Greg Rosshandler is a respected Australian businessman of Jewish descent. On the websites of many Israeli non-profit organizations he is named as one of their sponsors and described as " an ardent supporter of the preservation of the State of Israel."

One of the think tanks supported by Rosshandler is the Jerusalem Institute For Strategy and Security (JISS). A few days ago, it published a banner on its website with a disturbing statement: "Israel should prepare for war and politicians should come to their senses. Warning from JISS." The banner was linked to a short article ending with the Latin maxim "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

One can assume that Rosshandler approved this dramatic summons. And, if so, one can also assume, on the threshold of the 75th anniversary of the state's establishment, that in the minds of many people, the descendants of those who won it, "preservation of the state" is now not so completely assured. How did this come about?

Let it be an Arab terrorist...

The cause stems from a combination of external and internal factors, the most important of which is the conflict over the reform of the state judiciary. It has been going on almost from the very onset of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. In his article about the conflict, Michael Oren, a New York-born American Jew who, having moved to Israel, rose to the post of Israel’s ambassador to the United States, resorted to risqué rhetoric while describing how one night he was awoken by the sound of siren alarms. His first thought, he admitted, was: "God, let it be a terrorist!"

Israel has been used to terrorist attacks for decades. What Oren and his family feared most was an internal clash. Oren wrote his article in the early days of March, a time when tension in the country was reaching its zenith. Many feared that this time the conflict would sharpen to the point where Israelis would start killing Israelis.

I am not going to go into the details of the dispute over judicial reform in Israel. Suffice it to say that over the past three decades or so, the Israeli Supreme Court has been gradually expanding its powers at the expense of the political world. Many politicians have become increasingly convinced that this must be stopped. Finally, when Netanyahu's last government came to power, his party's strongly right-wing coalition partners made their participation conditional, insisting that the autocracy of the president of the Supreme Court had to be reined in and reduced.

The violent protests that followed were partly driven by a general dislike of the government and Netanyahu himself (not to mention his religious and conservative coalition partners, who are almost physically repugnant to liberal voters) and partly by genuine fears that the planned reform would go too far and instead of setting reasonable limits, would muzzle the Court, making it subordinate to the politicians.

It was also important that members of the secular part of Israeli society, who to some extent can be described as the spiritual heirs of the state's founders, perceived the Supreme Court as an ally in the clash with the growing strength of the Ultra Orthodox Jews. We will return to the issue of this division later.

The upshot was that a dispute that feasibly might have been dealt with in the context of routine parliamentary procedure moved instead out onto the streets. The result revealed a dramatic social division. Netanyahu had to withdraw, whether permanently or temporarily, as the conflict reached the army and threatened the security of the country.

And that is why the former Israeli ambassador to the US,  a man named by the Jerusalem Post as one of the ten most influential Jews in the world, awakened from his sleep by nocturnal alarms, invoked God in expressing hope that the cause would be an ordinary attack by an Arab terrorist and not Jews shooting Jews.

The Middle East is losing importance

This conflict was observed with great concern in what for Israel is the most important country in the world, the United States. The accusation that the ruling parties sought to dismantle the entrenched judicial system, i.e., implicitly, dismantle the democratic system, was taken extremely seriously in Washington. The Biden administration, its support for democracy in the world a flagship policy, could not be indifferent to the fact that Israel, previously considered an island of democracy in a sea of Arab autocracies, was suddenly being perceived as almost a dictatorship.

As usual, the concern of the political elites was expressed with customary restraint. Prime Minister Netanyahu was still invited to the Summit For Democracy 2023, even participating in one of the main discussion panels. However, some of the remarks uttered at the summit by US analysts will undoubtedly define the framework of dialogue between the two countries in the future.

It will not be easy to return to harmonious relations mindful that the American side said that while "relations with Israel are special, they can be destroyed." Their author, Paul Poast, who is associated with the major Chicago Council think tank run by former US ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, cited two main considerations that might cause Washington to view its relations with Israel as no longer "special". One of these concerns related to a possible time when "Israel will cease to be a democracy."

Such a statement referred clearly to the conflict over the judiciary. Part of the US elite has taken over the rhetoric of Israelis protesting against the reform of the judiciary, those who equated the status of the Supreme Court with the existence of democracy.

Poast also raised a second fundamental point, namely that Israel cannot afford to undermine political stability in the region. An important element in building this stability is the achievement of a political solution allowing for the creation of a separate and viable Palestinian state.

Poast drew attention to the fact that there is growing sympathy for the Palestinians in American society, especially among the young generation. He also quoted the results of a survey, according to which most respondents supported a two-state solution. This means that in the future, more and more Americans will be unwilling to give governments in Jerusalem carte blanche for any kind of policy, which might lead to the eventual end of the "special relationship" and public approval of such a change.

    SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE 
     In other presentations, further arguments have appeared as to why it might not make sense to continue relations as they are. Their authors contended for example that Israel is a rich country and that financial support for it no longer has a raison d'être. Moreover, since it is a country with nuclear weapons and a strong and efficient army, it does not need military support either. Added to this, a possible crisis around Taiwan would involve US forces and resources to an extent that is difficult to imagine and assess accurately. 

There is a further reason why it will not be easy to return to harmonious relations between Jerusalem and Washington, one that involves a fundamental switch in American politics. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Middle East is losing the primary importance it has held for the United States over the decades. To a large extent, this is due to the fact that crude oil, for so long the life blood of the world's economic circulation, has gradually become less significant.

In the coming decades, the huge amounts of money the Biden administration has been pumping into energy transition will result in Middle Eastern oil ceasing to play the fundamental role it had in the 1970s, when OPEC turned off the tap and caused a global crisis. Today, the minerals necessary for the production of electric batteries and solar panels are rapidly becoming as important as oil. They are located elsewhere and other countries control access to them.

Perhaps it was this process that made Washington so calm about Iran's China-sponsored deal with Saudi Arabia. Perhaps that is why President Biden could afford such an openly hostile attitude towards the Saudi ruler, whom, before he was elected president, he once called a pariah.

There is a bipartisan consensus in the US Congress about China's extreme importance. Assisting Ukraine's defence against Russia, which has renewed US involvement in Europe, has become a part of the rivalry between the US and China.

Thus, a two-track changeover process is taking place. From having been Israel's most loyal ally, the US is changing into a mere ally. Meanwhile, Israel, once Washington's irreplaceable ally in a key region of the world, is becoming no more than an important ally in a once vital region, that is gradually slipping into the category of being just one of a number of important regions.

Americans were not the only ones expressing concern about the state of democracy in Israel. Calls to support the protests also rang out in Europe. One that featured on the website of the European Policy Center think tank was an attempt to prove in a somewhat twisted way that "supporting democratic values is not meddling in internal affairs."

However, the appeal, while in essence similar to many of the other calls to preserve democracy that had appeared at the beginning of the year, differed in that it contained a singularly significant word in its final paragraph, which urged the European Union not to play the role of a spectator in this dispute. Seemingly, the authors of the text deliberately used the word "bystander", which is commonly used in the context of Holocaust, where, according to one school of research, those involved were divided into three categories: "perpetrators, victims and bystanders".

Therefore it is impossible to resist the impression that the authors implicitly intended to add more drama to the current situation and push Europe into action by generating a moral leverage and comparing the attitude of current politicians to the events of the past. The appeal sounded a bit false, or at least very disturbing.

Liberals like to eat well

The biggest threat to Israel is, of course, Iran. The rhetoric of its leaders, who for decades have been talking about the destruction of Israel ("Great Satan-America's watch dog") has recently taken on a disturbing veracity. While Iranian politicians shouting about the annihilation of Israel at a time when they had no more than tanks and guns might arouse just a pitying smile, they sound completely different now that their country is actually about to approach the moment of obtaining nuclear weapons.

I am not going to play prophet and judge as to whether Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is simply a quest to protect the country from possible attack, as many observers claim. What is important to me is that this aspiration is a fact, a reality. The 2015 nuclear deal was only delaying, and not preventing, the process of acquiring fissile material. Sooner or later Iran will be able to produce warheads. It already has missile technology. When this does happen, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv will face destruction.

The call to "prepare for war", that I quoted at the beginning of this article, refers to this threatened eventuality. Israel has already successfully stopped a nuclear program in an enemy country once. In 1981, it attacked a reactor in Iraq with a fighter strike. Despite the fact that the technological disparity between the Israeli army and armies of other countries in the region has since decreased greatly while the risks associated with launching such an operation are now significantly higher, it is possible that a similar action is currently being planned at the military forces HQ in Tel Aviv.

Voices calling for an attack before Iran has the opportunity to strike first are growing stronger, and it may turn out that Israel's leadership will face a dilemma similar to that before the Six-Day War in 1967.

But then, less than 20 years after the establishment of the state, Israel's social cohesion and willingness to act in defense of independence were on a completely different level. It is appropriate now to return to the fundamental division revealed by the conflict over the reform of the judiciary at the beginning of this year -- the division that Michael Oren, quoted earlier, described as "tectonic".

Its essence lies in the fact that the secular descendants of the Zionists who won the state are increasingly in retreat. They are the ones who, when asked how they celebrate Passover, say that they like this holiday because they like to eat well.

Such an approach causes horror among religious Jews. Both sides call themselves Jews, have the same ancestry and citizenship, but increasingly treat each other as aliens. The former serve in the army defending the entire country, while the latter are exempt from military service.

Orthodox don't fight

In the book "Jerusalem",  describing the military situation in the months preceding the declaration of the creation of Israel, author Simon Sebag Montefiore writes how "in early 1948, the Jewish quarter of the Old City was under siege, and the defense was hampered by the large number of Orthodox Jews who did not participate in the fight." The city of David was defended by 213 Haganah, Irgun and Palmach fighters. As meticulously reported by Montefiore, 39 of them died and 134 were injured. Of the 27 synagogues that existed there, 22 were demolished.

Apart from evoking the memory of the commander of the Arab Legion, General Glubb, who captured the city, and that the white flag was brought to him by "two old rabbis with their backs bowed with age", there is no mention of how the Orthodox Jews reacted to the defeat. Nineteen years later, after the Six-Day War, Jews regained access to the Western Wall and were able to start rebuilding synagogues around Hurva Square.

Today, in the traditional Jewish Quarter of the Old Town, you can again encounter traditionally dressed men and boys hurrying to study the Torah, and during Shabbat, festively dressed families with lots of playful children. Again, as was the case when King Abdullah I's Arab Legion stormed Jerusalem, these men are not interested in fighting.

Moreover, their percentage in society is growing and will continue to grow. According to the Tauba Center, the share of students in private religious schools increased from 11% in 2000 to 19% in 2020, while the share of students in secular schools fell from 52% to 43% over the same period. This trend is projected to grow since Orthodox Jews, Haredi, have a much higher birth rate than other segments of society. By 2040, it is estimated that they will constitute 25% of the total Jewish community in the country.

If we also consider that the Arab population is already more or less a quarter of the population, it may turn out that not only will the potential defenders of the country live in a minority, but also those they will defend will be indifferent or reluctant at best.

Clear the foreground

Seventy-five years after the declaration of the state of Israel, the country is entering a period of serious social, demographic and international crisis. The conflict over the judiciary served to reveal its severity. The call of Jerusalem-based analysts to prepare for war makes a lot of sense, because an external threat can only be repulsed by a country capable of providing an efficient army. And mastering all the internal crises, including dealing with the Arab population and the Haredi community, requires much more than just combat prowess.

As a side note, it is worth noting that the last agreement between Israel and Poland to end the dispute over historical tours can be understood in exactly this way. Israel does not need unnecessary fronts. The dispute [with Poland] was becoming increasingly absurd.

We live in a time when a conflict between the great powers, China and the United States, may cause the lesser of the world to desire to settle their regional affairs in the shadow of a great war. This may affect Israel. But Poland can experience it too. And in such a situation it is good to have a clear foreground for possible deeper cooperation.

–Robert Bogdanski

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists

–Translated by Agnieszka Rakoczy

Sources:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/26/modest-warming-in-u-s-views-on-israel-and-palestinians/