The New Israel Fund (NIF) of Canada  hosted the 2015 annual Shira Herzog Symposium on Sept. 8 at the Capitol Event Theatre in Toronto. As part of the organization’s 30th anniversary celebrations, a panel discussed “the back story” behind events in Israel. The panel consisted of Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of Ha'aretz newspaper; Ronit Heyd, executive director of Shatil, an NIF democracy and social change initiative; and Jonathan Kay, editor-in-chief of the Walrus magazine. Benn responded to The CJN questions via email from Israel.

The New Israel Fund described the recent election campaign in Israel as featuring “an increase in polarization, racism, and incitement.” Do you agree?

Yes. Israel is a very tribal society, and the current demographic trend – growth of minority communities and relative decline of the secular mainstream – increases polarization, which is reflected in the political discourse and election results.

President [Reuven] Rivlin has made a prescient analysis of the current status of Israeli society in his “tribes speech” last May. 

Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu exacerbated this situation in his election day racist remark about “droves of Arab voters” that allegedly threatened the rule of the Likud, arguing falsely that they were “bused by left-wing NGOs” to the polling stations.

Other parties and candidates, too, emphasized their tribal character rather than their policy platform and agendas during the campaign. A careless remark by an artist at an opposition rally, criticizing “talisman kissers,” backfired as it fuelled the Sephardi-Ashkenazi rift and eventually led many past Likud voters to “come home.”

What are your views of the P5 + 1 deal with Iran?

It is not perfect, but it’s better than war. Its true test, however, will be in the ability of the powers to reach wider detente with Iran, beyond the technical aspects of the agreement. This is still questionable.

I understand that not only does the Israeli government oppose the deal, but the vast majority of the Israeli public does too. Do Israelis feel betrayed by the United States in negotiating the deal with Iran?

Ever since his decision to skip Israel during his first Middle East trip in 2009, U.S. President [Barack] Obama has not been popular here. Right wingers saw him as too pro-Arab and naive about Middle Eastern realities, while left wingers were disappointed by his lack of commitment to a two-state solution. The deal with Iran, therefore, fits the preconception of most Israelis about the current American administration.

Having said that, we must also remember most Israelis have never accepted Netanyahu’s warnings of an Iranian second Holocaust. The price of real estate in Tel Aviv, around military headquarters, has doubled in recent years, which means that Israelis anticipate security and prosperity rather than destruction – even by conventional missiles launched from Lebanon. People cash out or emigrate when they fear calamities, not buy expensive apartments.

Moreover, the U.S. Congress speech by Netanyahu, which stirred a debate in America, had no influence on the Israeli election campaign. Even Netanyahu ignored it in his commercials and propaganda following his return home from Capitol Hill.

Given the opposition’s support for Netanyahu’s Iran policy after the election, there was no serious debate over the issue. 

Does Israel realistically retain a military option to use against the Iranian nuclear program, or does the agreement – which U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said requires the United States to protect the integrity of the program  – make that extremely unlikely?

An Israeli attack is highly unlikely if Iran implements the deal and dismantles large parts of the infrastructure that Israel would have bombed. But retaining a military option for deterrence and emergencies will remain part of the Israel Defense Force’s (IDF) operational planning and training.

What do you make of former defence minister Ehud Barak’s claim that he, Netanyahu and former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman were ready to go ahead with military attacks against the Iran nuclear program on three occasions, but did not have the support of other cabinet ministers and the security establishment to do so?

As far as I know, his description is correct. Attacking Iran was on Netanyahu’s and Barak’s agenda since the 2009 election. The question is how and why they failed to leverage their considerable political power to make it happen.

What is Barak up to with his revelations and accusations, especially regarding Netanyahu?

Leaving his mark on history, staying in the public consciousness, and waiting for the crisis that would catapult him back to power as Israel’s de Gaulle.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was in Iran recently and described how normal the country appears to him, right around the same time when a top adviser to the Iranian foreign ministry said the country is still dedicated to annihilating Israel. What do you make of that?

I don’t want to speculate on Hammond’s motives. He clearly wants to promote the deal.

We’ve read recently that Israel and Hamas are negotiating a ceasefire, through Tony Blair. Israel denies it. Is there any truth to the reports?

There are indirect contacts, but more importantly, both sides are trying to preserve the ceasefire in Gaza and to keep Hamas in power there.

How would Israel benefit from such a deal? Wouldn’t Hamas merely use a respite to re-arm and prepare for new attacks?

Israel wants and needs strong force that would keep the border quiet and prevent smaller groups from launching attacks, akin to its relations with Hezbollah on Lebanon. That’s why Israel, for example, is supplying Gaza with cash from the central bank in Jerusalem. The risk of chaos in Gaza that would draw Israel in appears much greater to Netanyahu and the security establishment. 

Egypt recently fought a battle in Sinai against the Islamic State (ISIS). How concerned is Israel over the growth of ISIS in the region (not just in Sinai), and what dangers does it pose for Israel?

It is a danger over the horizon, especially if ISIS manages to occupy Syria or undermine the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That creates the bizarre situation, in which Hezbollah and Assad – Israel’s sworn enemies – are presently the buffer between Israel and ISIS. But currently, as the new IDF strategic document makes clear, Hezbollah and Hamas are perceived as Israel’s main threats, and not ISIS. 

What are the connections, if any, between the Islamic State and Hamas and other Palestinian groups?

None that have been reported.

More than 1,000 African migrants were released from detention recently, but they’re not allowed into Tel Aviv or Eilat, and now the mayor of Arad wants to keep them out of that town. How do you see this playing out? Will they return to Africa? Are Israelis unwilling to let them remain in the country?

The government is trying to make their lives unbearable so they would leave. But the status quo in which they can stay with a shaky legal status will probably remain. Most Israelis accept this situation. 

This interview has been edited and condensed for style and clarity.