M. RYDER
Israelis' supreme confidence is always laced with a feeling of existential vulnerability, and recent tensions with the United States underscore the ever-present question: Is time on Israel's side?
In the state's first decades, the imperative of survival rendered the question acute. In later years, proven military prowess and expanded territory provided literal and figurative breathing space while bolstering a sense of invincibility. Recently, though, the balance sheet has become increasingly mixed.
A good news economic story dominates the assets column. Israel has withstood the recent downturn, enjoying stable financial institutions and per capita income close to $30,000. It's likely to join the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and is the No. 1 foreign issuer on Nasdaq. In a recent Technion poll, more than 80 per cent of Israelis singled out the country's technological achievements as their key source of pride.
On security, 2009 showed a marked decline in terrorist incidents and no suicide bombings. The Gaza operation renewed Israel's deterrent capacity, and there's solid co-operation with Egypt against Hamas. Reflecting decades of grudging Arab acceptance of Israel, the Arab League repeatedly renews its offer of a peace initiative and now publicly endorses Palestinian-Israeli talks.
Internally, in what many point to as evidence of cohesiveness, the old left-right rift has given way to a consensus that theoretically supports a Palestinian state but also doubts whether there's any hope of peace in the foreseeable future. In crassly political terms, this ambivalence promises broad support to a leader who either takes bold action or chooses not to. Not surprisingly, then, heading a stable (if undisciplined and largely right-wing) government, Benjamin Netanyahu remains Israelis' first choice for the top slot. So it's possible to be bullish and argue that time is, indeed, on Israel's side.
But there's a weighty liabilities column. Stalemate on the Palestinian issue has rendered the peace treaty with Jordan hollow and weakened Turkey's historic ties to Israel. In three recent wars, massive force against terrorists in civilian concentrations quelled the immediate threat but backfired against Israel morally and internationally. Hamas has consolidated its rule in Gaza and, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, remains a destabilizing and potentially violent force.
Iran's nuclear march may be unstoppable, and the two options - doing nothing or attacking - are both problematic. (Israeli economic forecasts of the impact of a nuclear-armed Iran predict dire consequences ranging from a large-scale asset drain to extensive migration of the educated elite.) Israel's more isolated internationally these days because the "delegitimization campaign" aimed against it doesn't distinguish between the country proper and its ongoing occupation of the West Bank. American Jewry still rails against undue pressure on Israel but more vocally questions its government's hard line.
Domestically, bearish analysts point to the huge gap between Israel's haves and have-nots. Unless larger numbers from the country's deep pockets of poverty (underproducing ultra-Orthodox and underemployed Arab citizens) join the work force, strained public coffers and an uncompetitive education system are inevitable.
Israel's robust democracy also can't be taken for granted. For the political right, international criticism feeds an undercurrent of defensiveness masked as patriotism. In turn, recent attacks on human-rights organizations undermine free speech and dissent while fuelling questions about the country's character.
This mixed balance sheet reverberates in the public discourse. For instance, Israel is stronger than ever militarily, but its leaders - especially Mr. Netanyahu - speak of unprecedented risks. His invocations of the Holocaust when describing the Iranian threat only reinforce a sense of fragility and powerlessness. It's the most obvious example of how emotion, history and symbolism become intertwined with rational decision making.
Some of the balance sheet is beyond Israel's control, but much of it can be shaped by what its leaders do. Mr. Netanyahu's right - it's indeed facile to view the country's domestic and regional challenges strictly through the lens of the Palestinian issue. Dealing with it will, at best, attenuate the Iranian threat rather than make it disappear.
But, by now, the stark equation is known: Israel's democratic future depends on retaining a Jewish majority, and that means divesting itself of now-occupied land and Palestinians. That's the real vulnerability. Defence Minister Ehud Barak recognizes this, but, like Mr. Netanyahu, doesn't translate words into action. Confronting West Bank settlers deters even committed Israeli politicians.
It's fair to question the chances of success in the yet-to-be announced Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks. But in the volatile regional reality, urgency is needed. Otherwise, time won't be on Israel's side.