Why Israel is so powerful
Introduction
What do the USB flash drive, Waze App and Google Suggestion have in common? All three originated in Israel. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg as Israel has a lot more to offer. Despite being smaller and less populous than the US state of New Jersey when it comes to innovation, Israel punches well above its weight. Yet, its geopolitics are fraught with security, diplomatic, and moral dilemmas; Israel is simultaneously the most democratic and most controversial state in the Middle East.
Israel’s main geopolitical dilemma is how to preserve itself as a Jewish and democratic state, within secure and internationally recognized borders. At the core of this dilemma lies a balance between four components: geography (territorial depth for security purposes), demography (degree of national homogeneity), democracy (human rights and individual freedom), and regional and international legitimacy.
Geopolitics
Geopolitics study the relationship between geography and politics. States have traditionally been limited by various constraints, especially geographical. However, in the 21st century, geographical disadvantages can be counterbalanced by financial power and technology. Israel is perhaps the best case study for testing this assumption.
Since Biblical times, Israel experienced three different manifestations of statehood in roughly the same place: two in the Antiquity and one in the modern era. In all three situations, the outcome was determined by two major factors: the meddling of external powers seeking to dominate the entire Eastern Mediterranean region, and the degree of internal cohesion of its people.
Who are the Israelis?
“Show me two Jews and I will show you three opinions.”
This is an old Jewish joke that reflects the rich cultural and religious traditions of civil debate and welcoming many opinions.
Israel’s geography shaped three kinds of people: the coastal people (traditionally oriented towards commerce and diplomacy), the Northern people (made up by farmers and warriors), and the residents of south Jerusalem (the warrior herdsmen living in the desert). A fourth group is represented by the members of the Jewish diaspora who immigrated to the newly established state from all over the world and brought with them a diverse cultural heritage.
Cultural diversity, an independent mindset and individual ambitions are Israeli characteristics that made the country a fertile ground for the spread of democratic ideas and entrepreneurship.
Geographically, Israel we know today is comprised of 3 regions:
The coastal plain
The coastal plain is the richest area; its heartland is located from today’s Tel Aviv to northern Haifa. People from this region have traditionally been prosperous thanks to the commercial activities in the Mediterranean Basin. Without any immediate threats, a warrior culture remained underdeveloped. However, diplomacy flourished as it was necessary to avoid conflicts that could damage people’s businesses.
The Northern Hills
The second area represented by the Northern hills stretches from the foothills of Mount Hermon to Jerusalem. This region has been historically exposed to Damascus’s ambitions. The constant military threat from Syria fostered the emergence of a warrior culture.
The Jordan Valley
The third region is located in the area between Jerusalem and the Jordan river — today’s West Bank. This region is highly contested between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
The first two regions represent the core of Israel, whereas the third is geographically an asset but demographically a liability. The Arab population assimilated as a result of its annexation would reshape Israel’s ethnic makeup, culture, and politics.
Jerusalem is a cultural middle ground, the place that unites all Israelis. It is a melting pot and spiritual bastion for all: Jews, Arabs, Christians.
How hard is it to invade Israel?
Israel is geographically secure because it is buffered by the desert from three directions.
In the south, the Negev desert and Sinai peninsula served as natural obstacles against the Egyptians. It is unfeasible for the Egyptians to deploy and maintain troops in Sinai. As long as Israel is able to attack the coastal plain, or Egypt is not backed by a superpower, there is no impending threat from the south.
Throughout history, the Egyptians were not that interested in expanding to Sinai but rather to the south.
From the southeast, the deserts of Eilat-Aqaba are virtually impassable. No large military unit could approach from that direction, although smaller raids are possible. Any hostile force from that region must cross the Saudi territory, and currently, Saudi Arabia has no interest in provoking Israel.
The eastern borders are similarly secured by the desert, which begins about 20 to 30 miles east of the Jordan River. The modern-day West Bank is a very important stronghold for Israel. By controlling the West Bank, Israel can project its power to the east of the Jordan river gaining military, and more importantly, water security. The Kingdom of Jordan is both unable and uninterested to engage in a military conflict with Israel due to its own geopolitical disadvantages, water security, financial issues, and foreign relations with the Western powers.
Israel’s most vulnerable area is in the north. Having the Litani river as the only natural barrier, Northern Israel is exposed to Damascus’s expansionist ambitions.
The southwestern vicinity has been Damascus’ preferred area for power projection. The other two options, Asia Minor and the Eastern Deserts are less likely to attract Damascus’ interest. As long as Syria is a powerful actor or it is dominated by one, Israel’s immediate security is strongly related to its northern neighbor.
Present-day Syria is not able to threaten Israel’s existence. However, Israel is looking to expand its influence to the north for both commercial and security reasons.
How can Israel defend itself?
At first sight, Israel lacks strategic depth. Generally, Israel has no imminent threats from neither the south nor the east. The only danger comes from the north.
Syria is not capable of defeating Israel on its own. One of the worst scenarios for Israel is a war on two fronts with Syria and Egypt. In order to be successful, the Egyptians and the Syrians would have to coordinate an offensive against Israel. Even so, only a surprise attack would work because Syria and Egypt would have to maintain supply lines on difficult terrain. Under these circumstances, Israel needs two things: air superiority to ensure swift preemptive attacks and good intel. In both the 1967 and 1973 wars, Israel used its air force and intel services to defeat its enemies.
Why did Egypt and Syria lose?
History shows us that Egypt and Syria are both incompatible and unlikely to join forces against Israel. During the United Arab Republic (UAR), a period in which Damascus and Cairo formed one state, both entities were confronted with different issues, domestically and externally. On one hand, for Egypt, controlling the Levant was not an important objective. On the other hand, for Syria, an expansionist Egypt in the Levant would have posed an even bigger threat than Israel. Moreover, the socialist policies promoted by Nasser generated a negative reaction from the powerful Syrian business community, and ultimately, the UAR ended only after only 3 years. In both wars from 1967, and 1973, Syrians and Egyptians were unable to coordinate properly both politically and militarily
Israel Geopolitical Constraints
Confronted with several major problems after its foundation in 1948, the state of Israel had to resort to an original geopolitical approach, regionally and internationally. The newly formed state had to deal with 4 major geopolitical realities: being surrounded by generally hostile Arab nations, its location near the Suez Canal (an attraction for many regional and global powers), trying to preserve itself as a democratic-Jewish state, the competition for the acquisition and distribution of freshwater.
Historically, Israel’s existence has only been threatened when an external power such as Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, the Ottoman Empire decided to expand in the Levant. In pursuing its geopolitical ambitions in the region, Israel had to balance these big players.
“Israel cannot afford to stand against the entire world and be denounced as the aggressor.”
Moshe Dayan
Present-day Israel is a result of the great powers’ involvement in regional affairs. The Western powers have systematically arbitraged over the newly formed states that had declared their independence from the Ottomans. In the First World War, Britain and France were interested in dominating the Middle East. After the Second World War, they have been replaced by the United States and the Soviet Union. Aware of this power play, Israel’s first prime minister David Ben Gurion devised Israel’s foreign policy in a way that balanced both superpowers. He felt that becoming a puppet of any would not increase Israel’s security. He performed a balancing act while finding a powerful ally who did not infringe on Israel’s sovereignty.
The first ally was the Soviet Union, who supplied weapons to the Israeli guerilla around the independence war in 1948. The second was France, which was not well-liked in the region due to its colonial war in Algeria and its ambitions in the Suez Canal.
The third was the US. The Israeli-American relations grew stronger after 1967 when Egypt, Syria, and Iraq gravitated towards the Soviet Union. The Ba’athist ideology was more inspired by socialism and anti-colonialism. These regimes associated Western countries with colonialism.
The Arab form of socialism tilted the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of the Soviets. The United States decided to support Israel in an effort to prevent losing the entire region to the Soviet Union. By aligning itself with the US, Israel lost some leeway, although it was still able to secure its geopolitical objectives by means of diplomacy. For instance, despite accepting international arbitrage in 1973 after the Yom Kippur war, Israel still obtained the security guarantees and recognition from Egypt which continue to this day.
Israel still performs a balancing act and is reluctant to take sides in the frictions between the United States and Russia, or the United States and China. The US is definitely the main partner of Israel although Jerusalem was able to maintain cordial relations with both Russia and China despite the Syrian civil war and the US-China trade war.
Palestine is a political problem, not a security one
Demography plays a major role in the Israeli geopolitics. Israel defines itself as a Jewish democratic state:
“The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” (The Constitution of Israel, Basic law and liberty)
The political borders of Israel are strongly related to which party is in power at a moment in time. Different groups within the Israeli society came up with various solutions to the geopolitical dilemma. These ideas reflect various norms and values regarding the proper balance between geography (depth of security), demography (national identity), democracy (freedoms and human rights), and international legitimacy.
The geopolitical dilemmas are best showcased by the Israel-Palestine conflict. The five proposed solutions are:
Solution 1: 1967–2 States Solution
One solution is the so-called 1967 borders: It is supposed to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict by creating two separate nation-states: one Jewish and one Palestinian, each with secure and recognized borders.
Israel should retreat to the pre-Six Days War (1967) borders. With a strong Jewish majority, Israel will remain a Jewish democracy, meaning the state will preserve its Jewish identity without circumventing the liberties of Palestinians. Palestine will become a national, demilitarized state and both states will have their capitals in Jerusalem.
The left-wing parties are usually endorsing this proposal.
Among supporters, we can mention Zbigniew Brzezinski and Barack Obama. The Obama administration considered this solution would not only secure Israel but will increase the stability of the entire Middle East. The main hypothesis is that the Israeli-Arab conflict is the root of instability in the region. However, Wikileaks documents revealed that the Arabs leaders are more concerned about Iran than Israel. If the Iran-Saudi cold war is the main source of instability, then abandoning territories could potentially increase Israel’s vulnerability.
Solution 2: Defensible Borders
The motivation behind this approach is to protect the State of Israel from any aggression directed against it. This solution requires Israel’s expansion within Palestinian territories in order to gain strategic depth. That includes: controlling the Jordan Valley, military deployment on mountain ranges that overlook the valley, widening the corridor that connects Jerusalem to the Dead Sea.
The Jordan Valley should be annexed to prevent a hostile military presence in the West Bank, threatening the coastal area where most of Israel’s population and economic activity are concentrated.
According to the Allon Plan, the Arab population in the West Bank was supposed to either be an independent entity or be part of the Kingdom of Jordan.
However, advocates came to realize that strategic depth is less important now than it was a few decades ago. The main concern is no longer a coordinated attack from the Arab states but rather one from a nuclear Iran and its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas.
Solution 3: Interim Borders
Supporters of this plan are concerned with Israel’s existence as a democratic state and national homeland for the Jewish people.
Some argue that without changing the status quo and retreating from the occupied territories, the demographic balance between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is destined to change to the detriment of the Jewish. A Jewish nation-state in which the Jews are the minority will be undemocratic. Conversely, a democratic state will not be Jewish since the Palestinians will ultimately become the majority.
Some supporters believe that a unilateral withdrawal from occupied territories will create a stable environment. Others believe Israel should maintain a presence in the hostile territories up until the negotiations with the Palestinian authorities. In the last decade, the Palestinian authorities rejected negotiations with Israel and pursued a unilateral set of actions to the UN.
Solution 4: A bi-National state
This solution reflects the current situation: half a million Jewish people are living in the West Bank. No government is able to force everyone out of their homes. Supporters of this solution compare Israel’s current regime in the West Bank to an ethnocracy or even Apartheid similar to the South African system before 1994.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is more about values and culture than territories.
A bi-national state solution proposes a smooth transition from a Jewish democratic state to a multinational democracy which includes all territories in between the Jordan River valley and the Mediterranean Sea. According to its supporters, the de facto situation is already a bi-national state; the remaining goal is to make it democratic. Any other option would involve resettlement which is expensive and might not solve the cultural conflict.
Solution 5: “The Great Land of Israel”
The fifth solution is the most extreme one. It is based on Israel’s territorial expansion into the so-called “promised land”. The “Great Land of Israel” requires the incorporation of both Gaza and the West Bank as well as the total dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority.
The opinions on the status of the Arab people living in these territories are split between granting them Israeli citizenship, forming enclaves governed by Jordan and conferring them voting rights in the Jordanian elections, or even deportation.
This solution is often supported by religious groups such as “Habayit Hayehudi” (The Jewish Home) and “Haichud Haleumi” (The National Union).
It must be reiterated that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a complex one with many layers: cultural, religious, territorial, political, economic, and ethnic. This is why the interests of other powers cannot be disregarded.
These 5 solutions were proposed by the Israelis yet, none garnered universal support within Israel.
During its relatively short history, Israel became an important player that cannot be ignored, or in other words, no international proposal can be implemented without Israel’s approval. This is different from the Bosnian or Kosovo conflicts, where outside actors designed and implemented the peace plans. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel is the dominant actor. Therefore any peace proposal must be achieved not by force but by persuading Israel to accept and implement it.
Trump’s “Deal of the Century”
The latest peace proposal comes from Trump’s administration. The so-called “Deal of the Century” can be summarized by virtue of three objectives:
Economic Objective
The economical one focuses on developing a business environment for the Palestinians by opening up the West Bank and Gaza to regional and international investors, building and expanding the region’s infrastructure and healthcare system, job creation, educational investments, workforce development programs.
Political Objective
The political approach underscores a two-state solution: recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state and Palestine as a nation-state of the Palestinian people with equal civil rights minus the power to threaten Israel.
Security Objective
Palestine must stop threatening Israel’s security by all means.
This plan is supposed to provide economic support to Palestine in exchange for acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the Israeli sovereignty over all Jewish communities including settlers in the West Bank.
The plan is pragmatic but simplistic; it does not take into consideration neither the political power struggle inside Palestine nor the foreign involvement. The Palestinian leaders cannot accept this deal and stay in power at the same time. The Gaza strip is controlled by Hamas and the West Bank by the Palestinian Authority (PA). Both are dominated by corrupt institutions and leaders that use Israel as a scapegoat. Neither of these two parties can take the deal despite the fact that it only implies the official recognition of the de facto situation.
Unofficially, Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel. Jewish settlers in the West Bank are under Israeli sovereignty. Yet, if either the PA or Hamas formally acknowledge these realities they might lose both political power and the support from Iran and other actors. The Palestinian media portrayed Israel as a pure evil for decades so, unsurprisingly the Palestinian people are reluctant to accept such a deal.
Why are Israel and Iran enemies?
During its brief history, Israel faced a lot of threats from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. Currently, Israel’s relations with Egypt are stable, even cooperative. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are looking to Israel for technology transfers and support against Iran.
Israel’s regional policy is very pragmatic. Jerusalem is not looking for official recognition from Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States; unofficial collaboration is good enough for the moment.
Israel had been on good standing with Iran before the 1979 revolution. However, for the religious leader Khamenei who was the main figure of the revolution, Israel was the enemy. After the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the withdrawal of the American troops in 2011, the regional balance of power was broken. The vacuum augmented the hostilities between the GCC states, Israel, and Iran.
In recent years, Iran expanded its influence in Iraq (by supporting different militias), and Syria by lending a hand to the Syrian regime against the rebels supported by GCC, Turkey, Europe, and the US. To stay in power it is mandatory for the Islamic regime in Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East. Tehran is trying to strike a balance in a region where Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have outpost its military capabilities, and Israel already possesses nuclear weapons. That’s why Iran is aiming towards the Mediterranean sea using Hezbollah and the Syrian regime as partners and towards the Southern Arabian peninsula in Yemen. The goal is to avoid a US-backed GCC containment.
Israel’s main concern is Iran’s maneuvering on its northern border. Iran is the last powerful, hostile country actively looking to destroy Israel. In September 2019, a swarm of drones and low-flying missiles hit two of the oil facilities owned by the Saudi company Aramco cutting Saudi Arabia’s oil production by almost half. This attack was claimed by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. This poses a security problem for Israel whose defense systems are calibrated for ballistic missiles rather than the low-flying missiles of the type used against the oil facilities. According to some experts, Israel cannot properly stop a similar attack against itself. Such an attack could hit nuclear facilities, civil areas, military bases with great consequences.
Low-flying missiles will increase Israel’s involvement in the Saudi-Iranian cold war.
Regarding a nuclear Iran, prime minister Netanyahu argued in favor of an assertive policy. In 2012, Israel was very close to a unilateral strike on Iran that would have dragged a diplomacy-oriented Obama administration into war. After the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, Obama’s approach failed. Trump’s maximum pressure diplomacy seems to be more appealing to the Gulf states and Israel.
Given that Iran is reopening its uranium enrichment capabilities, the Europeans are coming to grips with the new situation and are aligning themselves with the new US policy.
Israel Economy
Political isolation in the region stimulated economic internationalization. As a result, Israel became the third country with the most NASDAQ-listed companies after the US and China. This year, the Bloomberg Innovation Index ranked Israel the world’s 6th most innovative country.
Israel became famous for its startups which begs the question: why is Israel is known as a “start-up nation” and not France, Germany, or Japan?
The startup ecosystem is based on 5 pillars we will analyze right now:
- The military is an innovation incubator
- Substantial government spending in R&D and military
- An expansive network of multinational R&D multinational centers
- Strong VC ecosystem
- Small local market
- People’s mindset
The military is an innovation incubator
Israeli military service is mandatory for all citizens over the age of 18.
It is credited with shaping the mindset of the people beyond the military training itself. For instance, there are several units for hackers such as unit 8200 which trains people in cyber warfare including apps development.
According to the book “Startup Nation”, the culture and educational methodology are molding independent problem-solvers who do not need constant guidance from their superiors. “Out-of-the-box” thinking, one of the most important entrepreneurial skills, is encouraged and even mandated. As a result, more than 1000 companies have been founded by 8200 alumni, Waze, and Check Point being some of the most popular.
Substantial government spending in R&D and military
The Israeli military sector is strongly related to civilian life; its technologies are versatile enough to be used in day to day life (e.g. Waze app).
According to the Israel Innovation Authority Report, there are more than 300 multinational R&D centers in Israel established by companies such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, etc, that bought Israeli hi-tech companies.
A strong venture capital (VC) ecosystem
There is an extensive network of capital venture firms in Israel, meaning that start-ups have easy access to financing. Only in the first quarter of 2020, Israeli high-tech companies raised 2.74 billion dollars in venture capital.
Small local market
Israel is a small country with 8.5 million people out of which around 480.000 live in Tel Aviv. Looking at these numbers one thing is clear for any entrepreneur: success means going “global”.
People’s mindset
Israeli entrepreneurs are a product of the land’s unique environment. They tend to think outside-the-box, to look beyond the status quo. To them, not being able to take risks is oftentimes worse than failing.
This mindset is a result of cultural diversity, history, military service, competitive environment. The warm California-like weather in Tel Aviv probably has its impact too.
Conclusions
The Jews have historically been at the mercy of global superpowers. Israel never afforded to relax as it faced constant various challenges since its establishment in 1948. Present-day Israel is a result of this Jewish ingenuity; from diplomacy to economy and technology, everything appears guided by an out-of-the-box-thinking.
A balancing behavior towards the global powers whilst maintaining the alliance with the US is the Israeli solution to avoid major security threats.
The large investments in research and development created versatile technologies used in a variety of ways, from agriculture to space travel.
The Palestinian issue remains one of the most controversial topics in both Israel and around the world. We don’t think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main source of instability in the Middle East, however, it is the main source of instability inside the Israeli political landscape.
Sources:
Israel under Netanyahu https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Under-Netanyahu-Robert-Freedman/dp/036735876X
Start-up Nation https://www.amazon.com/s?k=startup+nation&i=stripbooks-intl-ship&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
Jewish People Policy Institute http://jppi.org.il/uploads/The_Geopolitical_Challenges_Facing_Israels_New_Government.pdf
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blog.umd.edu/dist/b/504/files/2017/09/2023twoenglish-148me7w.pdf
World Economic Forum https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/tiny-israel-is-a-tech-titan-these-5-charts-explain-its-startup-success-920ee92e8845
https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitveness-report-2018
