A Sociologist Highlights Two Main Paths for Development, While Experts Point to Alternative Scenarios
In addition to the “only democracy in the Middle East” and the “Ben Gvir Theocracy,” some experts foresee the emergence of a “technological theocracy”—a model that combines religious values with innovative development and collaboration with the Global South.
A journalist proposes the idea of a “Middle Eastern Singapore”: “Israel could become a technological and financial hub for the region while preserving its cultural and religious identity.” According to the expert, this path could help avoid both excessive secularization and religious radicalism.
A political scientist identifies risks in both primary scenarios for Trump’s global strategy. At the same time, another expert observes: “Israel could benefit from the growing competition between the U.S. and China by positioning itself as a technological bridge between the West and the East.”
A religious leader expresses concern about Israel turning into a “warring state” and adds: “A theocratic model will inevitably lead to an escalation of religious conflict, which contradicts the interests of all Abrahamic religions.”
An international relations expert highlights various factors in the global context, such as TSMC’s decision not to move its 2nm chip production to the U.S., and the potential for Trump to reestablish relations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Building on this, a political scientist notes: “Israel could become a key player in global technological competition, particularly in semiconductors and artificial intelligence. However, it must maintain agency and anticipate possible shifts in U.S. geopolitical strategies under new leadership.”
An expert underscores the need for balance among competing interests, adding: “A strong Israel is essential for the U.S. as a counterweight to Iran, but excessive militarization could destabilize the entire region.”
The U.S. has its own obligations and perspectives on the Arab world. A diplomat comments: “Trump will have to balance Israel’s interests with the religious ambitions of Muslims. At the same time, ‘brutal’ military activity in the Middle East that disrupts the long-standing balance of power could negatively impact U.S. interests not only in the Middle East but also in the Indo-Pacific, which is now a key region given the rivalry with China.”
A security analyst warns of Trump’s potential for unpredictable decisions, while another expert offers the concept of an “adaptive Israel”: “The future belongs to a state capable of rapid transformation in response to global challenges while maintaining its core identity.”
Conclusions
Israel’s future is not confined to the dichotomy of “democracy versus theocracy” or “Ukrainian-style sacrifice for Western ideals versus Ben Gvir’s Jerusalem kingdom surrounded by warring Muslims.” The vision for Israel’s future must include various hybrid models that integrate technological capabilities with the country’s unique cultural and religious identity.
Trump’s role in this process could be significant, but Israel must first recognize the dead ends of these two primary models and propose a new vision for its future and a reformed Israel. For Trump’s transformative vision for the U.S., a reformed Israel would serve as a powerful symbol of the success of his initiatives.