“Peace is purchased from strength. It’s not purchased from weakness or unilateral retreats.” Love him or hate him, those words – by Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu – Israel’s second longest serving Prime Minister – have begun to resonate; but not with the Israeli public as one might naturally think, the tribal lines of the political left, centre and right are largely static within the domestic political process of the Jewish and democratic state. Instead these words have begun to resonate in another very different context vis-à-vis Israel – it is within the Sunni Muslim world of monarchs and dictators which continues to build semi-official diplomatic relations and tangible bridges that are bringing the above quote to fruition in today’s ever-unstable Middle East. Netanyahu is a man with a plan; a vision on how to cement Israel’s place in the region and ensure it continues towards a form of peace and stability that encompasses much of what is known as ‘Greater Israel’ whilst at the same time denying the Palestinians a right to a state within the framework of a two-state solution.

It is important to note that this piece is not to pass judgement on that vision, but to explain and analyse it as your correspondent sees it unfolding.

Over the last month Netanyahu publicly visited Oman and was given the fanfare of a legitimate and recognized visiting head of state; he welcomed the Presidents of Chad and the Czech Republic to Jerusalem with the re-establishment of official ties between Israel and Chad now imminent since they were first severed in 1972. The President of the Czech Republic has publicly made it his personal mission to move the Czech Embassy to Jerusalem, a move that would break with the consensus currently held by the European Union on the status of Jerusalem; this would expose the deep rifts currently present between the Visegrád Group and the Western European countries on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict.

Bibi has also been working overtime to help contain the damage to Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS) from the fallout of the botched murder of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul Turkey. There is also a very public conversation over the imminent establishment of ties between Israel and Bahrain as well as an alleged Israeli offer of aid to Sudan in exchange for the establishment of diplomatic ties. Such a development would have been unthinkable several years ago given the hostile history between the two states, including alleged air strikes at Port Said in 2009 on Iranian arms shipments bound for the Gaza Strip, as well as Sudan’s hosting of Osama Bin-Laden and Al-Qaida in the 1990’s.

Since its birth in 1947 UN Partition Plan and subsequent UN general assembly vote that would lead to her independence, Israel has been in a state of war or hostility with the majority of the Muslim world. The call to arms against Israel was a rallying cry for many an Arab leader from the 1948 War of Independence until today. Mid-way through the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when then Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin worked hand-in-hand with then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to ensure the success of Operation Nickel Grass the culmination of several years of deepening US-Israel security ties. Israel had until that point largely stood alone, there was no true world power that supported the fledgling state during the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War and the countless bloody skirmishes in between (the lone exception being the 1956 Suez Crisis).

This scratching of the surface of history is important; it relates to three major points that underline Bibi’s grand strategy and vision for Israel as a powerful country in the region that is both secure and at peace with most other states in the Middle East.

Firstly, Bibi is steeped in history; his family’s and the history of the Jewish People. Benjamin Netanyahu is the son of the late Benzion Netanyahu, a renowned Israeli historian and a disciple of Ze’ev Jabotinsky the father of Revisionist Zionism, a movement that was created during a time of immense persecution of the Jewish People in the Pale Settlement during the Pogroms of the 1880’s. Men like Jabotinsky are remembered as some of the first Jews to be willing to take arms after centuries of often violent anti-Semitism in Europe culminating in what many see as the ultimate crime in the form of the Holocaust and the ‘Final Solution’ where at least six million Jews were sent to their slaughter by Nazi Germany.

Netanyahu was born directly following the darkest period for European Jews and, after spending his adolescence in the USA during his father’s academic career, he went on to serve in the elite special forces Sayeret Matkal of the Israel Defence Forces. A Captain and combat veteran, Bibi was twice wounded in battle, including during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a war widely acknowledged as Israel’s bloodiest and one in which it came closest to defeat.

Secondly, Netanyahu understands that the geopolitics of the Middle East has fundamentally changed. Under President Obama and now President Trump, the US has largely begun to withdraw from the region and is taking much less of a leadership role. A lack of US domestic political will for foreign adventures has led the US to largely withdraw its ground forces from Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia amongst others. During that time the US signed the Iran Nuclear Deal and has largely allowed Iran to run amok in the region, with US allies being left to fend for themselves without an American military shield. This unwillingness to throw military might behind it’s allies interests in a meaningful way has led many of the US’s regional allies to feel abandoned in the face of an Iran that is growing in power and influence. As the zero-sum game between Shia Iran and the Sunni led alliance headed by Saudi Arabia continues, Bibi, who has played a major role in ensuring Israel’s security and leads the Middle East’s most combat ready and experienced military apparatus, sees opportunity to further Israel’s strategic regional interests.

Iran and Israel are also locked in an escalating conflict. Iran’s rhetoric and  aggressive security policies are leading to increased tensions and occasional clashes between the two. Iran’s alleged pursuit of regional domination through direct military intervention or by proxy is growing. Iranian troops have been deployed to Iraq and Syria alongside proxy forces in a combat capacity. Iranian proxy Hezbollah is the dominant political and military force in Lebanon, this situation is mirrored in Yemen by the Houthis who also take their orders from Tehran in the fight against the Saudi-led coalition. By continuing to pursue these policies Iran is strengthening Bibi’s pursuit of a strategic regional alliance and improved bilateral relations between Israel and the Arab world.

While the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Iranian-backed Syrian militias, and it’s Lebanese-based proxy Hezbollah indeed do pose a significant military threat to Israel, they do not pose an existential threat. A war on Israel’s northern border would be destructive but it would not be fatal to the Jewish state’s existence. The only real threat Israel would face from Iran is if Iran were to pursue a nuclear weapons programme. Such a development, coupled with Iran’s potent ballistic missile program would lead Israel to act decisively. Bibi knows this and uses this as both a tool to further his agenda.

As the Arab world faces its own political, societal and economic difficulties, some see Israel as a potential partner to assist in alleviating some of those concerns. Whether it be Israel’s technology sector, security prowess or entrepreneurial culture, all of these could be crucial in assisting Arab states in diversifying their economies in a world that will eventually reach peak oil. This is a fundamental difference from decades past when the ‘Three No’s’ of Khartoum were once the defining policy of the Arab World in its treatment of Israel.

These same issues, some of which have manifest themselves in the form of popular protests, the rise of Salafi jihadist insurgencies, civil wars and failed states have turned the MENA region upside down. Israel is a pillar of stability in the region and is readily able and willing to provide arms, aid and support if it will contribute to improving its diplomatic position. This has also played into Netanyahu’s strategy of targeting of countries in both the Sahel and Sub-Saharan Africa through the provision of aid, arms and support. This leads to situations where African countries re-establish ties with Israel which they once broke off, usually because of pressure from the Arab World. It is also slowly but surely changing the voting calculation on a multilateral level in places like the United Nations as recently shown by the UN General Assembly vote to condemn Hamas, a vote Israel and her allies narrowly lost, an almost unheard of occurrence since the body’s   establishment. This in turn gives Israel legitimacy without Netanyahu needing to move the needle on the long-stalled Peace Process.

Within this context we see the Palestinians in complete disarray with the Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas seen as an illegitimate ruler through its heavy-handed rule of the West Bank and collaboration with Israel. In the Gaza Strip Hamas and Israel have been in indefatigable conflict and have overseen deteriorating humanitarian situation. Following Israel’s withdrawal from the enclave in 2005 and the ensuing violence between Hamas and the PA after the 2006 elections, the Gaza Strip has been subject to a joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade as well as several high intensity rounds of conflict between Israel and the militant groups in the Strip. This has left Hamas to rule over two million people who are growing increasingly desperate with few jobs, little to no clean water and electricity and even less hope. Israel’s right wing coalition and Hamas continue to play a delicate game of balancing, one where both sides seek legitimacy through various actions from their political bases, wider domestic constituencies and the international community. Hamas’s aggressive rhetoric and continued use of violence to target civilians gives Netanyahu a legitimate reason to not engage with Hamas in a constructive manner.

The violent split in 2007 between the two major Palestinian factions has led to disunity, which in turn is harming the Palestinian position vis-à-vis Israel. President Abbas of the PA is currently nine years past his four year elected mandate which ended in 2009. Abbas and Fatah – which controls the PA – are seen as illegitimate representatives due to their poor human rights record, widespread corruption and security cooperation with Israel. Such cooperation benefits Israel as it keeps the peace and helps prevent terror attacks against Israeli civilians. It also benefits Abbas and the PA through the targeting of Abbas’s political opponents by both Israeli and PA security forces. This secures the PA’s rule in the West Bank while also allowing Israel to work with Fatah, mostly to the detriment of Hamas and other opponents to Abbas who would be much less inclined to work with Israel.

The continued split between the two major factions is giving Bibi an opportunity to further his grand strategy; by playing both sides off of each other under, Netanyahu has been a major factor in perpetuating the current Palestinian infighting. He is also able to show the international community that he has no legitimate partner for peace, as one is considered illegitimate, the other prone to violence. With both factions representing large portions of the Palestinian people, Netanyahu is also able to tout their disunity as a major stumbling block to any potential future negotiations. Both Hamas and the PA are currently in panic given current developments but, with little to no room to manoeuvre given the issues between them, there is little they can do except publicly denounce Israel’s recent diplomatic moves in the Arab World.

Thirdly, Netanyahu is the ultimate political animal; he is capable of an immense amount of political balancing between the wide spectrum of factions that make up Israel’s diverse domestic political scene. He is even capable of bending if need be, but not at the cost of his core beliefs and values. Though conservative, Bibi is not the hawk in the right-wing populist context many paint him. In fact, Netanyahu is the Prime Minister who signed the two follow up agreements to Oslo in the form of the Hebron Protocol and Wye River Agreement in the late 1990’s.

He understands the price of war on a personal level with the loss of his brother, Yoni Netanyahu, the commander of the daring Operation Entebbe and does not make the decision to enter into war lightly. In fact, Bibi – to his credit – has prevented sparks of violence in and around the Gaza Strip from escalating into all-out war, no small feat when one considers that he heads a ruling coalition that is the most right-wing and hawkish in Israeli history. This is notable when one considers many of his predecessors’ in the form of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert who had a tendency to resort to war. Since taking office in August 2009, Israel has only entered into full scale conflict once during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Bibi is a true pragmatist; he recognizes that in order to achieve his grand strategy goal he must remain in power and sometimes take short term losses and a political beating by potential rivals in favour of long-term gains.

It is evident to see that Netanyahu sees an opportunity to cement his place  in the history books but also to build an Israel he believes in. Iran is – to an extent – the convenient bogeyman who unites the Middle East against a common foe. This is not to say Iran is a destabilizing force in the region, nor that it is not a threat to Israel or other states in the region. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was created for a reason – the regime in Tehran cannot be trusted by many states in the region nor the international community to play by the rules.

In reality, Israel is in the best strategic position in its history; there are only two potential existential threats that, in the future, could be extremely problematic in the form of a nuclear armed Iran and a lack of clear and concrete separation from the Palestinians. A one state solution, given the current situation on the ground, would lead to a Palestinian majority something that would compromise either the Jewish or Democratic character of the State of Israel. Bibi is not a fool, you do not remain Prime Minister of Israel for long without considering long term challenges and coming up with solutions, however distasteful some may find them.

Does any of this solve the Palestinian issue of statehood? No, not in ways that are acceptable to the West; but it is also difficult to imagine that Netanyahu has not envisioned some form of a solution given the above. Many would question the morality of such a solution, but given the Jewish historical context many others will also make an argument for the opposite.

Netanyahu has survived in the Prime Minister office for nearly 13 years, approximately ten consecutively; if his coalition survives its full term he will be the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel’s history. Such a development would be an extraordinary achievement considering Israel’s diverse political field and the tendency of ruling coalitions to opt for early elections caused by coalition infighting and contentious issues within Israeli society. He has outlasted several American Presidents who have attempted to force both the Palestinian and Israelis to compromise, including a now infamous rift with President Obama.

Netanyahu has also beat his domestic political rivals time and again, making the rise of the Israeli left all but impossible other than through the return of the Jewish Messiah himself. He has also brow beaten or exiled many on the Israeli right who would challenge his leadership of the Likud. In that vein some have called Bibi averse to conflict and adept at jumping away from one problem and focusing instead on another. If Netanyahu can somehow free himself of several encroaching criminal investigations we may be in for a rollercoaster of a ride, in which the international politics of the Middle East of tomorrow looks very different from that of the last 70 odd years of the Israeli state. There is an argument to be made that there is something deeper at play here; if Benjamin Netanyahu gets his way he may single-handedly re-write history in the Middle East while the rest of us are still lost in the details.