Jul 12, 2026
Jul 12, 2026
Survival in Murky Waters
In the first part of this two-part essay, the author had dealt with the civilizational history of Jews, evolution of the state of Israel in the modern age after the 2nd World War, current geography & demography and consequent challenges, conflicts and attrition wars since creation of Israel in 1948, how focus shifted from state conflicts to militancy and terrorism in the region, and consequent political and military manoeuvres of Israel to survive in a hostile surroundings with the obtaining external and internal threats. In this concluding part, the author proposes to analyse lineage of the followers of main Abrahamic religions, the root causes of conflict and approach of the Arab nations, plight of Palestinians, real threats to Israel, contributions of Jewish and Arab nations to the world in various fields, apprehensions of Israel in the context or the US-Iran peace accord as also the way forward for a permanent peace in the Middle East.
Lineage and Common Ancestry
From an archaeological and historical standpoint, evolution of the human race and their gradual transformation in various civilizations in different parts of the world occurred at different points of time. In that perspective, the Judaism is certainly not the oldest civilization in the Levant, but it can be definitely cited as one of the oldest surviving ethno-religious continuities in the region. Even before the Jews, the Levant was much earlier home to some complex societies, like the Natufians, the Amorites, and the Canaanites, the last one appearing around 3000 BCE. Historians and archaeologists agree that the Israelite civilization and early Judaism stemmed directly out of the older Canaanite people sometime during the Late Bronze Age collapse (say around 1200 BCE). Therefore, it can be safely vouched that while other vintage civilizations indeed preceded and have since vanished, the Judaism represents the oldest continuous civilization and a cultural tradition native to the southern Levant.
?The modern genetic studies vindicate that Jews and Arabs share an earnest common ancestry with historical, genetic and cultural linkages. They are Semitic people who trace their origins to the same patriarch viz. Prophet Abraham. In addition, they also have many common fundamental linguistic roots, closely related DNA lineages as also similar cultural traditions such as faithful monotheism, dietary laws, and male circumcision. Both the ethnic groups track a significant portion of their DNA back to the millennia old ancient populations of the Levant, particularly the Bronze Age Canaanites. Hebrew and Arabic belong to the same Semitic language family that share similar grammatical structures and numerous cognates This biological reality also aligns with the traditional theological narrative found in the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh), wherein Jews trace their lineage to Abraham through his son Isaac, while Arabs trace their descent through Abraham's firstborn son, Ishmael. Whether viewed through the lens of modern population genetics or ancient tribal lore, the two groups are deeply intertwined as sister populations.
According to a lore, Isaac was born to Abraham and his wife Sarah through a miraculous fulfilment of God’s promise. As Sarah was believed to be barren, hence illegible to conceive and give child birth. On the other hand, Ishmael was born to Abraham and Sarah’s Egyptian handmaiden Hagar, showered affection but the two were later sent away. Apart from this, the Hebrew Bible, more specifically the Torah and the Book of Genesis, provide the foundational blueprint for the theological structure of all the Abrahamic faiths, particularly two dominant ones i.e. Christianity and Islam. The Christianity is believed to have incorporated the entire Hebrew Bible into its canon as the Old Testament, viewing Jesus as the fulfilment of its messianic prophecies. However, the Islam adopted some major narratives, including prophets (like Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses), and ethical canons from these scriptures, re-contextualizing them within the Quran. Notwithstanding ages of theological and political conflicts, many common linkages between them including the core monotheistic approach of God, cosmological history, and moral vocabulary of both Christianity and Islam remain permanently anchored to the Jewish textual precedents.
Root Causes of Conflict & Role of Arab Nations
From the origin and historical accounts, it is established beyond doubt that the ancient Jews civilization was evolved with Judaism representing its culture and religion in the Levant region. The Levant subsequently faced Christian and Islamic invasions and occupation, and Jews were persecuted and uprooted from their homeland; consequently, they were either converted, killed or scattered to various parts of the globe over a period. So, when we write or recall history, we cannot be justified in being discreet in that we claim the land only from our perspective. What is at best justifiable after hundreds of years that both the Jews and Palestinians/Arabs have a right to exist and live (preferably co-exist) peacefully in the same land or region. This is something that not only the Palestinians and Arabs but also larger international community needs to accept as many of them are driven by their immediate self-interests such as oil and other resources or simply majoritarianism for tactical socio-political considerations.
Under the UN brokered peace plan (Resolution 181) in 1948, the land under consideration was divided between the proposed Jewish state and Arab (Palestine) states roughly in a ration of about 56% and 43% respectively, and remaining approximately 176 sq km of Jerusalem and Bethlehem (1%) was retained under UN administration. While Jews had agreed to this plan and implemented accordingly, the Arab states out-rightly rejected it because they were not willing to concede an independent Jewish state carved out of Palestine. The officially viewed the partition as unjust and violation of self-determination as also a wilful imposition of Western colonial interference. The reason for a larger share to the proposed Jewish state was that almost 60% of the proposed land to them comprised of sparsely populated Negev Desert, unsuitable for agriculture at the time while the Arab state received most of the fertile highlands of the West Bank, much of Galilee’s agricultural productive land, and the Gaza coastal strip. It was during wars of 1948 and mainly 1967 that Israel did not return certain strategic conquered land such as East Jerusalem, parts of the West Bank and Golan Heights declaring it as their sovereign land.
The Core Levant region in contemporary geopolitics comprises of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Israel, Cyprus and Palestine and since its creation in 1948, Israel has a constant conflict leading to several wars that inter alia includes even Egypt that shares a reasonably long boundary with it. In their military and diplomatic war with Israel, an overwhelming majority of the Arab and other Islamic countries have been actively supporting their cause. The prolonged wars and terrorism led to displacement of the Palestinian population which remains one of the most enduring geopolitical gridlocks of the modern era in restoring peace in the region. Despite the immense wealth, thanks to oil rich West Asia, and regional influence of the broader Arab and Islamic world, a large Palestinian population continue to live in refugee camps across the Levant. To understand this paradox i.e. Islamic brotherhood, their global clout and immense wealth yet large Palestinians population remaining homeless/destitute, as also the foundational friction points of the conflict, the following chief points, among many others, need consideration.
(1) The core issue is competing claims of two ideologically different communities with a long history of discord and violent clashes for the same strip of land lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. While Arabs call it the Land of Palestine or Holi Land and not willing to concede any part of it to Israel, the Jews, persecuted world over in past, wanted to re-establish a sovereign sanctuary in their ancestral and historical homeland. To resolve this struggle, ultimately the United Nations intervened and mandated a division of land between two contenders. While Jews agreed to this solution, Arabs out-rightly rejected UN solution and sought to capture whole land by force in 1948, 1967 and subsequent wars of attrition. Israelis look at the history from the point of their origin and years of peaceful abode but Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular endorse history from the date when they occupied the land throwing out Jews by conversion, killing or migration. It may appear harsh to some but it is a bitter reality in Levant, in Indian sub-continent and perhaps some other parts of the world as well.
(2) During two wars of 1948 and 1967, about a million Palestinians fled their homes as Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. As such the demographic growth rate among the Muslims is highest among all the major communities in the world. An extensive demographic research study conducted by the Pew Research Centre confirms that currently Islam is the fastest-growing religion globally. In the past, all diplomatic resolution efforts have failed due to an irreconcilable demand among others. The Palestinian leadership and their sympathisers demand the "Right of Return" for the original refugees and their millions of descendants to homes inside Israel mainland. Israel cannot accept this demand because absorbing millions of Palestinian Arabs would significantly change current demography instantly eliminating the Jewish majority. This will indeed be like digging one’s own grave, thereby effectively breaking the Jewish state from within. Conversely, the rapid expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has also fragmented the contiguous land to build a more Palestinian state.
(3) Although over two million Arab people still live within the Palestinian territories, about 3.5 million registered Palestinian refugees are currently living in neighbouring Arab countries, some estimates suggest this toll to about 6.5 million including a large number of unregistered refugees. Despite no dearth of land, the wealthy Arab states have done little (sand Jordan to some extent) to absorb them on permanent basis to integrate in the mainstream. Historically, billions of dollars in humanitarian aid through the United Nations (mainly UNRWA) have been given but desired will has not been expressed by any Arab state for the permanent settlement of refugees, their naturalization and grant of full civil rights. Of course, this approach itself stems from a variety of factors and fears, a few briefly listen as follows:
(i) During initial years, the neighbouring Arab nations indeed were inclined and hosted Palestinians in large number but gradually they learnt that it might lead to their own internal security problems and destabilization, including armed insurgency, civil war, and so on. For instance, during the last Israeli conflict with Hamas in 2023, Egypt strictly closed their borders for exodus from the Gaza Strip; Jordan too sealed their borders declining to accept Palestinian refugees. Jordan initially granted widespread citizenship to such refugees but towards late 1960s, the heavily armed Palestine guerrilla factions like PLO started defying the authority of the monarchy triggering a civil war in September 1970, and the king was constrained to use military to expel PLO from the country. A similar situation was later experienced by Lebanon triggering a long civil war and heavy retaliation from Israeli forces against the PLO’s cross border raids.
(ii) Although its regarding Palestinians but most of the Arab states and Islamic world have been traditionally against Israel in this conflict. Therefore, from the strategic perspective many of these states surmise that permanent absorption of the refugees may tantamount to a perceived geopolitical surrender. Hence the Arab League has a kind of diplomatic consensus that the naturalization of Palestinian refugees would effectively absolve Israel of their historical responsibility diminishing the Palestinian claim over the land. Therefore, by retaining their refugee status and projecting it as a humanitarian crisis, they are keeping the flame alive against Israel internationally in UN and other forums.
(iii) More wealthy Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait, have chosen to contribute significant funds rather than physical absorption. These states are hyper protective to own demographic balances avoiding naturalization or citizenship to foreign nationals, irrespective of the Arab or larger Islamic brotherhood. Then they have their own internal tussles and political frictions often impacting their relationship with Palestinian leadership.
Existential Threat to Israel & Jews
It would not be unfair to say that the Israeli establishment and vast population of Jews perceive an enduring existential threat since the emergence of the state of Israel in 1948, and the nature and intensity of this threat too changed over time. In the early decades of its formation, Israel had to fight conventional wars against the neighbouring Arab states in 1948, 1967 and other occasions when some leaders of the Arab world not only publicly questioned the state’s legitimacy but also called for its annihilation. Over a period, neighbouring Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) have forged peace treaties with Israel while some other Arab states such as the UAE have normalized relations, Israel continues to face the military threat and rhetoric of some state actors, more particularly Iran, along with Syria's past hostility and the involvement of Iran-backed militant groups in Lebanon and elsewhere posing significant security challenges. In addition, Israel also has concerns over Iran's missile and nuclear programs, regional proxy networks and their ulterior ambitions.
From non-state actors, Israel continued to face serious threat from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other proxy groups in the past for decades. Although PLO has not been formally disbanded and it continues to operate as the internationally acknowledged umbrella organization representing Palestinian people but in the recent years its subversive activities have almost completely subsided. Israel now faces sustained attacks from organizations including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Houthis (Ansar Allah) from Yemen, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad mainly active in Gaza Strip and West Bank. These groups keep carrying out rocket attacks, suicide bombings, cross-border raids, kidnappings, and all other forms of violence targeting Israeli civilians, women and military personnel. For instance, Hamas's surprise large-scale attack on 7 October 2023 on several targets in South Israel and a music festival alone led to about 1,200 casualties, over 3400 serious injuries and 251 hostages, including many women and children. Hezbollah is another dreaded organization whose extensive rocket and missile arsenal and periodical attacks pose serious existential threat to Israel.
Besides, the aforesaid traditional external threats, Israel faces serious internal security and socioeconomic friction too owing to its demographical factors such as divergent population among its main sub-communities. The rapid natural increase of the Ultra-Orthodox (such as Haredi) Jewish population presents a long-term challenge to Israel’s internal security and economic sustainability. This population largely claims exemptions from mandatory military service and historically contributes low participation in the total workforce. In addition, constant nationalist and socio-political alienation within parts of the large Arab-Israeli minority so often creates difficult domestic fault lines. Needless to mention, these internal divides have a serious potential for the country's traditional "melting pot" social cohesion, manifesting as lower institutional trust, civil unrest, and obvious political polarization particularly during periods of the heightened external conflict.
Geographically, too, the tiny nation has no less vulnerabilities. The country’s primary internal vulnerability arises from its lack of strategic depth and high concentration of population and critical infrastructure. The vast majority of its citizens, high-tech economy and power grids is distributed along a narrow coastal plain, sometimes referred to as the Tel Aviv-centred "Gush Dan" bottleneck. What adds further fuel to the fire is the situation that the aforesaid vital corridor lies just few kilometres away from hostile territories and high-elevation perimeters like the Judea-Samaria (West Bank) ridge and southern Lebanon, perennially exposing it to cross-border intrusions/raids, rocket fire, precision drones and local insurgency. A single major security breach or prolonged aerial assault such as one carried out by Hamas in October 2023 can effectively paralyze the nation's transit, supply chains as well as military mobilization, rendering its tight geography into a dangerous choke point.
However, since peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994, Israel has faced relatively fewer threats from the conventional Arab state armies than in the earlier decades. In recent years, its principal state adversary is Iran, whose ultra-orthodox leaders have repeatedly expressed hostility and threat to Israel. Besides, Iran openly supports armed militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and the country itself has developed a substantial missile arsenal and more probably a clandestine programme for the nuclear weapons. In the current war commenced on 28 February 2026, Iranian missiles inflicted substantial damage to Israeli infrastructure and civilian casualties. Another Islamic country, Iraq too attacked Israel in earlier Arab-Israeli wars with Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War, but currently it is not considered a primary military threat. Pakistan does not recognize Israel, has not posed a direct military threat but, too often, it has a loud political rhetoric against Israel and Jews.
The war scenario in the Middle East has significantly since the last century following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. While the nation for several decades faced the threats of the coordinated conventional wars from neighbouring Arab states, now the security environment has become more complex, employing a strategic hybrid of state actors, non-state proxy groups armed with lethal weapons, missile and drone warfare (even proxy groups have access to), cyber threats, besides regional power competition. Conversely, the very fact that many of the Muslim-majority countries such as the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, etc. (nearly 2 dozen of OIC member states) have recognized Israel and established diplomatic relations with the Jewish state suggest that the regional geopolitics is no more static. Notwithstanding, the unresolved Israeli–Palestinian issue continues to remain a corner stone and central obstacle for a durable peace.
Whether these threats are aptly interpreted as "existential" is ultimately a matter of perspective and context for different people, even nationalities. Over a period, Israel has transformed into one of the strongest militaries in the Levant region with an advanced missile defence systems and close strategic partnerships with the US, Europe and elsewhere. It is also equipped with a substantial stockpile of the nuclear weapons. These developments have assured to an extent that an outright military destruction of this tiny state by conventional means far less likely than it risked in early decades. Nonetheless, the constant external and internal hostilities including state actors and their proxies indeed pose a significant threat for the survival of a small state. Most probably, this is the reason why the successive Israeli governments have continued to put forth internationally that the vicious combination of hostile state policies, heavily armed non-state groups, terrorism, and chances of the coordinated regional conflict justifies for them to maintain a high level of vigilance at all time.
US-Iran Peace Accord
An interim Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed on 26 June 2026 by the United States and Iran to end the war on certain agreed terms. Its purpose was to forge a ceasefire and create a framework for negotiating a comprehensive settlement within the next 60 days. Talks between the two parties were principally brokered by Pakistan, Qatar as co-broker or mediator, and the countries like Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Oman are also appear to have serve as facilitators in certain ways. Actually, several reports and headlines called it an accord but it is a misnomer and should aptly, legally and diplomatically, be described as an interim Memorandum of Understanding (framework agreement). According to reports, some of the most difficult issues like Iran's nuclear programme, sanctions, verification, and long-term security arrangements, etc., have been left out to be resolved in the final agreement. Besides, even this MOU appears to have run into serious problem with both sides committing violations including acts of war. The US European allies like UK, France and Germany did not have a role and another key player Israel was entirely kept out of the loop.
As of second week July 2026, there is no indication of the two sides reaching a final agreement soon. Some of the key unresolved issues that need to be negotiated and settled are briefly enumerated as follows:
It is of common knowledge that though an interim ceasefire has been agreed to but, so far, negotiations have remained deadlocked mainly over the insistence of Iranian right to continue uranium enrichment, disposal of the existing Uranium stockpile, extent and timing of sanctions relief, long term verification and inspection, and sought guarantees regarding regional proxy support and activities. Ironically, the war against Iran was jointly fought by the US and Israel but the latter has been completely left out of the peace negotiations. Also, the countries such as Pakistan and Qatar which primarily brokered negotiations do not recognize Israel at all and, in fact, the former has been openly lobbying against Israel at all forums. It sends a clear message that the talks wee essentially structured to settle the conflict between the US and Iran although it is generally believed that Israel was privately taken in loop by the US with developments shared discreetly.
Israel’s Apprehensions and Concerns
The signing of the interim MOU between the US and Iran certainly marks a watershed moment whereby the immediate geopolitical priorities of Washington and Jerusalem have visibly diverged. If we look at the initial US cries, among other things the objective was to achieve systemic regime change substituting with a more moderate one or, so to say, the total containment of Iran with a view to securing regional stabilization and protecting global economic assets. Despite a prolonged battle aliening some of their European allies and a staggering financial, political, and physical toll at home, the US clearly failed to achieve the aforesaid objective. This only gives an indication that the US possibly choose to prioritize a diplomatic off-ramp to bail out from the Middle East mess rather than pursuing or prolonging its earlier resolve of securing the complete subjugation of the adversary.
Whether signing an MOU without representing Israel a party is fair is more of a question of perspective. The US has long been assisting Israel politically, diplomatically and militarily since its formation. If we look at it from the US perspective, it would be reasonable to conclude that Israel, the former’s closest and trustworthy ally in the region, should support a diplomatic settlement that the US considers reduces the chances of wider Middle East conflict. However, looking at the Israel’s perspective, it is a very hard decision to accept an accord neither negotiated nor signed by it, more so when it is a question of its long-term survival, sovereignty and integrity. If the reports as they are coming out so far, if the larger issue of Iran’s nuclear programme is underplayed or compromised just to forge a topical peace to enable the superpower nation a safe exit which they have done at occasions in the past, the most recent being Afghanistan, this will put a grave risk to Israel’s safety in the long run. Similarly, if Iran continues to support the proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas hitherto fore, it will be Israel’s loss; after all, the US has been of late pressurizing Israel to stop operation against Hezbollah assets in Lebanon.
In a way, this explains why Israel has not given unqualified support to the framework chartered by US and Iran with brokers like Pakistan, Qatar and Oman. On date. Prime Minister Netanyahu and key Israeli spokespersons have time and again stated that Israel retains the right to act independently against any perceived Iranian and proxy threats. If the recent assessment is of worth, Israel is prepared to resume military action if it concludes that Iran is violating the understanding. In fact, Israel's chief apprehension is that the present negotiated framework may pause or postpone rather than eliminate Iran's resolve to develop nuclear weapons. Israeli leaders hold that if Iran is allowed. to retain enrichment Uranium, nuclear expertise and facility, or it continue to retain significant stockpiles of enriched uranium, it could eventually resume its nuclear weapon programme. Israel also fears that sanctions relief could enable Iran to rebuild its military capabilities and continue to pose direct threat and/or support regional proxies hostile to Israel. In a way it is fair to surmise when Israel and Iran do not have any boundary or other disputes, why should Iran indulge in hostility and actions to destabilize Israel merely in the name of religion.
Yet another but crucial concern of Israel is more of the procedural nature. It is beyond doubt that Israel has been the primary target of Iran's repeated existential threats and proxy attacks but they have not been included while negotiating the framework. Moreover, the countries which have brokered the settlement so far, do not even recognize Israel, rather a country like Pakistan has consistently been hostile to Israel at all forums. Therefore, it is unfair to pressurise Israel to accept security risks arising from an accord over whose terms were neither known to them nor they were consulted at any time. In turn, Israeli officials have aptly insisted that any diplomatic framework must include provisions for strict, intrusive verification, clear consequences for violations, and an unequivocal commitment that Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon. On date there are nine known nuclear states, of them only United States has used it once and an Islamic country Pakistan irresponsibly proclaims its possession for the larger Islamic brotherhood, has been associated with nuclear proliferation, and threatens its use against Bharat every off and on.
Israel has maintained that their country does not oppose diplomacy in principle but it will not consider itself bound if it perceives that the agreement actually endangers its national security. Accordingly, it has declared to reserve the right to act independently and decisively engaging all available means against what it perceives as an imminent Iranian nuclear or security threat. In essence, Israel's clear position is that peace is welcome so long it produces a durable and verifiable elimination of the national threat, rather than a temporary reduction of hostilities. As Israel continued its action against Hezbollah assets, President Trump in his statements publicly rebuked Israel and the US officials reportedly conveyed to it that unilateral Israeli military action must stop as it could derail the negotiations that may have consequences for Israel. According to reports, the stated consequences include delaying or restricting deliveries of munitions and military support, reducing intelligence sharing, or even withholding diplomatic backing in future. These are some reported leverages; however, there is no credible reports about the Trump administration announcing any restrictive policy or actual punitive measures against Israel so far.
If we look at the 14-point framework, it focuses heavily on global macroeconomic factors such as securing the maritime toll-free passage by reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for the global oil markets, nuclear caps to persuade Iran to forego nuclear ambitions, simultaneously waiving core oil sanctions and unfreezing billions of Iranian assets abroad as incentives for them. Conversely, some of the vague positions or omissions include material retention of the enriched Uranium on the Iranian soil, silence on Iran’s ballistic missile and UAV capabilities thereby leaving their main offensive tools unmonitored, delinking the proxy issue by not insisting Iran to halt weaponization and funding to regional militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and the 60-days window for the shipping safety comes without assurance of a permanent internationally enforced maritime security mechanism. This explains in a nutshell why Israel has taken the ceasefire framework with extreme caution and considers itself not bound by the US-Iran interim accord failing to address the strategic and tactical threats on its doorstep.
Why Israel Often Takes Proactive Measures?
Having learnt lessons primarily from 1967 Arab-Israel war, Israel has followed the strategy of pre-emptive strike against an imminent threat, including military threats from any state or terrorist organization, their missile sites, or weapons shipments, and so on. Often described as its “begin Doctrine” and the broader concept of Beravera (i.e. cutting down the grass), it serves as a cornerstone of Israel’s national security whereby they believe in neutralizing imminent threats before they can materialize inside its borders. Arguments in favour suggest that such operations like the 1967 pre-emptive air strikes, the 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, and several actions against militant infrastructure have disrupted serious threats and contributed to deterrence on many occasions. Conversely, on the flip side and as often held by critics, such actions have the potential risk of violating international laws if they do not comply to the legal threshold of self defence besides a larger risk of escalating regional tension fuelling further cycle of violence or even an all-out war.
Although, whether a pre-emptive strike is justified or not may remain a subject of intense legal and political debate citing specific circumstances and facts, but a nation has every right to defend it people, assets and borders for which, at times, means become secondary with security taking precedence over all other needs. Given Israel’s lack of strategic geographical depth with its narrow physical borders leaving little or no room to retreat or absorb a massive first onslaught from the enemy, Israel has no option but to heavily rely on accurate intelligence and take instant initiative when threatened. By launching targeted pre-emptive or preventive operation to destroy enemy troop concentrations, their advanced weaponry such as missiles and drones, or nascent nuclear capabilities in neighbouring or potentially hostile states, Israel is able to effectively disrupt or deal with adversaries’ planning and preparation, deny hostile forces the advantage of a surprise, and maintain a powerful psychological advantage of deterrence. The proactive action also ensures that the theatre of conflict remains enemy’s territories thereby keeping the threat away from its own population centres and infrastructure.
Epilogue
The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East continues to be a deeply volatile arena defined by a stark clash between historical narratives, modern security architectures and changing superpower priorities. The figure and facts incorporated in this two-part essay broadly highlight the ground scenario as it exists through the Middle East crisis as also various concerns particularly in the context of the security and safety of the tiny nation Israel that it is. In a way Israel has no direct dispute with Iran yet obtaining serious existential threats from that very nation. In the context of interim US-Iran accord, here are two qualifications: One, the precise contents of the current US-Iran understanding remain uncertain, and that arrangements may include verification, future monitoring, or more negotiations that all this is not yet public; the second, even if a future accord places limits on Iran's nuclear activities, Israel has been consistently clear that a durable settlement must also address Iran's ballistic missile programme, its support to the regional proxy networks, and suitable mechanism to prevent a future nuclear disaster.
From Israel's perspective, an accord with these gaps or any of these issues unresolved may reduce immediate tensions in the Middle East but the long-term security threats for their nation would still prevail; hence in such case, Israel would take its independent course. Therefore, in the longer term, Israel's viable course of action is likely to combine many complementary strategies rather than rely on just a military action. It would be in Israel’s favour if it continues to maintain or further strengthen its credible deterrence and robust intelligence capabilities. Then despite its ongoing differences, Israel must continue to deepening strategic coordination with the US hitherto fore. Wherever there is a scope, Israel must strengthen political and diplomatic relations as also security partnerships with the Arab states who share common concerns about Iran. Last but not the least for survival, Israel must invest more in multi-layered missile and air defence with simultaneous pre-emptive attack capabilities in the event of perceived imminent existential threat. Only such a multi-pronged approach in the murky waters of the Middle East can safeguard Israel's national security and future progress.
Author's Note: Depending upon their perspective, some readers may think as if the two-part essay is leaned more towards Israel and Jews. To them, author's simple submission is you can't choose history as per convenience; instead, you must have a holistic approach. We know what history has done to Jews for centuries, but like any other civilization, nationality or race, they too have every right to live and prosper in the kingdom of God, Who is actually one and same for the entire humanity, with whatever name, attributes or edicts different people pursue Him.
Concluded
12-Jul-2026
More by : Dr. Jaipal Singh
