the “Jewish state,” which was addressed through a simulation prepared by the Institute to examine the chances of implementing an initiative To convene an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Against the Jewish consensus on the threats of the northern front with Lebanon, and the possibility that the Vienna negotiations could lead to the United States returning to the nuclear agreement with Iran, the Israelis appear divided and without decisive decisions on the conflict with the Palestinians, according to former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot.

Eisenkot, during his review of the most prominent regional challenges facing Israel, questioned the efficacy and possibility of convening a regional peace conference, and attributed this to the tensions on several fronts and the possible war, whether with the Palestinians or on the northern front, and even with Iran.

The former chief of staff believes that trying to impose a peace plan or an international conference on Israel, and drag it to the negotiating table in a way that seems weak, is unacceptable to Israel, which wants to go to any international and regional initiatives and take any decisive decisions out of strength, and with an agenda that does not conflict with its security interests.

Losing hope

Director of the Institute for National Security Research, Udi Dekel says that the international community, such as Israel and the Palestinian Authority, “has lost all hope of finding a solution agreed upon in a peaceful manner between the two parties. Only incidents of violence and security escalation draw attention to the Israeli-Palestinian arena, after most of the International and regional actors pay attention to this issue.

Dekel explained that Israel used the coalition structure of the current government to make it clear that there is currently no possibility to promote and push for any political scheme, contrary to the international community, which agrees that “political action is needed as part of efforts to prevent escalation.”

He concluded by saying that it was the United States that set the rules of the game, and did not abandon Israel and protected it from an uncomfortable decision without the need to exercise the right of veto. Against what he described as Israel’s isolation in the international arena, the United States was the only stronghold that supported it.

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni:" Emotional and populist statements may bring political gains, but we will all pay the price"Former Prime Minister Livni believes that the establishment of a Palestinian state will preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state (Al-Jazeera)


In an in-depth reading of the challenges facing Israel and its internal and regional future, the former Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, returned to the internal reality in which Israel is living, saying, “Before going to an international peace conference, the question must be asked: What is Israel’s vision for the future, especially with regard to the Palestinian issue?” .

The former prime minister emphasized that the establishment of a Palestinian state would preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, otherwise there would be a single state or a bi-national state between the sea and the river, knowing that after years it is estimated that the Palestinians will be the most.

Livni, who is a member of the Administrative Committee at the Institute for National Security Research, says that “Israel does not have any vision regarding the Palestinian issue, which is the biggest problem for the Israelis, who do not have an internal consensus on the Jewishness of the state, an end to the conflict with the Palestinians and a two-state solution.”

She explains that the nature and identity of the state remained unresolved, noting that the approach of successive Israeli governments established a single state or a bi-national state between the sea and the river, “and this is the greatest danger to the Jewishness of the state.” And in her belief, “there is no consensus except on the concern of the common enemy, which could be any party in the Middle East.”

common enemy

On the subject of “the common enemy”, a lecture entitled “Iranian threats and the Vienna negotiations” dealt with the Iranian nuclear project, its danger and strategic repercussions on the Middle East.

The conference participants refrained from describing the “Iranian nuclear” as an existential threat to Israel, and chose to describe it as a regional strategic danger, in an effort by the “National Security Research Institute” to push the idea of ​​forming a “regional defense alliance against Iran.”

This proposal was adopted by the former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Division, Amos Yadlin, who stressed that Israel is required to push for a regional alliance with America and the “moderate” Arab countries and sign joint defense treaties to confront Iran, limit its military position and undermine its regional influence.

Yadlin explained that there is almost unanimity in the world that Iran is a nuclear “threshold country”, even with Washington, which is still betting on diplomacy and refraining from using its capabilities to destroy the Iranian nuclear program in anticipation of a comprehensive war in which the great powers, most notably China and Russia, will intervene alongside Tehran.

He also points out that Israel had experiences in attacking Iraq in 1981 and hitting the nuclear reactor, as well as attacking the Syrian reactor in 2007 “without this leading to an all-out war.”

In the Iranian case, Yadlin believes that in addition to employing diplomacy, Washington should also threaten to use military force if Iran remains committed to its “extremist” positions, by directing strikes and carrying out localized attacks without leading to a third world war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.