What Does Israel Want?
The assassination of Ismail Haniyya has once again underscored Israel’s lack of strategic direction. Israel has proven itself incapable of being a partner in any framework of peace, stability, or cooperation. Amidst the turbulence of its historical jetlag crisis, it remains incapable of interrogating its past, confronting its present, or envisioning a clear future. It remains an entity caught in the liminal space of being a project and a state, juxtaposed between an Apartheid regime and a democratic nation, straddling the line between a start-up country and a mature nation.
It oscillates between historical prophecy and modern reality, and balancing the dichotomy of religious fanaticism and the rule of law. It is merely an ethnocratic and overtly racist state, yet it is heralded as the “only democracy in the Middle East” by Western capitals. While it actively engages in ethnic cleansing, it simultaneously clamors for its “right to exist.” This identity crisis serves no purpose other than to generate crises and feed the Israel made vicious circle. A mindset that has long believed it can quell Palestinian resistance through occupation, massacres, exile, genocide, and assassinations will inevitably escalate the conflict.
The existence of Israel as a project in the Middle East is not particularly striking. Amidst countries of the region emerging from the wreckage of world wars, themselves still nascent states, the fact that the victorious powers forcibly established Israel in the Middle East was unsurprising and an achievable attempt. It was a challenging endeavor, but one realized with the unwavering support of the victors. What is truly remarkable is the Palestinian resistance that has persisted for nearly a century, despite the overwhelming asymmetry in military, economic, and diplomatic power.
Israel, an unparalleled geopolitical invention, emerged from a radical secular yet theopolitical project nearly a century ago, coinciding with the Ottoman withdrawal from the Syrian-Palestinian front. Despite the Zionist utopian terrorism by groups such as Irgun, Lehi, Haganah, and Palmach in the 1920s, which intensified in the 1940s, Israel still finds itself ensnared in a self-created world of terror. When a movement’s relationship with violence remains constant—both in times of strength and weakness, and before and after achieving its goals—it indicates a profound existential crisis. So, what is Israel’s existential crisis? The answer lies in another question: What does Israel want, or rather, what does it aspire to be?
Most recognized states can articulate coherent responses to such questions, at least from their perspective. However, Israel’s crisis precludes any clear answers, regardless of its interlocutors’ assessments.
Responses to “What does Israel want?” invariably enumerate what Israel opposes. Israel rejects the creation of a Palestinian state and opposes a single state where Palestinians would be equal citizens. It denies Palestinians’ right to exist, despite their population exceeding that of Jews in the region and within Israel when combined with Arab citizens. Israel also rejects any peace with the Palestinians, having assassinated its own head of state who last attempted peace and extinguished its own peace hopes. Amidst hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims, Israel wishes to perpetuate its occupation and massacres, secured by the world’s most expensive geopolitical insurance policy in Washington. Consequently, it opposes any regional peace initiative, ceasefire, or end to genocide and massacres. It resists both comprehensive solutions and specific steps toward resolution. Discussing the Gaza crisis or the occupation is unacceptable. Thus, the answers to “What does Israel want?” form an extensive list of rejections and oppositions, conflicting with the geopolitical interests of Washington, regional countries, Russia, and China. Nonetheless, Israel pursues an impossible mission, an irrational theopolitical project, and a global geopolitical provocation.
Israel is not recognized by dozens of countries, and many more refrain from deepening relations with it. Over the past months, hundreds of millions of people have taken to the streets to protest Israel. Yet Israel still expects to be treated as a normal state. Israel shows no interest in being a democratic nation. It remains committed to being an occupying state, unperturbed by its apartheid status, and continually strengthens its colonial rule. It disregards international law. As a country facing genocide charges, it threatens international court members alongside the US. It labels UNRWA, a lifeline for Palestinians, a terrorist organization.
Israel’s borders are unclear, and its capital is disputed. It is uncertain whether the Knesset or the American Congress functions as Israel’s parliament. Observing US Congress members who exuberantly applauded Netanyahu, unlike their own president, raises questions about whether Israel is better represented in the Knesset or Washington. This surreal applause scene also debunked the myth of the Israel Lobby. Lobbies mediate relationships between the weak and the powerful, the demander and the supplier. Israel strives to endure by deriving its settled political theology from the imagination of exile, a secular modern racist ideology from the world’s most ancient religion, and security from a hegemonic power that historically loses its status nearly every century in modern times. Israel has staked its security on the geopolitical influence of the West, with a particular reliance on the United States. Regardless of the geopolitical trajectory Israel envisions for itself, the inevitable shift in the global balance of power—historically anchored yet ever evolving—will ultimately dictate Israel’s prospects for survival.
Israel has constructed its political theology upon the notion of existential threats, firmly believing it fights not merely to exist, but to stave off annihilation. Despite this, Israel has relinquished its entire survival strategy to the insurance policy provided by the United States and the West, entities currently in a state of hegemonic decline. Should the 20th-century powers responsible for Israel’s creation lose their economic and military dominance in the 21st century, one can surmise the precarious future that awaits Israel as a settlement within the Middle East.
Israel as an American political taboo
On the inter-state level, a dynamic of unwavering compliance characterizes either a colonial or vassal relationship. The meticulously orchestrated proceedings in the Congress illustrated to the world that Israel no longer requires a lobby in the United States. The entire globe observed the dissolution of the Israel Lobby—once the subject of numerous books, articles, and conspiracy theories—and its replacement by the Israeli Congress in America. This shift recalled Netanyahu’s declaration from months prior, asserting, “We are not a vassal state of the United States,” and underscored the necessity of redefining the roles within this bilateral relationship if Israel is not subordinate to America.
Netanyahu received in Washington the attention and applause he wouldn’t have in the Knesset. His speech, met with chants of “Am Yisrael Chai,” was dismissed globally as a reiteration of Zionist policies, defensively advocating ongoing massacres, arrogantly ignoring Palestinians, and shamelessly declaring the genocide will continue. What stood out was not Netanyahu’s speech, but the audience’s reaction. Senators and Representatives at a joint Congressional session stood up dozens of times to applaud a man committing genocide before the world. This situation transcends political debate and analysis, entering the realm of political psychology and the fears induced by taboos.
Every taboo harbors an imagined punishment for its violation. Washington’s taboo on Israel has manifested in the surreal Congressional spectacle as its punishment. Israel has become the limit of Washington’s political, geopolitical, and security imagination. The Israel created by occupying Palestine differs from the one portrayed in the American Congress. While the former directly affects Palestinians and the Middle East, the latter poses a separate problem for Washington, potentially escalating into a major crisis.
Taboos are revealed through prohibitions. Washington’s “forbidden apple” has turned into Israel. Every Congress member who repeatedly stood to applaud Netanyahu understands the spectacle. They know that failing to fanatically support Israel equates to eating the forbidden apple and being expelled from Washington’s paradise. The Israel Lobby’s function in America has become redundant. The transformation of the American Congress into the “Israeli Congress” signifies that, like any entrenched taboo, American politics is now captive to the logic that Biden once said and often repeats, “If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.”
After ten months of relentless massacres, the enduring legacy is not only the profound suffering of the Palestinians but also the disgraceful complicity of America and the West. The most critical revelation from Gaza is that both the region and the world face a significant Israel problem. Israel clearly lacks rational, political, or moral means to resolve the “Israel Problem.” The centuries-old theological myth of Israel, bolstered by the Zionist project of the last century and the first attempt to dominate another nation, has evidently failed. Moreover, under the control of a reckless power uncertain of its future actions, a severe humanitarian crisis is unfolding, exacerbating regional and global geopolitical risks.
Israel as a geopolitical black hole
After the assassination of Haniyya, the risk of regional war has certainly emerged. However, none of the regional actors are likely to prefer a conventional war with Israel. There has not been a conventional war in the Middle East since the Iran-Iraq conflict. Even the wars in which the US attacked Iraq were one-sided and short-lived, with the real devastation occurring during the ensuing civil wars. Even a complex and suspicious organization like ISIS, lacking local base and support, managed to survive for years despite a global effort against it. The Palestinian cause and resistance have gained stronger global support and awareness than ever before. This energy will inevitably generate new forces, both positive and negative, including the dynamics of terrorism. The geopolitical myopia and “Israel blindness” in Washington and Europe, akin to Saramago’s “white blindness,” does not eliminate future security risks. Israel represents a geopolitical black hole for the United States, Europe, and much of the Middle East. Its occupation and dehumanization of Palestinians, along with its persistent violations of international law, have ensnared Western capitals in a complex web of diplomatic and strategic entanglements. The grip is so formidable that no entity seems capable of mustering the requisite energy to extricate itself from the “Israeli black hole”.
Israel problem, Palestinian issue
The emerging “Palestine energy” could reshape the geopolitical landscape, influencing regional countries, capitals responding to Israel’s actions, the Global South, and even China, which is cautiously engaging in the process. Its generational impact will be profoundly felt in the coming years when the 20th-century cohorts completely vacate the political arena. If harnessed efficiently and carefully, this momentum could open new opportunities for Palestine. Even nations that once viewed Palestine issue as a burden now recognize the greater threat and geopolitical risks posed by Israeli policies. Israel’s genocide in Gaza has unequivocally established it as the central issue. Given America’s current political instability, the need for a regional initiative supported by diverse global actors has never been more critical.
Regional countries face a choice: either channel the energy generated by Palestinian resilience positively or contend with its negative repercussions throughout the region. The only scenario in which Israel and the United States will find themselves under pressure is one where the Palestinians achieve participatory and a renewed democratic/elected representation despite the ongoing occupation. Most importantly, this scenario would involve regional actors altering the status quo in their relations with Israel. It is crucial to progress to a stage where immensely new Palestinian national representation emerges through its own elections, even under occupation and during war. Lastly, Israel literally terminated any meaningful channel with Tel Aviv. Regional countries and most the world entirely convinced that there is nothing exist to talk or debate with Israel. Israel does not have a Hamas problem; it has problems with entire Palestinians, the region, and international law. Now it is time for them to directly talk and negotiate with Washington for the Israel problem.
Ironically, only a resolution to the Palestinian issue can address Israel Problem. Absent such a settlement, Israel will remain unwilling to acknowledge, let alone embrace, the imperative of a ceasefire. And, it seems that no external force can rescue Israel from the “Israel Problem”. In essence, Israel’s future is inextricably linked to the existence of Palestine. By perpetuating genocidal policies, Israel risks undermining its very raison d’être.
