Without endless war, what would Israel be?

Israel has fought more wars this century than any other country in the region, writes Faisal Al Yafai – not because it has to, but because it needs to

An Israeli border police officer detains a Palestinian in front of the controversial Israeli barrier. Israel needs the Palestine conflict for domestic purposes, argues Faisal Al Yafai (Reuters/MohamadShow more

There will be another Gaza war. Perhaps not this year – Israel’s prime minister has already won an election and so has no need for one just yet – but maybe next year, once talks with Iran have faded from memory, once Israelis start to ask again where precisely their prime minister is taking them.

At that point there will be an “incident” and Israel’s prime minister will speak gravely but sadly of a “response”. And once again, the open-air prison of Gaza and the bodies of Palestinians will pay the price for Israel’s politics, as they did exactly a year ago.

Israel is on a permanent war footing. It has fought more wars this century than any other country in the region – not because it has to, but because it needs to. Israel needs a war in Gaza. It needs a permanent threat, because without that, the political class has no real vision to offer its people.

______________________________________________________________

Read more about Israel's relationship with the Arab world:

■ After 48 years, the 1967 war remains a warning

■ Watch: The Middle East's new world order

______________________________________________________________

Politics is all about vision. Politicians need to sell the public a vision of a better world, of what life could be like if they voted for or followed that political party.

The problem for Israel’s political class is that they have no vision for a stable, successful Middle East that includes Israel. For them – not merely Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing allies, but also more left-leaning Israeli politicians – Israel is the perennial garrison state, preserved by military power, always seeking ways to destabilise and dominate its neighbours.

And that is the issue at the heart of the occupation of Palestine, the major reason why it has not been ended by Israeli politicians and why it cannot be ended without external pressure.

The war on Gaza last year is only one part of the story. Step back from that war, and the others before it, from the separation and segregation and settlements, and it becomes clear that there is no future vision. That when you project 20 or 30 years forward, it is hard to see where an Israel as it is currently configured fits into a stable and prosperous Middle East.

That isn’t because, as Israel’s most fervent supporters would have it, the other countries of the Middle East will never accept it. (The Arab Peace Initiative made clear 13 years ago that the entire Arab world is willing to talk peace if Israel would also talk peace.) Rather, it is hard to see an Israel that is entirely dependent on conflict playing a constructive role.

And make no mistake, Israel’s political class needs the chaos of the occupation. It needs the country to lurch permanently from one threat to another, from one war to another, holding the fear of conflict permanently over the Israeli population, the one constant in a society with so many contradictions.

It also needs the occupation internationally. Only by constantly talking up threats – either Palestinian rockets or Iranian bombs or the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement – can Israeli politicians continue to leverage their supporters in America and Europe to raise money or gain political support. Constant threats are vital for the occupation to continue.

The public conversation reflects this reality. The reason why the conversation about the occupation in the international sphere is so belligerent is because Israel’s supporters have no vision to offer.

Look at any other political issue, and while both sides will trade insults and accusations, they will also be able to trade visions, they will be able to argue that their way of creating a future is better than the alternative.

But in the sphere of Israeli politics, there is no such discussion about vision, because there is no vision.

Israelis and their supporters could, for example, articulate a positive vision for the Middle East, a vision that sees the whole of the eastern Mediterranean living peacefully, trading openly and moving freely.

They could talk of a world where you could drive from Cairo to Jerusalem, from Tel Aviv to Beirut freely, where Palestinian engineers could work freely in Tel Aviv and Israeli accountants could work in Beirut. But they don’t, because they have no such vision.

There are many policies that eastern Mediterranean countries could cooperate on: gas exploration along their coasts, transport infrastructure, a nuclear-free Middle East. But Israel cannot credibly discuss any of them. It will not allow Palestinians to develop their own gas reserves, it constantly destroys the infrastructure of Palestine and its neighbours, and it remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East.

Under such circumstances, it is more important for politicians to scaremonger about threats to their people than to actually lead Israelis to the negotiating table, to have, to paraphrase Woodrow Wilson, the patience and the candour and the desire to get together.

Both at home and abroad, Israel needs the Palestinian conflict. If it didn’t exist, it would have to be invented.

On Twitter: @FaisalAlYafai