COLUMN | The Strategic Challenges of Israel

After two years, not much has changed when looking at Israel's national security. Its security remains strongly tied to its close relationship with the United States, a constant for the past 60 years.

Regardless of the ceasefire in Gaza and the military victories achieved against Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, Israel faces and will continue to face tremendous security challenges primarily due to its geographical location and lack of strategic depth, as well as internal issues stemming from its military efforts over the past two years and the political tensions that existed prior to October 7, 2023. Additionally, international public opinion is not favorable, which is important but not critical as long as it does not translate into limitations for its economy or military supply.

To be precise and accurate, what is Israel’s situation at this moment? Clearly, it is better than before the surprise attack over two years ago,, among other reasons because Iran is not currently a nuclear threat, which does not mean it cannot become one again, but for now, it has ceased to be the existential threat that had all Israelis terrified.

The southwestern front, despite everything that has occurred in Gaza, has not changed significantly. The peace agreements signed with Egypt at Camp David 37 years ago have withstood the test of time. The same applies to Jordan, which ceased to be a threat 52 years ago after the Yom Kippur War.

The West Bank, located to the east of Israel, experiences an unstable equilibrium due to the coexistence of the Palestinian majority and the settlers living in Israeli settlements. It is desired by the hardliners in Israel who want to formally incorporate it as sovereign territory, being the ancient Judea and Samaria, and on the other hand, it is where the Palestinians reside under the authority of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). It is the basis for what would be a potential Palestinian state, something that has significant global support, except from North America, making it unlikely to come to fruition, but it remains a factor of instability and a source of potential future conflicts.

While the anti-Israel militias and Hezbollah may have been weakened and ceased to be an immediate danger after the events in Syria and the loss of Iranian support, coupled with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) inflicting significant damage on them, this does not eliminate the possibility that they could pose a threat from the north and northeast in the future. Lebanon and Syria are, for all intents and purposes, failed states where the law of the strongest prevails, despite the presence of United Nations missions in southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights, which help but have not been able to significantly reduce the risk.

Evidently, the main issue remains Gaza, where a ceasefire currently prevails, but that is all it is. To advance the peace plan, it is necessary to disarm Hamas, something the Islamic Resistance Movement refuses to do despite threats from the United States to eliminate them if they do not comply with that demand. The issue is that Hamas without weapons is nothing, and if progress is not made on the reconstruction of Gaza, it will only be a matter of days and hours before Hamas returns to action. They recruit their forces from young Palestinians who hate Israel, and there is nothing to suggest that sentiment will change unless immediate and prompt reconstruction begins, which would change the mood and reduce the appeal of joining Hamas, an organization whose sole aim and purpose is to eliminate Israel.

After two years, and understanding the aforementioned, not much has changed when looking at Israel’s national security. Its security remains strongly tied to its close relationship with the United States, a constant for the past 60 years. Its environment, which is currently more benign, can quickly turn toxic due to the instability and risks it faces from the north, northeast, east, and west. These are not factors that threaten the survival of the State of Israel, but they can make its existence more difficult and less pleasant, with what happens in Gaza and the development of the peace plan being key. In this sense, what is most beneficial for them is to transfer that territory to the administration of the UN or a consortium of countries with available forces to maintain peace and allow for reconstruction. If this does not happen and Hamas is not disarmed, we will remain in the same situation. Thinking about a two-state solution is currently utopian as long as the risks posed by Gaza and the existence of Hamas are not resolved, and on the other hand, the instability generated in Israel by the PNA’s limited governance and management capacity. Obviously, it is politically correct to say in countries like the United Kingdom, France, or Germany that what is needed is to recognize Palestine as an autonomous state, but it is another matter to make that a reality,a reality that will not prosper if the Israelis do not have confidence that their neighbors will not repeat the attack of October 7, 2023.

Obviously, the war has had a significant cost for Israeli families. They not only lost those who were killed in the initial attack but also due to the military casualties they have suffered. All of this in a country with a small population where life is valued more highly than in other countries. Its prime minister knows this; he may seek to appear tough, but he also knows he cannot keep stretching the situation. If he does, public opinion will turn against him, and others will govern and decide how to proceed. It is evident to everyone that the conflict in Gaza must stop, that there can be no more deaths of innocent Palestinians, Palestinians who are used by Hamas for their own political purposes and objectives. There can be no more innocent victims, just as Israelis cannot continue living with neighbors whose sole aim and purpose in life is to eliminate them from the face of the earth.