Beyond Left and Right: Israel’s ‘Israel First’ Reality and Its Implications
How a Hardline Vision Reshapes Politics, Values, and the Future of the Conflict
Introduction: The Collapse of the Left-Right Framework
For decades, Israel’s political landscape
was understood through the prism of a left-right divide, with debates centered
on economics, security, and ideology. Yet today, this framework no longer
captures the reality of Israeli politics. The defining split is now between
those who prioritize an "Israel First" agenda—rejecting
Palestinian statehood, dismissing international criticism, and entrenching
military control—and those who remain open to balanced, long-term solutions
with Palestinians.
This shift reflects a fundamental
transformation in Israeli society, where existential fear, Zionist idealism,
and unbound state tactics have reshaped the political landscape.
The "Israel First" approach is not merely a political stance but a
worldview that frames Israel’s survival as dependent on permanent control,
defiance of international norms, and the suppression of Palestinian
aspirations. For outsiders, understanding this distinction is key to grasping
Israel’s current trajectory, its relationship with the world, and the stress
points that define its future.
The Rise of ‘Israel First’ to Political Dominance
The "Israel First" bloc now
dominates Israeli politics. This coalition includes Likud, Religious Zionism,
Otzma Yehudit, and Haredi parties, united by a shared commitment to rejecting
Palestinian statehood, expanding settlements, and weakening judicial oversight.
These positions, once considered far-right, have become mainstream among Jewish
voters. The "Israel First" camp is electorally dominant, while the
"Open to Balanced Solutions" camp—comprising the Zionist left, center,
and Palestinian citizen parties—remains fragmented and weak.
The 2026 election will likely reinforce
this trend. While it may be framed as a contest between right and left, the
real debate is how far right Israel will go. The election’s outcome will not
hinge on whether to adopt hardline policies but on how to implement them.
This political reality reflects a broader
societal shift. The far right "Israel First" agenda is no longer a
fringe ideology but the default position for a majority of Jewish Israelis.
This dominance is rooted in historical trauma, security concerns, and a
deep-seated belief that compromise with Palestinians is not only unnecessary
but dangerous.
‘Israel First’ as Zionist Dream and Existential Fear
The Zionist Dream: Sovereignty and Sacred Land
At its core, the "Israel First"
agenda is the fulfillment of historical Zionism. For many Israelis, sovereignty
over Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) is a non-negotiable religious and
national right. Settlements in the West Bank are not merely strategic outposts
but sacred landmarks, tied to a messianic vision of Jewish return to biblical
lands like Judea and Samaria. This perspective frames military control over
Palestinians as a permanent necessity, ensuring Jewish demographic and security
dominance.
This messianic vision is not unique to
Israel. History offers numerous examples of movements driven by a belief in a
divine or destiny-driven mission, often at a high cost in human lives. The Crusades, for instance, were
fueled by a Christian messianic vision to reclaim the Holy Land, resulting in
centuries of bloodshed. Similarly, ISIS’s caliphate
was an attempt to establish a purist Islamic state, leading to widespread
destruction and loss of life. In the 20th century, Nazi Germany’s vision of a racial utopia
led to the Holocaust, while Soviet communism’s messianic
belief in a classless society resulted in the deaths of
millions. These examples illustrate how messianic visions, when pursued with
absolute conviction, can lead to catastrophic human consequences.
The "Israel First" worldview is
also deeply tied to the trauma of the Holocaust. For many Israelis, the lesson
of the Holocaust is that Jewish survival depends on absolute control—never
again can Israel rely on the goodwill of others or the international community.
This mindset is reinforced by the 1948 and 1967 wars, which are remembered as
existential struggles where Israel’s survival hung in the balance. The October
7, 2023, attacks further cemented this narrative, reinforcing the belief that
concessions lead to vulnerability.
The Road Not Taken: Missed Opportunities for Compromise
The "Israel First" approach is
not just a strategic choice but a psychological and historical inevitability
for many Israelis. The rejection of early compromise opportunities—such as
those explored in 1948—has left a legacy of unresolved conflict. In 1948,
Israel faced a crossroads: it could have pursued a binational state or a
partition plan that might have offered a different path. Instead, the creation
of Israel as a Jewish state came at the expense of Palestinian displacement, an
event known to Palestinians as the Nakba (catastrophe).
This dual narrative—Israeli independence
vs. Palestinian dispossession—lies at the heart of the conflict. The
"Israel First" agenda perpetuates this unresolved trauma, making
reconciliation ever more distant. For Israelis, the fear of repeating the
mistakes of the past (e.g., the Holocaust, the 1948 war) justifies a hardline
stance. For Palestinians, the Nakba is a living memory, reinforcing their
demand for justice and self-determination.
Unbound State Strategy: Security Over Diplomacy
The "Israel First" approach
prioritizes security over diplomacy. Military solutions—such as strikes,
blockades, and settlement expansion—are seen as the only reliable means of
ensuring Israel’s survival. Preemptive force is justified as deterrence, even
if it escalates cycles of violence. This mindset is reflected in policies such
as:
·
Judicial reforms that weaken
checks on executive power, allowing for the unfettered pursuit of nationalist
goals (e.g., annexation, settlement expansion).
·
Media and NGO crackdowns, where
critics (e.g., human rights groups, left-wing media) are labeled as traitors or
foreign agents.
·
International defiance,
including the rejection of UN/EU resolutions (e.g., settlements as illegal,
occupation as unlawful) and alignment with like-minded states (e.g., the U.S.
under Trump-like leadership, authoritarian regimes).
The Paradox of ‘Israel First’
The "Israel First"
approach—meant to secure Israel’s future—risks undermining its long-term
stability. By alienating allies (e.g., the EU, progressive U.S. factions),
radicalizing Palestinian resistance (e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad), and eroding
democratic norms (e.g., judicial independence, minority rights), this agenda ultimately
weakens the state it seeks to protect.
Jewishness vs. Zionism: The Moral and Democratic Dilemma
At its core, the "Israel First"
agenda forces a reckoning with the tension between Jewishness and Zionism.
While Jewishness is a cultural and religious identity, Zionism was originally a
political movement aimed at securing a Jewish homeland. Today, "Israel
First" often conflates the two, framing Jewish survival as dependent on
perpetual control over Palestinians.
This conflation has profound implications
for Israel’s democratic and moral foundations. A state that prioritizes Jewish
sovereignty above all else risks marginalizing its non-Jewish citizens (e.g.,
Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up 20% of the population) and
undermining the principles of equality and democracy. The "Israel
First" approach also erodes the distinction between Zionism as a
liberatory movement and Zionism as a tool of oppression—a distinction that was
once central to the Israeli left’s vision.
For many Israelis, Jewishness and Zionism
are inseparable. The Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to Jews,
and the Nation-State Law, which declares that only Jews have the right to
self-determination in Israel, are examples of policies that prioritize Jewish
identity over democratic pluralism. This tension is not just theoretical but
practical, shaping everything from immigration policies to military strategies.
The Palestinian State: The Marginalization of a Two-State
Solution
The marginalization of the two-state
solution is one of the most consequential outcomes of the "Israel
First" agenda. For decades, the two-state solution—a Palestinian state
alongside Israel—was the international consensus for resolving the conflict.
Today, this vision is increasingly seen as unrealistic by both Israelis and
Palestinians.
For "Israel First" advocates,
the two-state solution is a non-starter. They argue that Palestinian statehood
would pose an existential threat to Israel, citing the failure of past
withdrawals (e.g., Gaza in 2005, which led to Hamas control) and the ongoing
violence from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Instead, they advocate for
permanent military control over the West Bank and Gaza, framing it as a
necessary security measure.
For Palestinians, the two-state solution
is also losing credibility. Many see it as a fantasy given Israel’s expanding
settlements, military occupation, and refusal to negotiate in good faith. The
Oslo Accords, once hailed as a breakthrough, are now widely viewed as a failure
that entrenched Israeli control without delivering Palestinian statehood. The
October 7 attacks and Israel’s subsequent military response have further
diminished hopes for a negotiated settlement.
The marginalization of the two-state
solution has profound implications for the region. Without a viable path to
Palestinian statehood, the conflict risks perpetuating indefinitely, with
cycles of violence, occupation, and resistance continuing unabated. This
reality also deepens Israel’s international isolation, as the EU, UN, and other
global actors increasingly view Israel’s policies as contrary to international
law and human rights.
European Values and the Loss of Support
European Values at Odds with ‘Israel First’
- General European People's Human Values sentiments (https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/08/we-are-europe-our-european-values.html)
- The Geneva Conventions, which
protect civilians in occupied territories.
- UN Resolutions (e.g., 242, 338)
calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied lands.
- The EU’s own guidelines on
differentiation between Israel and its settlements.
The "Israel First" approach also
undermines democratic norms. Judicial reforms that weaken the Supreme Court and
crackdowns on dissent and media freedom mirror illiberal trends in countries
like Hungary and Poland—directly conflicting with the EU’s democratic
conditioning.
The Struggle: Historic Obligation vs. Values
Europe’s relationship with Israel has long
been shaped by a dual narrative: historic obligation and values-based
diplomacy. On one hand, Europe’s post-WWII guilt and commitment to Israel’s
security (e.g., Holocaust remembrance, anti-Semitism policies) have led to
decades of unconditional support for Israel. On the other hand, the EU’s
commitment to human rights and international law has increasingly clashed with
Israel’s policies.
This tension is now coming to a head.
Public opinion in Europe is shifting, with growing sympathy for Palestinians,
especially among younger generations and left-leaning parties. This shift is
reflected in:
- Policy responses: The EU’s 2023
ban on settlement products and funding cuts to Israeli NGOs linked to
occupation signal a toughening stance.
·
Diplomatic isolation: EU member
states (e.g., Ireland, Sweden, Belgium) are pushing for recognition of
Palestinian statehood and reducing diplomatic engagement with hardline Israeli
leaders.
·
BDS movement: Boycott,
Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaigns are gaining traction, with European
pension funds and universities divesting from Israeli companies tied to
occupation.
Strategic Dilemma for Europe
European leaders face a strategic dilemma:
balancing values and interests. While Israel remains a key partner in
counterterrorism and intelligence-sharing, its "Israel First"
policies undermine the EU’s moral authority. The economic and tech ties between
Israel and Europe (e.g., cybersecurity, AI, gas exports) make full
disengagement costly, but the moral and legal contradictions of supporting
Israel’s policies are increasingly untenable.
If "Israel First" policies
persist, the EU may formalize its shift from unconditional support to
conditional engagement, aligning more closely with Palestinian rights and
international law.
The Middle East: Still Possible?
Short-Term: More Israeli Extremism
In the short term, Israel’s "Israel
First" policies are likely to further harden. This trajectory is driven
by:
·
Domestic politics: Hardline
factions dominate the political landscape, with little incentive to moderate.
·
Security concerns: Ongoing
violence and instability (e.g., Gaza, West Bank) reinforce the siege mentality.
·
Lack of alternatives: The
"Open to Balanced Solutions" camp remains weak and fragmented.
Long-Term: Regional Realignment and Pressure on Israel
The long-term outlook is more complex. The
US’s traditional role as a peace broker in the Middle East is diminishing, due
to:
·
Domestic polarization: US
politics are increasingly divided on Israel-Palestine, with progressive
factions criticizing unconditional support for Israel.
·
Focus shift: The US is
prioritizing competition with China and Russia, reducing its bandwidth for
Middle East diplomacy.
·
Loss of credibility: The
US-Israel war on Iran and unconditional support for Israeli actions have eroded
trust among Arab states and Palestinians.
As US influence wanes, Middle Eastern
countries are taking matters into their own hands, forming new alliances to
address regional security and economic interests. The Strait of Hormuz, a
critical chokepoint for global oil trade, has become a leverage point for
regional powers like Iran and the Gulf states, which are collaborating to
stabilize the region, often excluding Israel.
The Role of Turkey
Turkey, as a regional power with historic
ties to both the Arab world and Israel, is positioning itself as a mediator and
security guarantor. Turkey’s balancing act—maintaining ties with Israel while
supporting Palestinian rights and engaging with Iran—makes it a key player in
any regional realignment. If US influence continues to decline, Turkey and Iran
may coordinate more closely on regional security and economic integration,
further isolating Israel.
Pressure on Israel
As the US steps back, Israel faces
increasing pressure from:
·
Regional alliances (e.g.,
Turkey-Iran-Gulf cooperation) that exclude or oppose Israeli interests, leaving
it more vulnerable to military
and security challenges from coalitions like Iran-backed groups
or Turkish influence.
·
Economic and diplomatic isolation: Israel’s hardline policies risk alienating even its traditional
allies (e.g., Egypt, Jordan).
·
Public opinion erosion:
Growing international and regional disapproval of Israel’s policies further
weakens its standing.
Conclusion: Stress Points to Overcome
Israel today is defined by four key stress
points:
1.
Holocaust/Nakba: The dual
traumas that shape Israeli and Palestinian identities, reinforcing mutual
distrust and fear.
2.
The Road Not Taken: The
rejection of early compromise (e.g., 1948) and the entrenchment of hardline
policies that make peace ever more distant.
3.
Jewishness vs. Zionism: The
tension between Israel as a Jewish state and a democratic state, where
"Israel First" often conflates the two, risking the moral and
democratic foundations of the country.
4.
Palestinian Statehood: The
marginalization of the two-state solution and the rise of permanent military
control, which perpetuates the conflict.
The "Israel
First" framework explains Israel’s current reality—its political
dominance, international isolation, and existential fears.
Yet this path has proven to be only sustainable through continued cycles of
violence and the negation of human values.
The stress points—Holocaust/Nakba, the road not taken, Jewishness vs. Zionism,
and the marginalization of Palestinian statehood—are not just historical
footnotes but active forces shaping a future where conflict is perpetuated
rather than resolved. The Middle East remains a region where change is
possible, but the window for a balanced, lasting peace is narrowing, and the
cost of inaction grows with each passing day.
No comments:
Post a Comment