Before the war on Gaza broke out and expanded to several other countries in the region, the world had been dreaming of a “New Middle East,” that is, of turning the region into an oasis of stability, sparing its people the scourge of perpetual conflict, and relieving the world of constant preoccupation with these conflicts.
At that time, Israel’s interests were being taken into account. It was seen as a state that could be a state like any other in the Middle East, through a framework for peace founded on normalization. The normalization process was on the verge of becoming comprehensive, but Israel insisted on enjoying “normal” relations with the Arab and Islamic countries of the world without offering the most basic concession requested by Saudi Arabia: the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel in line with the Arab Peace Initiative and the New York Conference.
October 7, 2023, was the day of the great setback: the idea of comprehensive Arab-Islamic peace with Israel was shattered as the Middle East plunged into a state of war, and Gaza was subjected to an ongoing genocidal campaign. Multiple fronts were quickly added, and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted of fighting a “seven-front” conflict. He framed the outcomes of the fighting and the regional shifts they precipitated as the first steps toward a new Middle East. Going beyond normalization and the recognition of Israel as just another state in the region, the objective became turning it into a leading power whose influence and relationships are underpinned by military superiority and unwavering American support.
The architect of these “seven conflicts” is Netanyahu. He has achieved remarkable success in taming two successive US administrations, maintaining their support despite misgivings about how Israel was waging the war and his insistence on delaying its conclusion. He has also managed to survive Israel’s fractured domestic politics despite remaining a divisive figure and the controversies around how he conducted the war. This division has given rise to an unusual divergence between the political leadership and the people in Israel: the government has a comfortable majority in parliament while the opposition enjoys majority support in streets- that applies even to his own right-wing camp, especially over issues like conscripting the ultra-Orthodox (Haredim).
Netanyahu has managed to contain these deep rifts and survive at the helm. He remains at the center of decision-making, and that will not change until early elections are called or his term ends.
Recently, however, Netanyahu dropped a bomb. Many saw his remarks about a “divine mandate” (inherited from his forefathers) to establish “Greater Israel” as a rhetorical, symbolic, or purely electoral move. Nonetheless, the implication was clear: today’s Israel- with its ongoing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, parts of Lebanon, and the Syrian Golan Heights- has bigger ambitions for its “divine mandate,” seeking additional neighboring territory, with Jordan and Egypt being the obvious targets.
Given the demographic and military balance of power, Israel lacks the means to turn such expansionist aspirations into reality. However, merely announcing this pursuit of “Greater Israel” ambitions, especially at a moment when the region continues to be ravaged by several unresolved wars, inevitably poisons the atmosphere. It has deepened apprehension and left the entire Middle East confronted with the looming threat of a firestorm. Rather than extinguishing the flames, he chose to raise the spectre of new battlefronts.
So why did Netanyahu detonate his bomb?
Israel suffers from an incurable obsession that Henry Kissinger once described with sharp accuracy: “In Israel, there is no foreign policy, only domestic policy.”
Because of the Jewish state’s unique composition (its people, its politics, and those elected to govern or to oppose) public opinion polls are the real driver of politics in Israel. Public opinion determines politicians’ rhetoric, positions, and even policies- everything is calibrated toward securing votes first and state interests second.
If one goes over the statements of government and opposition leaders alike, an obsession with appeasing voters becomes apparent. Only the form differs, not the substance. Netanyahu is now doing what his opponents had done when they were in power. When he is eventually removed from power by an election, his successors will likewise not dare propose serious peace initiatives either, not so long as the electorate punishes anyone who seeks peace with the Palestinians.
These are electoral postures that nonetheless bind their authors once they take office.
Netanyahu’s push for “Greater Israel” has a broad audience ready to buy into it. Smotrich calls for annexing the West Bank and killing the idea of a Palestinian state, and he has his own fans. Itamar Ben Gvir poses for a photo with Marwan Barghouti and finds a constituency hailing his attack on a defenseless prisoner as an act of heroism that deserves their vote. These three are but examples, and they do not cover the entirety of Netanyahu’s coalition nor its broader agenda to keep its alliance alive and remain in power.
In this climate, with Israel projecting its power in this manner, how can anyone envision the emergence of the New Middle East that the world seeks?
The silver lining, in this otherwise toxic environment that Netanyahu is relentlessly aggravating to obstruct the world’s vision for a peaceful new regional order, is what Israel itself has dubbed the “tsunami of recognitions.” The New York Conference laid the foundations for a new diplomatic track. Israel will surely resist this effort, but it cannot erase it nor impose its own agenda.
