On May 26, 2008, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences hosted an international scientific conference dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. It was organized by the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MINISTRY OF Foreign Affairs OF THE Russian Federation. The conference was attended by leading Russian scientists-experts on Israel, Palestine and the Middle East, as well as their colleagues from Israel and Palestine - prominent representatives of scientific, political and diplomatic circles, widely known at home and abroad for their research and publications.

The conference was opened by R. B. Rybakov, Director of the Institute of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He highly appreciated the Israeli research carried out in the Israel Department of the Institute of International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which will celebrate its 40th anniversary in three years, and expressed gratitude to the Embassy of the State of Israel in the Russian Federation and Ambassador A. Azari for the active assistance provided to the research work of Russian scientists.

A. Azari expressed hope for further continuation of academic contacts and scientific exchanges between Israeli and Russian scientists, noting the extreme importance of the issues discussed at the conference. A. Azari expressed her point of view on the experience of nation-building in Israel and in the Palestinian National Authority.

Vice-Rector of Moscow State University(U)MOD V. P. Vorobyov spoke about the work of the Center for Middle East Studies of the Institute, its cooperation with scientists from the Israel Department of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as about the month held at MGIMO dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. Noting the scientific significance of the planned discussion at the conference on the problems of Israel's internal socio-political life, which are relatively rarely brought to the attention of Middle Eastern researchers, he focused on the problems of the development of the Israeli constitutional law system, and also touched upon the problem of compatibility of the national character of the Israeli state with democracy.

Zav. In her report titled "The State on the Road: Stages in the Development of Israeli Statehood", T. A. Karasova, Head of the Israel Department of the Institute of Political Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted the importance of parallel and comparative studies of the development of socio-political structures in Israel and in the Palestinian National Authority, as well as the acute lack of research on the problems of the Palestinian National Authority in both Russian and Israeli science. Today's Israel, concluded T. A. Karasova, is a unique combination of a mature and young state that is rapidly developing in the context of conflict.

page 143
Israeli scientist H. Ben Yaakov delivered a report entitled "Stages in the formation of the Jewish character of the State of Israel". Recalling that already in the Declaration of Independence, Israel was presented as a state both Jewish and democratic, he identified three main factors that determine its Jewish character: laws (the Law of Return, the Law of Citizenship, the Law on Rabbinical Courts, the Law on the World Zionist Organization, the Basic Law on Land, etc.), institutions (the Knesset, which partially inherited the traditions of the Second Temple era, the Ministry of Absorption, the Jewish Agency, the Keren Kayemet le Yisrael and Keren ha-Yesod foundations, etc.), as well as symbols (flag, anthem and menorah). At the same time, the Jewish character of the State of Israel is not a static set of laws and norms - it is constantly being transformed both as a result of various legislative initiatives (here the speaker noted the special role of the Supreme Court of Justice), and as a result of broad discussions in society on various issues that somehow affect religious traditions. This applies, in particular, to the observance of Kashrut and Shabbat, stipulated by the 1947 Status Quo Agreement, as well as to issues such as the status and rights of women, organ transplants, funeral rituals and the ritual of conversion to Judaism (giyur), etc.

The report "The ethnic composition of the population of the State of Israel" was presented by Mikhail Chlenov, President of the Federation of Jewish Organizations of Russia. He noted that the ethnic and religious composition of the Israeli population is a unique multi-level complex, which is practically not studied at the academic level, and even official Israeli statistics do not give a sufficiently complete and adequate picture. Thus, Israeli Jews are traditionally divided into groups of "Ashkenazim" (European Jews)," Sephardim "(Eastern Jews) and" Sabras " (native Israelis in the second, third, etc.generation). Within these communities, various groups can also be distinguished: among Sephardim, these are "Sephardim proper "(Sameh Tet - direct descendants of native Ladino speakers), as well as Moroccan, Yemeni, Iraqi, Iranian Jews, etc.; among Ashkenazim, Russian, Polish, German, Romanian Jews, etc. This complex ethnic structure is overlaid with an equally complex confessional structure. In contrast to American Jews, the traditional "Orthodox - reform - conservative"classification scheme is practically not applicable to Israeli Jews. Here, each direction is divided into several different branches, and there are branches that are not connected to any of their directions. The structure of the non-Jewish population is no less complex. In addition to Israeli Arabs, who are divided into Muslims and Christians (followers of various churches) and who have recently been characterized by a process of "Palaestinization", i.e., a growing identification with the Palestinian people, the group of" non-Jews " includes the Galilean Druze, loyal to Israel, the Golan Druze, oriented largely to Syria, Circassians, Karaites, Samaritans, etc. Deep ethnopolitical processes are taking place within this complex ethno-confessional complex.

The report of E. U. Usova (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) was devoted to the formation of the national idea of the State of Israel. One of the main features of the national-state idea of Israel (Zionism) is the strong influence exerted on its formation by various ideological and political trends characteristic of Europe at the end of the XVIII-XIX centuries, primarily the European Enlightenment, various trends of European nationalism, especially the Italian Risorgimento, as well as-in relation to some trends in Zionism - European socialism. The second peculiarity of the Jewish/Israeli national idea was the absence of a clearly defined enemy (an enslaver from whom it is necessary to free oneself) and the orientation towards self-liberation "from within", including through creative work. The third feature is its multivariance, i.e. the multiplicity of models of the Jewish state developed within the framework of the Zionist movement. Among these models, we can distinguish such as socialist, religious (theocratic), secular progressive (largely based on the ideas of the Enlightenment), right-revisionist, and others. These features of the national idea, which formed the basis of nation-state building, had a huge impact on the formation of Israeli democracy, predetermining a high degree of flexibility and at the same time stability of the Israeli socio-political system.

In her report, N. A. Semenchenko (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) highlighted the main aspects of the influence of the Kibbutzian movement on the socio-political development of Israeli society. She noted that "kibbutzniki", which make up only 3% of the population of Israel, have played an extremely important role in the country's history. The principles of collectivism and equality that formed the basis for the functioning of kibbutzim were the result of a kind of synthesis of the ideology of the pioneers of the Kibbutz movement-

page 144
The difficulties faced by new Jewish settlers in Palestine at the beginning of the twentieth century were a source of social and vital necessity. As a result, kibbutzim members became leaders of the movement for equality and social justice in the young state of Israel and took an active part in the formation of the country's political elite. Of the 12 Prime Ministers of Israel, 5 were from Kibbutzim backgrounds. In addition, it was they who played a crucial role both in the development of the country's territory and in ensuring its defense capability, so a significant number of "kibbutzniki" were included in the command structure of the Israeli army. Kibbutzim have also made a huge contribution to the formation of modern Israeli culture and traditions. They are also credited with ensuring equal rights for women in Israeli society.

A.V. Krylov (MGIMO) devoted his report to the problems of language adaptation of Russian-speaking immigrants in Israel. The data presented by him indicate that immigrants from the former USSR who arrived in the country in the last 10-15 years differ from both immigrants from the "Soviet" period and from "post-Soviet" immigrants who entered other countries (USA, Germany, Cyprus, etc.) with an extremely low level of language adaptation. New Russian-speaking immigrants (about 1 million people) formed a special Russian-speaking infrastructure within a short time, allowing them to exist independently, practically without using Hebrew. The development of Israeli-Russian relations and the maintenance of personal, professional and business ties with Russia by new immigrants also contributes to the preservation of the Russian language. The author dwelled on such phenomena among the Russian-speaking community of Israel as a very peculiar Russian-Hebrew bilingualism, as well as Israeli-Russian biculturalism, which is also manifested in the field of political culture in the form of the creation of various socio-political organizations that are extremely atypical for Israel. At the same time, there were also shifts in the state policy of absorption: Israel moved away from a rigid assimilative policy towards new immigrants, as a result of which the sub-ethnic cultures of a number of Jewish communities (Eastern European Jewish culture in Yiddish, Ladin-speaking Sephardic culture, etc.) practically disappeared. In modern Israel, this is beginning to be perceived as a loss, which leads to a shift towards a more loyal attitude towards bilingualism and biculturalism.

T. V. Nosenko (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in her report highlighted the main aspects of the discussion in Israeli social studies on the problems of nation-building, in particular, the phenomenon of so-called post-Zionism. This trend highlights the research of " new " historians and sociologists who are trying to give a critical reassessment to the process of nation-building in Israel. Sociologists, in particular, note signs of the erosion of the collective identity of Israeli Jews, manifested in the aggressive rejection of the dominant culture of Israeli society by certain religious and ethnic groups that also conflict with each other. One of the most controversial issues is the place of religion in the state and public life of the country. The lack of a secular normative practice, as well as the implementation of a rigid ethno-national model of state-building, give rise to the problem of limited Israeli democracy. Unlike representatives of the classical Zionist trend, " new " sociologists believe that these problems cannot be solved within the framework of the existing social and state structure of the country and propose the transformation of Israel from a Zionist one National identity is a civil state based on the equality of all citizens, regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliation, in which national identity becomes a matter of personal choice. "New" historians focus mainly on rethinking the history of the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, seeking to identify the injustices committed by the Israeli side towards the Arabs, as well as to bring together Israeli and Arab ideas about historical events and their assessments in the framework of joint research with Palestinian scientists. Many assessments and interpretations of the "new" historians generally coincide with the approaches typical of the works of Soviet scholars on the history of Palestine and Israel, but most of them do not consider themselves anti-Zionists, emphasizing that Zionism has successfully realized itself, and now it is necessary to free up intellectual space for a more adequate formulation of collective identification.

The report of the Israeli scientist and entrepreneur I. Levin was devoted to the analysis of the main institutions that determine the character of Israel as a social state. These include, first of all: the National insurance Institute, which provides citizens with old-age and disability pensions, unemployment benefits, and other social benefits; and the health care system, which is regulated by the Law on Compulsory Health insurance of 1995.-

page 145
raya provides all citizens with equal access and equal volume of medical services and hundreds of private non-profit organizations that enjoy active support from the state, which, in particular, exempts from taxation the amounts donated to them by sponsors. At the same time, evasion of employers from deductions to the national insurance institute is considered a criminal offense and is punishable more severely than non-payment of taxes.

A.V. Demchenko (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in his report on "The problem of Palestinian unity as a factor of state-building" noted the difference between the Arab concept of "nation" and the Western one, as well as the features of the Palestinian national identity, which includes, in addition to the Palestinian itself, also all-Arab and Islamic components. He identified two main groups of obstacles to the Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement: the most pressing issues of bilateral negotiations (problems of Jerusalem, refugees and Jewish settlements) and the lack of unity in Palestinian society and its elite, while noting that the Palestinian society as a whole is quite secular and inclined to support a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The speaker attributed Hamas ' electoral victory to Fatah's inefficiency in governance. However, the long-term preservation of the autonomous authority of Hamas in Gaza may lead to an increase in its ideological influence, i.e., to the spread of extremism.

A. V. Fedorchenko (MGIMO University/IVE RAS) conducted a comparative analysis of the Israeli and Palestinian experience of economic construction. He described Israel as a highly developed state that has entered the phase of post-industrial development, overcoming numerous difficulties mainly due to the effective use of human potential in conditions of lack of natural resources, as well as largely due to the active and effective economic policy of the state. At the same time, it has not been possible to create a viable national economy in Palestine due to years of occupation and the lack of economic freedom, both internal and external. In recent years, the lack of access of the Palestinian labor force to the Israeli labor market has also been added to these negative factors. The Palestinian economy is highly unbalanced. Services, primarily public services, account for the bulk of GDP; international transfers play a significant role; and the real economy-industry, agriculture, and finance - was initially underdeveloped, but fell into even greater decline as a result of the intifada. Nevertheless, Israelis and Palestinians continue to trade with each other, which indicates their economic interest in peace and cooperation. It is in this direction, in the author's opinion, that we should look for solutions to problems.

D. A. Maryasis (Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences) presented a report on the topic "Essays on the Economy of the Republic of Moldova". He pointed out that the economies of the two Palestinian enclaves, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, are very different and are compounded by political divisions, while economic development is subordinate to political settlement. Despite the inaccuracy of statistics on the Palestinian economy, it can be said that the Israeli policy of 1967-1987, aimed at" linking " the Palestinian economy to the Israeli one, provided significant economic growth in the Palestinian territories. The peace agreements of the 1990s provided, on the one hand, for the further development of economic cooperation and, on the other, for the creation of opportunities for independent development of Palestine. However, these processes are hindered mainly by Israeli security measures at the border. One of the most promising industries is tourism, but its development is impossible in the absence of peace. The replacement of Palestinian workers in Israel by guest workers from other developing countries is also causing serious damage to the Palestinian economy. In general, despite the availability of qualified personnel and the assistance of the international community, the Palestinian national economy as a whole system has not yet developed, and now its creation is really possible only in the West Bank.

A.V. Malashenko (Moscow State University) took part in the discussion that concluded the first part of the conference. the Carnegie Center), B. Rubin, N. A. Berkovich (St. Petersburg), T. A. Karasova and M. A. N. Malashenko, in particular, noted that Israel, existing in clearly "abnormal" conditions, cannot meet the criteria of "normal" states, including European ones. Among the features of Israel, he noted such as the tendency towards ethnocracy, communalism, as well as the special role of religion in the life of society. He stressed that Israel faces a difficult task of transforming the "Jewish" national idea into an Israeli one. B. Rubin noted Israel's success in solving such problems as the split in society in relation to religion, the contradiction between Western and Eastern Jews, the absorption of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, as well as market reforms in the once predominantly socialist economy. N. A. Berkovich drew attention to the unresolved issues-

page 146
addressing a number of key issues related to the conference topic, in particular-what are the Israeli and Palestinian ethnic groups? According to M. A. Chlenov, although the concepts of "nation" and" ethnos " have different definitions in Russian and foreign scientific literature, in general, we can say that the Israeli nation is in the process of formation. As for the Israeli ethnic group, according to M. A. Chlenov, it does not exist - there are various Jewish ethnic groups consolidating into a national community. The prospects for the participation of Israeli Arabs in this process are currently very dubious in light of their growing "Palestinization".

The second part of the conference opened with the report of the President of the Middle East Institute E. Y. Satanovsky "Israel in the modern world". In his opinion, in modern Israel, national interests are increasingly sacrificed to the private political interests of individual parties and their leaders, who as a result are not able to build a clear strategic line, make unjustified concessions to the Palestinian side without receiving anything in return, and also rely excessively on allied relations with the United States, fulfilling political goals. Washington's recommendations are contrary to national interests. At the same time, Israel shows obvious helplessness in its attempts to counter terrorist attacks. All this cannot but cause concern, especially in the context of the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The author of the report expressed disagreement with the most common point of view among experts, according to which Israel, unlike the Palestinians, managed to create a mature and viable state, suggesting a somewhat paradoxical formulation: "the country is built, but the state may not yet exist." At the same time, he noted that at the dawn of Israeli independence, the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, paid much more attention to building statehood than current leaders.
The report of the Director of the Institute for Eurasian Studies at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Ts Magen, was devoted to the analysis of the role and place of repatriation (immigration of Jews to Israel), as well as Israel's relations with the Jewish diaspora in its foreign policy. For Israel, the repatriation (immigration) of Jews has always been an essential part of the strategic paradigm, including in the area of nation-building and nation-building. First of all, thanks to immigration, the population of Israel has grown more than 10 times in 60 years - from 600 thousand to 7 million people. At the same time, Israel is the center of the national identity of the entire Jewish people, half of whom live in their own nation - state and the other half in the diaspora. Israel considers it its duty to protect the rights of Diaspora Jews if they are violated. Both directions of Israel's policy towards the Jewish diaspora-both the generation of repatriation processes and the protection of Jewish rights-often significantly complicated Israel's relations with the States in which Jews lived. This was evident in relations with the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, as well as with Muslim countries. Certain tensions also arose in Israel's relations with some Western countries, as well as Jewish organizations that helped redirect immigration flows to third countries, bypassing Israel. Nevertheless, according to the analyst, Israel managed to ensure both mass immigration to the country and strong ties with the diaspora with minimal foreign policy damage. As for the current relations with Russia and the Jewish diaspora living in it, at the moment the result of their development can be assessed as positive and promising favorable prospects. The Jewish community of the USSR and later Russia became Israel's main source of repatriation and one of the most significant factors in the country's development. For its part, the Russian-speaking community of Israel has become a kind of bridge for the further development of bilateral relations based on mutual understanding.

The First Secretary of the Embassy of the State of Palestine in the Russian Federation, A. Zaul, devoted his speech to the problems of its constitutional development, noting that work on the draft constitution of the State of Palestine began in 1988 in accordance with the decision of the National Council of Palestine, but it was not completed due to disagreements between various Palestinian groups. It was only in 1997, after the conclusion of the peace agreements and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority, that the basic law was drafted, which came into force after it was approved by President Arafat in 2002. At the same time, the work of the commission for drafting a permanent constitution under the leadership of N. Shaat began, which, in the context of the second intifada that began in 2000, constantly faced serious difficulties, despite the active support from outside, in particular from Egyptian President H. Mubarak, Saudi Foreign Minister S. Al-Faisal and Arab League Secretary General A. Abdel Fattah. Musa. The need to adopt a constitution for a Palestinian State was stipulated

page 147
As part of the "Road Map" set out in UN Security Council Resolution No. 1515 of November 9, 2003 and guaranteed by the "Middle East Quartet" of international mediators consisting of Russia, the United States, the EU and the United Nations, Bush called for strengthening the role of parliament in the state structure of Palestine. draft relevant amendments. The revised and revised version of the third draft Constitution, published in its final form on May 14, 2003, is currently being considered as the basis for future Palestinian statehood.

Director of the International and Special Relations Department of the NATIV Agency under the Administration of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel M. Tabora reviewed the international legal aspects of nation-building in Israel and the PA. In her opinion, the main factor of Israel's success and the failure of the Palestinians in this area should be considered the factor of political and military consolidation, ensuring the formation of a single political and legal entity capable of creating a viable state. Israel managed to achieve this fully, and D. Ben-Gurion even went to the use of military force in order to ensure the unity of the military command. The Palestinian National Movement, on the other hand, missed this opportunity several times - first in 1936-1939, then in 1948.Now the situation is repeated - neither of the two opposing political forces in the PNA was able to create any structure whose legitimacy would be recognized by both sides. As a result, the Palestinians are currently showing no intention of declaring a State, even though Israel is demonstrating an unprecedented willingness to recognize a Palestinian State as soon as it is declared. Then M. Tabori highlighted the history of scientific research on the problems of models of autonomy and new political entities in the system of international law, conducted by Israeli scientists since the late 1970s. She also provided a brief overview of the progress of nation-building in Israel, mainly in the areas of economics, agriculture, medicine, science and technology, as well as the development of the legal system and democracy.

I. D. Zvyagelskaya (IV RAS) presented a report on the problems of mutual influence of domestic and foreign policy in Israel. Israel, she noted, is currently experiencing serious internal political problems. Prime Minister E. Olmert is accused of corruption, and he is clearly inferior in political weight and charisma to the country's President Sh. Peres, whose position plays a secondary role in the Israeli state system. The political weakness of the leaders of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority is largely hindering the achievement of real results in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The domestic political factor also plays a significant role in promoting the Israeli-Syrian negotiations: if they succeed, the Israeli leadership can achieve not only strengthening its security by ending the state of war with Syria, weakening the position of Iran and the extremist group Hamas, which are Syria's allies, but also increasing its prestige and support within the country. However, the conclusion of peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria is very difficult for Israel, again in domestic political terms, since a significant part of Israeli society is not ready to agree to such concessions to the Arab side, which are necessary to reach a compromise. If the Israeli leadership manages to reach a settlement in both directions, it may force the Israelis to accept its terms, since in this case the Arab-Israeli conflict can be considered closed.

Continuing the topic, V. V. Naumkin (Institute of International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in his report "Middle East settlement: new problems, old participants" highlighted the problem of the eternal confrontation between the principles of "inclusiveness" and "separateness" (or a step-by-step solution) in the Middle East peace settlement process. According to V. V. Naumkin, it would be easier for Israel to reach an agreement with Syria now than with the Palestinians, but this development does not suit not only Iran, but also the United States, which believes that Syria should first be forced to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Regarding the Palestinian direction of the settlement process, the speaker fully agreed with the previously pessimistic forecasts, noting the political weakness of the leaders of both sides, which does not allow them to reach an agreement based on the necessary compromise. In his opinion, in the context of the strengthening of the Islamic factor, which, in particular, is manifested in the loss of political weight by the Christian community of Lebanon, which once dominated the country, Israel will inevitably have to conduct a dialogue with Islamists. In conclusion, V. V. Naumkin noted a number of distinctive features of nation-state building in Israel, which, in his opinion, are of particular interest to the Russian researcher, in particular, the processes of national mobilization, as well as the role of religious institutions.
page 148
B. Rubin, Director of the Center for Global Studies of International Relations (GLORIA) and editor of The Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), in his report "Israel in the system of International Relations" focused on four main points: Israel's foreign policy position in the modern world, the development of the Israeli approach to the problems of the Arab-Israeli conflict, current state of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, negotiations between Israel and Syria. He noted that Israel's foreign policy situation has improved significantly recently: Israel's dependence on the United States has decreased, relations with countries such as Russia, China and France have reached an unprecedented high level in history, excellent relations have developed with India, Italy, Great Britain, Germany and other countries, so in general, the system of foreign policy relations between Israel and the United States has Israel's relations have become more balanced.

Considering the second issue, B. Rubin identified three main stages in the development of the Israeli approach to the Middle East conflict. During the" classic "period of the Arab-Israeli conflict (from 1967 to the early 1990s), there was a debate in Israel over the formula "territory for peace"; in the 1990s, the question of whether Arafat would or would not comply with the agreements reached was discussed - as a result, according to the opinion of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Prof. According to Rubin, Israel is faced with the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Syrians are ready for peace, and yet the international community refuses to support Israel, despite the concessions it has made. After 2000, the third stage began, when a national consensus was formed in Israeli society, based on a willingness to recognize an independent Palestinian State and an awareness of Israel's interest in at least the survival of the Palestinian National Authority, whose main threat to its existence comes from Hamas. However, in the foreseeable future, the Palestinian side is not expected to be a viable partner. As for the negotiations with Syria, their chances of success are very small, but Israel needs to test the ground in this direction, as well as demonstrate its will to peace. Not the least role is played by the internal political problems of the Olmert cabinet. Syria is also interested in these talks, as they give it a chance to ease its isolation, as well as pressure from the United States.

In conclusion, B. Rubin stressed that at present the main conflict in the Middle East is developing between Arab nationalism and Islamism, and in this conflict the interests of almost all Arab countries, except Syria, the interests of the PA, Israel and the West can be considered if not the same, then at least parallel: most states in the region oppose Iran and its allies. a bloc that includes Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

During the discussion that followed the second part of the conference, participants and guests expressed various points of view on the prospects for a Middle East settlement, the state of Israel's foreign policy relations, as well as international relations in the Middle East. Thus, A. Epstein (Open University of Israel) expressed disagreement with the optimistic assessments expressed by B. Rubin and other speakers. In his opinion, Israel's current foreign policy situation has significantly worsened since the historic breakthrough of the early 1990s, which is reflected in a number of key points of the current regional situation: the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, including in Jordan and Egypt, which signed peace treaties with Israel; the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the de facto absence of a partner with on the Palestinian side; the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the acquisition of the status of a nuclear power by Pakistan, and in the future by Iran; the growing unreliability of Israel's allied relations with the United States (the regular sentences handed down by American courts in cases of espionage in favor of Israel, the refusal of the United States to support the Israeli position on the problems of refugees and Jerusalem All this is compounded by the weakness in the regional politics of both Israel and the United States, primarily the inability of the United States to achieve the goals of its intervention in Iraq, as well as the fiasco that Israel suffered in Lebanon. In conclusion, Epstein stressed the view that Israel currently lacks a clear understanding of the situation and plan of action, and that it has lost both its foreign policy and military initiative in the region.

B. Rubin did not agree with this pessimistic assessment, noting that terrorist groups pose a much smaller threat than the combined armies of several Arab states, which Israel previously opposed. The threat of Islamism in the Arab countries, according to B. Rubin, is also not so strong: they did not manage to come to power in any country.

Usova drew attention to a number of new points that create favorable conditions for reaching agreements between Israel and Syria: first, the isolation of Syria in the Arab world.

page 149
Syria's growing dependence on Iran is clearly not acceptable in the world; secondly, the emergence of modern weapons has significantly reduced the strategic importance of the Golan Heights. These circumstances increase the probability of success of the Israeli-Syrian negotiations, in which case Israel, by returning the Golan Heights to Syria, can strengthen its security not only in the Syrian, but also in the Palestinian and Lebanese directions - by ending Syrian support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel's interest in such a settlement is certainly not limited to domestic political considerations, as some speakers have argued.

Noting the importance of such factors as the actual collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation regime in the Middle East, as well as the apparent failure of the concept of a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mikhail Chlenov expressed regret that such an important trend in modern Israeli society was practically not mentioned at the conference. such as its "de-romanticization", the reorientation of modern Israeli youth from military victories to building a "normal life", as well as the convergence of the positions of right and left political forces and the formation of a centrist bloc. All this, according to M. A. Chlenov, reflects changes in the very anthropology of Israeli society. At the same time, the influence of the religious factor in Israeli society remains, which is especially acute in the problem of civil status.

The topic of the religious factor and its role in modern Israeli society was continued by T. Nosenko, who noted the religious-nationalist nature of the ideology of the settlement movement in Israel, whose political pressure on the Israeli government and society indicates that religious-nationalist extremism is an obstacle to achieving peace not only from the Palestinian side, but also from the Israeli side.

At the end of the discussion, I. D. Zvyagelskaya summarized the main points that have recently created a fundamentally new situation in the Middle East. This is the new role of Iran and its increased foreign policy ambitions both in the region and beyond, supported by its nuclear program, as well as the growing role of radical Islamism and the activation of terrorist groups, which contributed to a radical change in the nature of existing threats and the Middle East conflict as a whole. It is these groups, and not the regular armies of Arab States, that are currently opposed to Israel.

Permanent link to this publication: