Decoding Israel's Complex Landscape with Gilad Alper, an Israeli Free Market Economist: Economy, Security, and Beyond
From economic reforms to national security and sovereignty: Gilad Alper delves into Israel's pressing issues, offering critical perspectives on its path forward amid global and domestic challenges
In a wide-ranging and thought-provoking discussion, Gilad Alper, an Israeli free market economist, Head of Israel's Freedom Party, former member of the advisory board to the Israeli Ministry of Finance and a staunch advocate for libertarian policies, delves into the multifaceted challenges facing Israel today. From the economic inertia under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's administration to the pressing national security concerns and the debates over Israel's sovereignty in the wake of international treaties, Alper provides a critical perspective on the state of the nation.
This conversation not only critiques the economic policies and perceived inaction of Netanyahu's tenure but also ventures into the broader implications of these policies on Israel's security, societal cohesion, and autonomy on the global stage. Alper's insights shed light on the complexities of implementing economic reforms, the pivotal role of national security in shaping Israel's future, and the delicate balance of maintaining sovereignty in the aftermath of October 7..
Alper, drawing from his extensive experience and keen observations, critiques the significant disconnect between Netanyahu's initial free-market fervor and his subsequent years of policy inaction. This dialogue sheds light on the underlying factors contributing to Israel's economic challenges, juxtaposing Netanyahu's tenure with the potential for reform and growth that remains largely untapped.
Examining the Economic Legacy of Prime Minister Netanyahu: A Closer Look at Policy Inaction and Potential Causes
Dennis Mitzner: What factors do you believe contributed to Prime Minister Netanyahu's lack of leadership and action regarding the economy during his tenure, especially considering his initial reputation as a reformist and advocate for free markets?
Gilad Alper: In 2002 and 2003, Israel faced a significant crisis due to the second intifada and the bursting of the dot.com bubble. This impact was particularly severe in Israel due to its heavy investment in the tech sector, which even then was a key driver of its economy. As a result of the crisis, the interest rates on national debt soared to as much as 12%. To address this, then Finance Minister Netanyahu implemented reforms focused on increasing labor participation and reducing welfare payments. These measures, alongside the U.S. providing collateral for Israeli government loans, helped Israel recover from the crisis.
Netanyahu's actions during this period are now considered a major highlight of his career, reflecting positively on both his personal legacy and the economic progress of Israel.
Despite his initial reputation as a reformist and advocate for free markets, Netanyahu's tenure as Prime Minister, which lasted almost uninterrupted for the next 14 years, saw little in the way of actual economic reforms. While the Israeli economy has grown and prospered since he took office, becoming significantly wealthier, this improvement is part of a global trend rather than the result of specific policies enacted during his leadership. Critics argue that Netanyahu has not continued the reformist and free-market principles he once championed, particularly in terms of reducing the burden on the private sector to stimulate economic growth and efficiency.
As I see it, while the global norm is for economies to grow and enrich their populations, the critical question is about the gap between us and the developed world. When we look at real GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), the gap between us and the average of the developed world has remained nearly unchanged. We are about 27% poorer than the average OECD country, not to mention the much larger gap with highly successful economies like Switzerland. From this perspective, Netanyahu's tenure as Prime Minister was a significant failure. The facts suggest he did little to close this economic gap. It's as if we could have had a puppet in office, implementing no reforms, and we would still be in the same position, 27% poorer than the rest of the developed world. However, it's not to say that nothing noteworthy happened under his leadership.
In 2011, we discovered natural gas reserves in the Mediterranean Sea, marking a substantial find in terms of fossil fuels for Israel, beyond minor resources like potassium we had found before. Netanyahu played a role in this achievement, and in this aspect, he did relatively well. Additionally, his tenure saw a significant reform in the airline industry, making it cheaper to fly out of Israel and enabling more people to afford vacations. Yet, when it comes to other critical sectors like real estate, education, or reducing the cost of living through freeing imports, his administration did almost nothing. The education sector, in particular, received billions more in funding but continued to struggle with poor management and inefficiency. In these regards, considering the lack of action on regulatory reforms and the failure to address key economic challenges, Netanyahu's legacy as Prime Minister, from my viewpoint, is largely marked by failure.”
DM: What’s behind Netanyahu’s lack of leadership and action regarding the economy? Is it because he stopped caring or because the system of government around him, the bureaucrats and government employees?
GA: This is an intriguing question, and I must admit, I'm not certain what goes on in Netanyahu's mind—whether he truly ceased to believe in the principles he once espoused, or perhaps he never believed in them and was simply putting on a show. After all, politicians often have to pick a side, either out of genuine belief or to attract voters who hold those beliefs, or maybe it's just about creating a distinction from their competitors.
What I can say with certainty is that implementing capitalistic reforms or liberalizing the economy is a daunting task. It involves battling interest groups, confronting the existing elites, and taking on big business—which, contrary to what some might think, is sometimes the antithesis of capitalism. Big business often detests capitalism because capitalism introduces competition that challenges their dominance. Moreover, the mainstream media is predominantly anti-free market, making the task even more arduous. So, whether Netanyahu has abandoned his belief in capitalism or never held it sincerely, or perhaps he was too focused on his own political survival to enact any real change, the result is the same. From my perspective, this is a dismal outcome.
It would have been preferable to have a leftist prime minister who did nothing than to have a supposed capitalist in power who also fails to act. By presenting himself as a capitalist, Netanyahu creates the illusion that Israel is operating under a capitalist system. Then, when people see the issues with real estate, education, and the cost of living, they mistakenly blame capitalism, even though what we're experiencing is far from a true capitalist environment. In essence, Netanyahu's failure to act on his professed capitalist principles has done more than just stagnate progress. It has tarnished the reputation of capitalism itself, making it a scapegoat for Israel's economic issues. If someone like Lapid were prime minister and these problems persisted, people might not be so quick to blame capitalism. The damage Netanyahu has inflicted by misrepresenting capitalism and failing to implement its principles is profound and extends beyond mere inaction.”
Assessing the Bennett-Lapid Government's Market Reforms Versus Netanyahu's Economic Stagnation
DM: Addressing my argument regarding the inflexibility of the system, the political bargaining, and the presence of notable union activists and others within his Likud party, I acknowledge your insights. However, this could also indicate a lack of genuine interest or suggest that politicians and various stakeholders are primarily focused on safeguarding their own interests and those of their respective groups and factions. Could this possibly be the explanation?
GA: Honestly, when you consider the Bennett-Lapid government, despite its inherent complexities, they managed to initiate some deregulatory actions. They faced opposition, of course, but not to the extent one might expect, perhaps because of the coalition's unique composition. It seemed as if there was an unspoken agreement within this diverse coalition that allowed for some degree of progress without major interference from the more left-leaning partners, possibly as a compromise to maintain the coalition's stability. This situation raises questions about why Netanyahu couldn't achieve similar results. It's worth noting that certain reforms could yield immediate positive impacts. For instance, liberalizing the local food market by dismantling restrictive government committees controlling dairy, eggs, meat, etc., could quickly lead to a noticeable decrease in food prices and an increase in product variety and quality.
Such changes could transform the market rapidly, suggesting that if Netanyahu had prioritized these reforms, he could have implemented them - meaning that the positive, quick outcome would have trumped the opposition from interest groups. However, my impression is that Netanyahu's lack of action stems from a different priority: his political survival. While this might not seem scandalous, as many politicians prioritize their careers, this approach often overshadows ideological commitments, especially at higher levels of political power. The inclination to avoid rocking the boat too much, to the detriment of meaningful reform, seems prevalent.
So, in my view, Netanyahu is certainly culpable for the lack of progress. It's disheartening to consider that had other political figures been in his place, the outcome might not have been significantly different. This reflects poorly on Netanyahu, indicating a broader issue with political leadership and the willingness to enact substantial change.
DM: I'm also curious about the Bennett-Lapid government, as I've heard arguments that they enacted some positive market reforms. Do you recall what those reforms were, and which do you consider the most significant?
GA: The Bennett-Lapid government made notable strides in market reforms, with a significant focus on deregulation. A prime example of their efforts was the attempt to reform the Israel Standards Institute (Hebrew: מכון התקנים, Mahon HaTkanim). They aimed to reduce the influence of large businesses that had been effectively controlling the Institute to set standards and regulations in their favor. This control made it challenging for new competitors to enter the market, as any products imported into Israel had to undergo rigorous and often unnecessary checks by the Institute to ensure they met specific, sometimes arbitrary standards. To counteract this, the government initiated changes in the leadership of the Institute and simplified the import process.
Products that received approval from recognized international bodies, like the European Union, were deemed safe for import into Israel. This move was a significant reform that aimed to break down barriers to entry and foster a more competitive market. Despite arguments that completely shutting down the Institute might have been more effective, these reforms represented a step towards reducing the regulatory burden that has been notably high in Israel. Compared to countries with efficient regulatory frameworks, such as Denmark, which ranks high in terms of regulatory efficiency, Israel's position is much lower, indicating a heavier regulatory burden than most developed countries.
This burden has been so detrimental to businesses that it spurred widespread criticism, even within Israel's traditionally socialist-leaning society, making it a critical issue for the Bennett-Lapid government to address. Another area of focus was the liberalization of imports to encourage local competition. By allowing more entities to import the same goods, they aimed to disrupt monopolistic practices and enhance market dynamics. Although these efforts were somewhat undermined by the current Netanyahu government, they highlighted a commitment to tackling regulatory hurdles and promoting economic efficiency. Reflecting on these reforms and considering the broader context of Israel's regulatory landscape, it's challenging to build a defense for Netanyahu's economic policies. Despite some initiatives by his government, the overall effectiveness and commitment to substantial economic reform have been questioned. The legacy of his tenure, particularly regarding economic management, remains a complex and debated topic.
Examining Economic Illiteracy: The Impact on Policy-Making and National Security in Israel
DM: What are some of the financial reforms the current government has been trying to push forward?
GA: Recently, Nir Barkat, serving as the Minister of the Economy, has been in the spotlight for his statements and actions regarding economic policies. A few months back, he seemed to be initiating or at least appearing to initiate some measures, but it appears that little to no substantial outcomes have resulted from these efforts. More troubling, in the past week, he has issued threats against food companies in Israel that are considering price increases. He warned that such companies would be placed on a blacklist, publicly shamed, and opposed using his ministerial authority.
This approach is highly populist and hypocritical, given that the root cause of the high cost of living in Israel is largely due to government policies. The reason food companies are contemplating price hikes is the global increase in costs, with food prices in the West soaring by around 20-30% over the last two years. Therefore, Israel's situation is not an anomaly but rather a reflection of worldwide trends. Barkat's stance does not align with capitalist principles, suggesting a lack of genuine capitalist philosophy within the current government.
This situation underscores a broader issue within Israeli politics, where populist measures often overshadow effective policy-making. The debate over these actions and their impact on the economy touches on political concerns but also reflects deeper challenges in governance and economic strategy.
DM: So how big of a problem do you think this economic illiteracy in Israel is, and do you think it's comparatively speaking worse in Israel than, let's say, in other OECD countries, Western countries?
GA: When analyzing the situation, there are two distinct issues at play. Firstly, the mainstream media predominantly opposes freedom across all life aspects, significantly influencing public opinion. This trend isn't unique to Israel; it's a global phenomenon that has evolved over many decades. Although over the last decade, we’ve seen a major change with the rise of social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and now especially with X (formerly Twitter), which have become havens for free speech and the dissemination of capitalistic and libertarian ideologies, challenging mainstream narratives.
Secondly, the state of Israel's education system is particularly concerning. Internationally comparative assessments, such as the PISA tests, consistently show Israel ranking poorly. The system, especially for secular Jews, is practically a government monopoly with no voucher system, minimal choice, and severe restrictions on private schooling. This environment fosters a populace that is, to a large extent, unaware and unappreciative of free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and the benefits of a capitalist society.
From a young age, students are indoctrinated with socialist ideologies, painting business people and entrepreneurs as exploiters, necessitating state intervention to protect society. Israel's socialist foundation and the persistence of socialist ideologies among key societal pillars—regulators, public sector workers, and educators—contribute to a national ethos that is resistant to capitalist principles.
This contrasts with countries like the United States, which has libertarian roots, or Switzerland, known for its mostly-capitalist stance. Israel's deep-rooted socialism traces back to its founders from Eastern Europe, whose ideologies were starkly socialist, if not Marxist. This historical backdrop has lasting implications for Israel's economic freedom and performance.
According to indices like those compiled by the Fraser Institute, Israel ranks around 35th in terms of economic freedom, indicating that it lags behind most OECD countries in embracing capitalism. This ranking correlates with Israel's position in terms of GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), where it also ranks around 35th globally, placing it at the lower end among Western nations.
The enduring influence of Israel's founding ideologies and the control exerted by the public sector over the country's direction are significant barriers to economic reform and liberalization. This context highlights the challenges of shifting towards a more free-market economy within a society steeped in socialist principles from its inception.
DM: Do you view the stagnant economic situation or the lack of crucial reforms as a national security issue? In other words, do you believe that the current economic policies, which you might consider overly statist or insufficiently reformed, pose a threat to national security?
GA: Certainly, now more than ever, the economic status of Israel is a critical national security issue. Historically, Israel has been a nation surrounded by adversaries, necessitating a strong military for survival. The foundation of a powerful military is a thriving economy that can be taxed without hampering economic growth, ensuring sufficient resources to finance defense needs. In the coming years, the military budget is expected to increase significantly due to enhanced reserve duties and the need for advanced weaponry. This situation will inevitably lead to higher taxes, placing considerable strain on the economy. A major concern is the Israeli economy's heavy reliance on the high-tech sector, which contributes to 50% of the country's exports.
This sector is not only pivotal for the economy but also relatively small in manpower, making it vulnerable to emigration of key talents seeking better living conditions abroad. The potential exodus of these crucial human resources poses a significant risk, exacerbated by the presence of major international tech companies in Israel.
These companies might prefer relocating their talented employees out of Israel to avoid military obligations and ensure their safety, further draining the country's innovative capacity. This situation is compounded by the risk of a vicious cycle: as taxes rise and living conditions deteriorate, more people may leave, weakening the economy further and necessitating even higher taxes. Alarmingly, there seems to be a lack of proactive measures or discussions among decision-makers regarding this looming crisis. Additionally, the expectation of a significant Jewish immigration to Israel due to rising anti-Semitism globally may not be a sustainable solution. While anti-Semitic incidents might increase aliyah temporarily, the underlying economic and security challenges within Israel could ultimately drive a significant emigration, posing a substantial threat to the nation's future.
This economic vulnerability, coupled with potential brain drain and the geopolitical situation, underscores the urgent need for reforms and strategies to bolster Israel's economic resilience and national security.
Despite the clear economic challenges and potential national security risks discussed, there seems to be a lack of action or even discussion on critical economic reforms. There's no movement towards opening up imports, liberalizing the food market, or undertaking the dramatic deregulation necessary for economic vitality. Similarly, there's silence on addressing the real estate market's issues, and no initiatives are being proposed to liberalize the education system. Essentially, there's a notable absence of efforts to tackle these pressing economic concerns, leaving the economy stagnant and unprepared to support the nation's broader needs effectively.
Assessing the Potential Impact of Economic and Security Challenges on Israeli Patriotism and Emigration Trends
DM: I understand your points, but considering the cultural aspect, particularly the secular traditional majority in Israel—around 70-80%—they are notably patriotic, collectively minded, and willing to sacrifice their time and financial well-being for the sake of living in Israel and maintaining their happiness. Israel consistently ranks as one of the happiest countries globally.
This happiness could be attributed to a strong sense of community and satisfaction with life. Given this backdrop, do you believe that the current or impending economic and security challenges will truly test this sense of patriotism and happiness to the extent that it could lead to mass emigration?
GA: Regarding the reliance on happiness rankings, I personally wouldn't place too much emphasis on them. When considering the countries that are deemed happy, such as Finland and Denmark—which is also known for high consumption of psychiatric drugs—it raises questions about what these happiness metrics actually signify. As for emigration, without delving too deeply into speculation, we can look to historical precedents for insight, such as the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War in (1973).
That period, which could be argued as being less shocking than what we're experiencing today, saw a significant number of Israelis emigrating. This phenomenon, known as Yerida, was so pronounced that Prime Minister Rabin at the time coined the phrase "Cowardly Dropouts" (נפולת של נמושות), implying that those who left were weak or cowardly, leaving only the brave behind. This piece of history might offer a perspective on how current or future challenges could affect the Israeli populace's resilience and willingness to stay.
I'm not convinced that the true "cowards" are those who choose to stay or those who leave. In fact, I hold a great deal of respect for individuals who can assess their circumstances critically and make the challenging decision to leave in search of a better life for themselves and their children. This decision requires courage, perhaps more so than simply staying put. Reflecting on historical patterns, especially the wave of emigration following the Yom Kippur War, I argue that today's potential for a similar or even larger exodus is significantly heightened. The tech sector, in particular, offers its employees the mobility and means to relocate more easily than ever before.
Moreover, societal attitudes have shifted; people today are more cynical, more informed via social media, and less trusting of politicians. The divide between different segments of society, whether secular versus religious or right versus left, has only deepened, creating fertile ground for mass emigration under current pressures. Given these conditions, I wouldn't be surprised to see a substantial wave of Israelis leaving the country.
This concern is not hypothetical; in my conversations, which often touch on this topic due to its importance to me, I've found a widespread willingness—and in some cases, concrete plans—to emigrate. I already know of individuals who have moved to Cyprus and other locations, also the Far East where antisemitism is notably less prevalent. This emerging trend underscores the seriousness of the situation and the potential for significant demographic and economic impacts on Israel.
DM: I would also note that the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lockdown periods have contributed to expanding the group of people considering leaving Israel. The challenges faced during those years have added to the reasons for potentially leaving the country.
GA: I completely agree with you. This issue is very close to my heart. The way the COVID-19 situation was handled in Israel is a prime example of Netanyahu's deviation from libertarian principles. The enforcement of vaccines and the overall approach to managing the pandemic in Israel was among the worst globally. This situation serves as strong evidence that Netanyahu's actions do not align with the libertarian image he projects.
DM: Indeed, I was once a supporter and viewed him as a viable leader. However, the drastic shift in his approach during the COVID-19 pandemic was a profound shock to me, an event I'd consider a real black swan in my life. Watching Netanyahu transition into a figure who, on national television, would instruct us on basic health practices in a patronizing manner was disheartening. It painted a clear picture of a divide between the leaders and the populace, where the latter is seen as uninformed and needing guidance.
The widespread public health campaigns and the pervasive messaging were indicative of this perspective, suggesting a sheep-like mentality among the citizens. This experience, I believe, extends beyond the pandemic to other areas like the economy, revealing a tendency towards a herd mentality and a misplaced trust in government. This is a stark contrast to attitudes in the U.S., where despite cynicism, there's not the same level of blind faith in governmental actions. I'm curious about your immediate thoughts on this observation.
GA: It's clear that the interests of certain politicians and the State apparatus are served by keeping the populace subdued and uninformed, which is why the education system is among the biggest adversaries of Israeli citizens.
This system, thoroughly controlled and administered by the state, stands as a primary obstacle to societal progress. The term "Medina" (state) in Hebrew, in this context, refers not to Israeli society but to its government and establishment, which I view as the true adversaries of the people. Despite Israel's significant investment in education—spending a higher percentage of its GDP on education than any other developed country, except Norway—the outcomes and achievements of its education system are dismal. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental issue: the system's socialist underpinnings aim to maintain control over the population by keeping them undereducated and dependent on the state.
Claims of underfunding serve as a pretext for raising taxes, empowering teachers' unions, and further dumbing down the population. A liberated education system could foster critical thinking, enabling individuals to question government mandates, such as the unprecedented restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The acceptance of such invasive measures, including house arrests under the guise of quarantine, underscores a troubling compliance among the populace, which has been conditioned to accept state overreach. This situation underscores a broader problem: the detrimental impact of the state's influence on every aspect of life in Israel. Without significant reform, the country's decline is inevitable, particularly given its unique geopolitical challenges. Israel cannot afford the luxury of being "stupid and poor" like other nations might, given its hostile surroundings. The urgency for reform became apparent in 2003, when economic challenges forced Netanyahu to implement capitalist reforms.
As the situation worsens, perhaps driven by the emigration of high-tech professionals, there may finally be a push for the necessary changes. In my view, Israel faces a binary choice: undergo major reforms or risk ceasing to exist. The geopolitical context leaves no room for a middle ground; survival necessitates excellence and resilience.
DM: Given the effectiveness demonstrated by the state during the COVID-19 response, why does it appear that other pressing issues are not met with the same level of organization and urgency?
GA: People often perceive countries like Israel as inefficient, but this is a misconception; in reality, they can be highly effective, but only when it aligns with the interests of the state. When matters are of paramount importance to the government, actions are executed with precision. For instance, vaccines were swiftly procured and distributed, lockdowns were rigorously enforced, and the tax authority always operate with notable efficiency. The state demonstrates remarkable competency in areas that benefit political agendas or contribute to the control over the populace.
Navigating the Impact of International Agreements on Israeli Sovereignty and Autonomy
DM: Considering Israel's active participation in international agreements and treaties, such as the Abraham Accords and various WHO treaties, alongside its engagement with concepts like CBDCs, it seems these actions could be indicative of a positive direction on the surface.
However, there's a growing concern that through these agreements, Israel might be ceding a portion of its sovereignty, thereby limiting its autonomy in making decisions that are in the best interests of its citizens. Given this perspective, I'm curious about your insights on whether Israel's involvement in such international agreements and treaties might indeed be compromising its ability to independently determine what is best for its people. What are your thoughts on this issue?
GA: At first glance, it's essential to distinguish between the Abraham Accords and other forms of international engagement that might be perceived as compromising Israel's sovereignty, such as agreements with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). The Abraham Accords, which are peace or normalization agreements with the United Arab Emirates and potentially others like Saudi Arabia, are straightforward and beneficial, fostering peace where, for quite a few years, there has been mostly a non-hostile relationship.
On the other hand, engagements with entities like the WHO and the concept of CBDCs are viewed more critically. While I support globalization in the context of consenting free trade of capital, goods, and services, the sovereignty of a nation to control its borders and decide who it allows in is paramount. The WHO agreements and the adoption of CBDCs in Israel are seen as part of a broader issue tied to government overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as enforced vaccinations and broader attempts at control. This trend towards CBDC and similar policies does not stem from external imposition but reflects a domestic mentality that undermines human rights and lacks a proper understanding of them.
Thus, while agreements like the Abraham Accords are positive, other forms of international cooperation, particularly those that could lead to increased governmental control over individuals' lives, are viewed with skepticism. The core issue is a deep-seated disregard for human rights and a misunderstanding of their importance, manifesting in various policy decisions and international agreements.
DM: Given the limited coverage in both English and Hebrew media within Israel, where can one find comprehensive information on topics such as CBDCs and other significant issues? It seems most of the insights I come across are from individual pundits on Twitter. What's the current state of discussion and analysis on these matters?
GA: The mainstream media's coverage of significant issues is often superficial and biased towards maintaining control over the populace. This lack of depth in reporting, especially on topics that could increase the state's control over its citizens, such as the discussion around Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC), reflects a broader trend of media supporting the status quo and avoiding questions that could challenge governmental authority.
Despite the potential implications of CBDCs on freedom and privacy, mainstream media (MSM) outlets seldom address these concerns critically. This pattern is consistent with their stance on other issues, such as the criminalization of certain behaviors and the lack of debate on cannabis legalization. The mainstream narrative tends to align with elite interests, often at the expense of public discourse and individual rights.
Social media platforms have provided a space for alternative voices, including libertarians and others who oppose CBDC and advocate for human rights. However, these dissenting opinions remain in the minority. The prospect of meaningful opposition to policies like CBDC within the Israeli Knesset seems slim, given the current political landscape, which lacks libertarian representation. Comparatively, in the United States, despite the federal government's encroachments on human rights, there is still some level of debate and opposition to CBDC, notably within parts of the Republican Party.
This contrasts sharply with Israel's political scene, where even parties that might be expected to support individual freedoms, such as Likud, do not offer resistance to policies that could infringe on those freedoms. This situation underscores concerns about the future of Israel, highlighting the absence of political diversity and the overwhelming consensus that dominates public discourse. The lack of vigorous debate and critical examination of government policies in Israel is alarming, particularly regarding issues that could significantly impact personal freedoms and privacy.
DM: Considering the influence of media on public discourse, do you believe that outlets like Channel 14 - Israel's Fox News equivalent - are introducing new perspectives on topics such as CBDCs and related issues? In your view, does Channel 14 represent a shift towards more diverse viewpoints, similar to the role played by platforms like Twitter in disseminating alternative opinions?
GA: In my assessment, Channel 14 does not significantly differ from other media outlets in terms of respecting human rights, understanding libertarian principles, or grasping what capitalism truly entails. The sole distinction of Channel 14 lies in its right-wing stance on geopolitics.
While I acknowledge the importance of diverse political perspectives in media, Channel 14's approach to human rights and economic issues is as problematic, if not more so, than its counterparts. Looking more broadly at the right side of Israel's political spectrum, figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich demonstrate a concerning disregard for human rights and a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism and free markets.
Their positions, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic—such as Smotrich's extreme views on vaccine enforcement—highlight a profound absence of commitment to individual freedoms. Thus, expecting these individuals to champion the cause of liberty is unrealistic; notwithstanding their right-wing geopolitical views, they do not advance the principles of freedom. This situation underscores a critical challenge for Israel, where even the ostensibly more conservative or right-wing elements fail to offer a genuine alternative in terms of advocating for human rights or a truly free-market economy.
Rethinking the Relationship Between Economic Prosperity and Peace in Israel
DM: The notion of a rigid right-left dichotomy in Israel often provokes skepticism, as the differences between the sides, especially on national security, seem blurred rather than distinct. This skepticism extends to discussions on how economic incentives might foster peace or peaceful coexistence with neighboring entities. The concept, as highlighted by Professor Efraim Karsh, suggests that improving the economic conditions of adversaries could lead to peace.
This theory, prevalent since the 1990s, posits that economic benefits could motivate a more peaceful relationship. However, despite the ongoing challenges and the presence of hostile intentions from the other side, there remains a significant portion of the Israeli populace that still supports the idea of pursuing peace through economic concessions and humanitarian efforts.
Given this context, I'm curious about your perspective on the effectiveness of such an approach. Do you believe that creating better economic conditions for the other side can lead to peace or peaceful coexistence? Or do you think this strategy overlooks fundamental issues that cannot be resolved through economic means alone?
GA: The belief that economic prosperity can lead to peace and reduce violence is utter nonsense. When examining instances like the 9/11 attacks, where the perpetrators were from middle to upper-middle-class backgrounds, attests to the invalidity of this notion. In the context of Israel, it's evident that the roots of violence are not primarily economic but stem from deep-seated religious, nationalistic, or educational indoctrinations that portray Jews as subhumans deserving of violence. This perspective underscores the importance of education in shaping attitudes towards peace and conflict.
For example, children growing up in the United Arab Emirates are not taught to hate Jews, which contrasts sharply with the education in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and in countries like Egypt and Jordan. This education fosters a cycle of hatred that poses a significant barrier to lasting peace, suggesting that economic solutions alone are insufficient to address the core issues. The recent suggestion by an Egyptian official to prevent Palestinian emigration from Gaza to preserve the "Palestinian problem" highlights a strategic use of the conflict against Israel.
This leads to the idea that encouraging Arab emigration from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza could be a long-term solution to the conflict, a view that was once considered extreme but is gaining traction among the Israeli populace. The proposal to facilitate and financially incentivize the emigration of Arabs from these regions is seen as a pragmatic approach to reducing tensions. However, logistical challenges, such as lack of access to a functioning airport, complicate this solution. Despite the potential benefits, the political support within Israel for such a policy is limited, with only a few parties openly endorsing it. This discussion reflects a shifting perspective among the Israeli public towards finding viable solutions to the conflict, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches that go beyond traditional economic incentives and address the foundational causes of hostility.
DM: Would IDF support or help encourage Arab emigration from these areas?
GA: The top echelon of Israel's military leans left-wing and the influence of the military in Israel's political and security decisions is undeniable. However, the ultimate direction and decisions come down to the country's political leadership. The Israeli military adheres to the directives of its civilian leaders, underscoring the primacy of political authority over military action.
That said, the dynamic between military leadership and politicians can be complex. Often, it's argued that the military presents options to the politicians that are subtly aligned with what the military prefers, thereby limiting the politicians' choices to essentially what the military deems acceptable. This situation underscores the need for politicians who are not only intelligent but also possess the strength of character to assert their authority and make independent decisions. The challenge lies in finding leaders who embody both intellect and decisiveness—a rare combination. While some may have the intellect, they lack the assertiveness needed to counterbalance the military's influence effectively.
DM: Regarding the support for actions such as releasing hostages, it stands at a notable 38%, which, while not a majority, represents a significant portion of public opinion. This indicates a substantial minority in Israel might be open to concessions, mirroring sentiments found in other contentious issues. When considering the influence of left-wing ideology within the military's top echelons, a comparison arises with what's termed the "CNN factor" in America, where public and media pressure due to negative war coverage can sway government decisions to end military engagements prematurely. This raises a couple of critical points for Israel:
The luxury of halting military operations based on public or media pressure is not feasible due to the immediate and existential threats Israel faces.
The emergence of this value system or cultural attitude towards conflict and military engagement in Israel warrants examination. Has this mindset always been prevalent, or is it a relatively recent development influenced by global or internal factors?
Understanding the roots and implications of these perspectives is crucial for grasping the broader dynamics at play in Israel's security policy and public sentiment. How did such attitudes come to be, and what impact do they have on the nation's approach to conflict resolution and national defense?
GA: The pervasive influence of education, media, and academia in shaping public opinion in Israel towards the conflict and peace efforts with the Palestinians is significant. From a young age, individuals are exposed to narratives that often place the blame on Israel for the ongoing conflict, promoting the idea that peace is achievable through economic and commercial opportunities for Palestinians. This narrative, reinforced over decades by teachers, media outlets, and academic institutions, becomes a deeply ingrained belief for many.
This indoctrination extends into the military, where it's suggested that ascending to high ranks, such as becoming a general, may require adherence to, or at least a pretense of belief in, left-wing tenets. These include the notion that Israel is at fault in the conflict and that protecting enemy civilians should be prioritized over the safety of Israeli soldiers—a stance that has been publicly endorsed by figures like Benny Gantz without significant public backlash.
Such a mindset, where compassion for the enemy is emphasized over the safety of one’s own soldiers, is continually validated and propagated through various channels. If academia rewards research and discourse that aligns with these views, and the media amplifies these narratives, it creates an environment where dissenting opinions are marginalized.
Individuals who challenge these prevailing views risk being labeled as evil, unintelligent, or opposed to peace. This systemic encouragement of a particular viewpoint not only shapes public opinion but also affects career advancements in both the military and academic spheres. As a result, a cycle is created where the dominant narrative is self-reinforcing, leading to a public discourse that heavily favors a certain interpretation of the conflict and the solutions to it. This environment makes it challenging for alternative perspectives to be heard or considered legitimate, further entrenching the divide in Israeli society over how to address the conflict with Palestinians.
DM: Considering the present and Israel’s war in Gaza, what does victory look like?
GA: Defining victory in this context means achieving a deterrent effect so strong that the international community and potential aggressors realize the folly of challenging Israel. Victory would entail a situation where the actions taken by Israel against threats, such as those posed by Hamas, lead to a widespread acknowledgment of Israel's strength and the unwise nature of provoking its military response.
This could involve significant blows to the leadership of hostile groups, reinforcing the notion that aggression against Israel is a grave mistake. Conversely, losing in this scenario implies that hostile groups, like Hamas, remain unaffected or even emboldened, which would have far-reaching implications. Such an outcome would jeopardize Israel's recent peace agreements and deter potential new ones, like with Saudi Arabia. It could lead to a reevaluation of relations by current peace partners such as Egypt and Jordan and embolden Israel's adversaries, including Iran and its proxies, to intensify their hostile intentions.
A defeat could severely impact Israel's security environment, leading to increased military and economic strain. The local Arab population might feel encouraged by perceived Israeli weakness, potentially leading to greater disengagement or hostility.
The economic repercussions would be significant, necessitating increased defense spending and impacting international economic relations, as confidence in Israel's stability and strength wanes. Such a scenario underscores the existential necessity for Israel not just to maintain but to clearly demonstrate its military and strategic capabilities to ensure both its security and its continued prosperity.
DM: The notion that Israel's raison d'être might be compromised due to territorial concessions, having de facto already ceded about 20% of its landmass, particularly in Gaza and the north - where entire towns have been evacuated and made unlivable - underscores a significant anxiety about the country's future security and sovereignty. This concern raises questions about Israel's strategic responses to threats from these regions and its broader approach to ensuring its survival and maintaining its territorial integrity.
Do you believe that Israel's future hinges on its ability to effectively address and manage the security challenges posed by the territories in the north and Gaza? Is this perspective something you find resonates with your understanding of Israel's security needs and its long-term viability as a nation-state?
GA: The scenario you're describing paints a stark picture of the strategic and existential challenges Israel faces, emphasizing the importance of addressing security concerns in both the north and the south. The potential for ongoing conflict with Hamas in Gaza and the implications for Israel's territorial integrity and demographic distribution raise critical questions about the nation's future.
The continued threat of rocket attacks post-conflict and the support for Hamas among a significant portion of the local population in Gaza highlight the complexities of achieving lasting peace and security. The prospect of an internal displacement of populations towards central Israel due to unresolved security issues in the north and south could lead to significant socio-economic pressures, including on real estate and the broader economy.
The long-term viability of Israel as a first-world economy amidst these challenges is a crucial concern. A first-world economy is essential for financing the military capabilities necessary for national defense. The existential threat, therefore, is not solely from the possibility of military overrun by the militaries of neighboring countries but also from the erosion of economic stability and the capacity to sustain a first-world military infrastructure.
The potential for a cycle of violence, economic decline, and emigration poses a grave risk to Israel's future. The cessation of Israel's status as a prosperous, secure state does not necessitate a physical overrun by adversaries but could also result from the inability to maintain its economic and military strength. Addressing these multifaceted challenges is imperative for ensuring the continued existence and prosperity of the state.
DM: Considering the significant challenges and crises a government might face, what do you believe would be the appropriate response or course of action for a government following a major setback or failure? In a typical democratic setting, a dramatic failure often leads to calls for leadership changes, akin to a CEO stepping down after a drastic plunge in stock value. What leadership moves or strategies do you think would have been appropriate for the government to adopt in the immediate aftermath of such an event?
GA: It seems that even though we label citizens as innocent, some of them may have actually participated in the massacre. In addition, polls reveal that the majority of the population endorses the raping, beheadings, kidnapping and the wholesale massacre that took place on October 7th. Regardless, we find ourselves 120 days into the war with significant destruction in Gaza.
There's speculation whether it would have been more effective to execute this destruction in the initial two days following October 7, potentially sending a stronger message. However, there are moral and political considerations to weigh. It's uncertain if such actions would have been justifiable or feasible. The timing of the government's decision is questioned, perhaps delayed due to shell shock. Now, the priority must be winning the war. The precise timing of actions may ultimately be insignificant compared to the overall outcome. What matters most is securing victory, as the ending is what will be remembered. All other concerns pale in comparison to this overarching objective.
DM: Should the government resign and call for new elections?
GA: I believe there should be an election held after this catastrophe. It's crucial to acknowledge the magnitude of this disaster, arguably the worst in the state's history. Some might not grasp the severity of the situation – it’s akin to the Yom Kippur War, although some may debate this comparison.
While I'm not a military expert, there's a valid argument that this surpasses the impact of Yom Kippur. The atrocities, civilian casualties, and barbaric acts, such as beheadings, are unprecedented. Yom Kippur, in contrast, was a conventional war between armies. Here, we face unconventional tactics and alliances, like the potential collaboration between Hamas, Israeli Arabs, and Hezbollah. We struggled to contain Hamas alone, let alone a coalition of adversaries. If they coordinated a simultaneous attack, the consequences could be disastrous.
DM: Israel is now making gun ownership more available to the public after what happened on October 7. What is your view on the matter?
GA: What I wanted to address is the issue of gun control, which brings to mind Israel's strict regulations. Israel prohibits civilians from owning or carrying guns unless they've served in special forces or reside in high-risk areas—a designation that seems absurd given the country's overall security concerns. This policy reflects Israel's broader mentality, which I view as oppressive and anti-freedom. The restrictions on gun ownership played a role in the tragic events of October 7th, and it's disheartening that many politicians and regulators still oppose granting citizens the right to bear arms.
This resistance, even in the face of ongoing threats, underscores the skewed mindset prevalent in Israel. Take my own situation, for instance. I live in Ramat Gan, an area not typically considered dangerous, yet it's just minutes away from potential threats. Despite this proximity, I'm not permitted to carry a firearm for self-defense.
What's particularly frustrating is the inconsistency in how the state treats its citizens. At 18, I was issued an M16 assault rifle, was compelled to serve 3 years in the military, risking my life for my country. Yet, upon completing my service at 21, I'm suddenly deemed unfit to handle even a basic handgun for self-defense.
This contradiction highlights the state's control over individual liberties. The practical implication of this policy is clear: without the means to defend ourselves, we're at the mercy of potential threats. It's as if Israel has decided that law-abiding citizens who have served their country don't deserve the fundamental right to self-defense.