Peace with the Palestinians a low priority at Herzliya Conference

Israel’s annual Herzliya Conference sees national policy articulated by the country’s military, political, and security elite. The issues raised at the conference reflect public debate, and go on to shape that debate for the year ahead. In the past, the government has adopted numerous Herzliya Conference reports and recommendations as official policy. That means it is an important event for those, internationally and elsewhere in the region, concerned with Israel’s policy over the coming year.

This year’s three-day conference concluded yesterday, 10th June. At the conference, five politicians presented their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While they all broadly agreed that the status quo could not continue as it is, there were vastly different views on how this change should come about. At the two different ends of the debate were two ministers from the ruling coalition, Naftali Bennett (the economy minister) and Tzipi Livni (the justice minister). Bennett, of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party, reiterated his argument that the West Bank is an inseparable part of Israel, arguing that the government should annex its settlements there. Livni, on the other hand, argued that Israel could remain a Jewish democracy only if settlements were dismantled and cleared.

This illustrates the cracks in the current ruling coalition, which contains a remarkably diverse range of political parties and views. Bennett and Livni each called the other “delusional”. It has been speculated that Livni’s party may withdraw from the coalition and form a left-wing bloc in parliament. Her speech, in which she said she was “tired of being politically correct” about settlements, seemed to support this.

Other views put forward included Finance Minister Yair Lapid’s suggestion of staged withdrawal from the West Bank, on the basis that the continued failure to find a two state solution could lead to Israel’s destruction. He said that if the government annexed the West Bank – as Bennett suggested – his party would topple the government. He also said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was personally responsible for the decline in relations with the US. There was also a call for a more aggressive approach to negotiations from Labour party chairman Isaac Herzog. Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon and Interior Minister Gideon Saar, both members of the ruling Likud party, blamed the recent failure of US-brokered peace talks on the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and dismissed the idea of territorial compromise.

All the politicians who spoke about the conflict with the Palestinians noted major changes over the last year, such as the collapse of peace talks, and the subsequent unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.

Interestingly, while the politicians debated questions of Zionism, domestic policy, and international legitimacy, military officials barely acknowledged the Palestinian question. Instead, the army representatives who spoke focused on instability in the wider region: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. In his speech, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) chief of staff, Benny Gantz, warned: “We’re in a Middle East that’s undergoing a jolt. Dramatic instability is a constant in this region and we need to be ready.” Discussing the ongoing civil war in Syria, Gantz said that while it was unlikely that Israel would get directly involved in the war, it was possible that terrorist networks operating in the country would target Israel. He said that there were “huge strategic capabilities in the hands of the Syrian Army that can reach the terrorist organizations.”

One issue that nearly all conference speakers were agreed on was the potential threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Most speakers were skeptical about talks between western powers and Iran, aimed at scaling back Iran’s nuclear programme. “It’s clear to use that this regime has not given up the option of a nuclear military capability and is striving towards it,” said Yaalon. “And it thinks it will succeed in this through negotiations with the west and a charm offensive.” The strategic affairs minister, Yuval Steinitz, a Likud member, said that a nuclear-armed Iran was a bigger threat than the stalemate with the Palestinians. He set out a scenario in which, ten years from now, Iran has a nuclear weapon and other states – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey – are starting their own nuclear programmes too. He said that Israel was frantically working to stop western powers from signing a “bad deal” with Iran.

The only divergent note on Iran came from Brigadier-General Itai Brun, the military intelligence’s chief analyst, who said that that Iran was honouring a November interim agreement that Netanyahu has previously condemned as an “historic mistake” by the west. Brun added that he believed Iran was “serious-minded” about talks.

Overall, the conference showed Israel’s political left-wing beginning to find its voice again to make the arguments for a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It showed that the debate between ultra-nationalist settler politicians and this left-wing faction is only likely to get more heated. And it demonstrated that, for the military establishment, the question of peace with the Palestinians is a low priority, given the risks emanating from Syria and Iran.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.