In a recent series of meetings with think tank colleagues in the Arabian Gulf I discovered deep disquiet about the emerging Israeli government coalition.
By David M. Weinberg, ISRAEL HAYOM
The many planned reforms of Israel’s incoming government in the security, defense, diplomatic, and religious arenas – of which I am mostly supportive – are going to create difficulties for Israel’s foreign relations.
Much already has been written about the concerns in Washington and in liberal Diaspora Jewish communities. It appears that Israel is under the microscope in Arab capitals too, specifically in the palaces of its new Abraham Accords partners.
In a recent series of meetings with think tank colleagues in the Arabian Gulf I discovered deep disquiet about the emerging Israeli government coalition. To them, “tolerance” is the key concept behind the Abrahamic agreements they reached with Israel, and they expect to see this reflected in Israeli government policy. Below, I will try to explain what they mean by “tolerance.”
But first, a quick scan of the many changes the incoming government hopes to implement.
In the legal sphere, the government can be expected to redress the skewed balance of power between the courts and parliament, involving some sort of Supreme Court override legislation and a change in the way senior justices are appointed.
It will seek to regularize the status of two dozen young Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria (what the left pejoratively calls “illegal” settlements), and to check the spread of European-funded illegal and unauthorized Palestinian settlements in Area C of the West Bank (which are under full Israeli civilian and military control, purportedly).
It may seek to apply Israeli law directly to Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria, canceling the role of the IDF’s “Civil Administration” in managing the growth (or should we say blocking the growth) of Jewish towns and neighborhoods.
Many ministers aim to liberalize the open-fire rules of engagement for IDF troops in the territories. This also goes for the Israel Police and para-military Border Police operating in lawless Arab areas of the Negev and the Galilee as well as mixed Jewish-Muslim towns across Israel.
The government can be expected to crack down on the nefarious activities of radical Islamic groups in eastern Jerusalem, including Turkish groups, which weaponize the security situation in Jerusalem and undermine Israeli sovereignty in the city. And, hopefully, the government will act (cautiously, one presumes) to increasingly facilitate Jewish prayer on Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount).
My Emirati and Bahraini interlocutors are not opposed to any of these developments in principle. Nor in the longer term do they rule-out extension of Israeli sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria (along the lines, say, of the Trump peace plan). After all, some of these moves are internal Israeli matters, and others, like Jewish prayer on Har HaBayit, stem from principles of tolerance and religious freedom which are treasured by the Gulf Arabs.
But the key, they say, is not to act like a bull in a China shop. If Israel starts building settlements in Judea and Samaria with abandon; or gets into what might be seen as trigger-happy live fire confrontations with Arab, Bedouin, and Palestinian stone throwers leading a sharp rise in casualties; or barrels into the Temple Mount with wholesale changes in security and prayer protocols without attempting to conduct a respectful dialogue on this with the Arab world – the Abraham Accords could suffer.
No Abraham Accord country is going to break relations with Israel or end intelligence and defense cooperation (especially against Iran). And many areas of cooperation (from environmental and agricultural cooperation to scientific, space, and business partnerships) will continue apace. But Arab countries may feel it necessary to deemphasize their ties with Israel in public and to distance themselves loudly from the government in Jerusalem.
One Gulf colleague warned me that the Saudis in particular stand at a tricky moment. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman could be ready to take significant new steps towards Israel. That is certainly the hope of incoming prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has specified an Israeli breakthrough in ties to Saudi Arabia as one of his top priorities.
But I was warned that the Saudis could be forced into retreat from such an opening if Israeli acts “incautiously and intolerantly.” The first step away from Israel that Saudis might take is a withdrawal of their permission for Israeli, Bahraini, and Emirati airlines to fly over Saudi Arabia on routes to/from Israel. This would be a gigantic step backward that would severely impact the development of Israeli-Gulf ties (and of course, tourism). I consider this a stark warning.
Which brings me back to the Abrahamic concept of “tolerance.” What the Gulf Arabs are trying to do is redefine the identity and global image of Arab Muslims based on a discourse of genuine tolerance and ideological moderation. They explicitly reject the discourse of hatred (of the West, and of Israel) that lies at the root of extremist strains of Sunni and Shiite Islam.
Moreover, Gulf Arabs see Israel’s blending of tradition with enlightenment as a role model for their own societies. After all, Israeli society and the societies of UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco cherish their strong family, ethnic, cultural, and religious identities while appreciating modernity. They concurrently uphold proud nationalist sentiment and a broad-minded approach to advanced education, international brotherhood, and regional cooperation. And they all seek peace.
Consequently, the Arab leaders of Abraham Accord countries need to see Israel expressing tolerance, actively pursuing accommodation with Israeli Arabs, and seeking peace with the Palestinians too. They are not wedded to the archaic Oslo-era two-state paradigm, nor do they care about satisfying every extremist Palestinian demand. What they do care about is an approach of dialogue and tolerance.
They want to see Israel pursuing Jewish-Muslim channels of reconciliation, not angry altercations; opportunities for at-least informal (“track two”) diplomacy with the Palestinians, not confrontation; avenues for practical teamwork, not squabbles.
They expect that Israel will pursue dialogue with Israeli Arab leaders on matters of internal governance and with the broader Arab world on matters relating to sovereignty and especially Jerusalem.
How this squares with the current rejectionist policies, absolute hostility to Israel, and even raw antisemitism of Palestinian leadership – I don’t know. How can Israel be expected to make progress with Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies, never mind with Hamas leaders – I don’t know. How Israel forcefully rolls back the mafia-style Bedouin protection rackets in the Negev, which it must, without some degree of confrontation – I don’t know. So, I told my Gulf colleagues to temper their expectations!
Furthermore, I told them that Israel firmly will assert control of its sovereignty and governance in the face of Israeli Arab and Palestinian lawlessness. That is what most Israelis expect of their new government!
At the same time, I assured them that Israel will do so without racist incitement and delegitimizing rhetoric, and without crude demonstrations of its power, but rather with finely calibrated tools and from an approach of maximum willingness to dialogue. I trust that I am right.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/notes-in-young-india-by-gandhi-april-1921
https://apnews.com/article/f40d8c2c7d8d4ffeadd576ded89acc0c
@David Singer And, of course, The PLO and Hamas, etc, will be happy to give up their lucrative fiefdoms for the greater good. We all know how selfless and altruistic they are. It’s not like they’re into it for the money and the power, with their millenarian itches getting scratched to boot.
We’re talking Mother Teresa here.
As that great Muslim prophet George Washington believed: “Power doesn’t corrupt. Absolute power doesn’t corrupt absolutely.”
😀
@ David the other option is that Mudhar Zahran leads a successful armed insurrection and wins and it’s bloody and this seems to bother you. Why are you so concerned about what happens to our enemies?
I’m amazed that Arutz Sheva which represents YESHA religious nationalists gives you space to advocate giving away their homes. You know that Jews will be expelled, right?
Or, are you only contemplating Areas A, B, and Gaza going to the 80 member Hashemite Monarchy the British created and led against Israel – contrary to what the article says.
@David You point out in your article that the PLO expressly rejected any claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in its original charter when they were in Arab, which is to say, Muslim hands. Yes, exactly, that’s the point. Whether its the alliance with Nazi Germany or the PLO alliance with the Soviet Union or Nasser’s pan-Arabism, these are all just Muslim strategems for destroying the Jewish state. They never had any interest in this area before the late 19th century in response to political Zionism and the return. Didn’t stop them from persecuting local Jews, both Muslim and Christian Arabs before that . But, they were tribal and migrants mostly.
Jordan, like all Muslim states where the population doesn’t belong to one tribe and only one, as Kedar has pointed out, are inherently unstable.
There is no such thing as a permanent agreement with a Muslim state or entity.
But once the land is conceded, even without open borders, then the only thing stopping a new invasion is the balance of power at any time which is why Jordan and Egypt haven’t broken their treaties, though honestly there were fewer problems with Jordan before the treaty and after they got their asses whipped in the 70s, recall the Island of Peace Massacre, the brouhaha over the cameras at the Temple Mount, the attempted assasination of Israeli diplomats, etc. -and the closer to home that Jewish armies are instead of in the Arab heartland, the more it brings war and terror as Kahane presciently noted in 1976. His prophecy came true. And he was talking about giving up Sinai!
No, you want to stop terror. Don’t give up land. Conquer land and expel the inhabitants. But, unfortunately, our people want to be “moral.” whatever that means.
The Allies would have lost WW2 with such morality. Terrorist Arabs should meet the fate of the Sudeten Germans after the war. They were expelled to Germany.
That may not be possible, but at least the Jordan Option is a plan for draining the land of a goodly number of Arabs, mostly Muslims without silly moral qualms or international repercussions.
No concessions but carrot and stick. That’s the only way that works in the short run. Sadly, no one in power is going to make a phone call for the Jordan Option any time soon.
@David I read the article you wrote today in Arutz Sheva and you say that the Jews should accept the proposal that the Arabs rejected in 1948 and let Jordan legally have the land it illegally occupied for 19 years.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/363772
Though you are correct in that the Two State Solution is a continually revived corpse that will never happen, you don’t seem to realize the reason why.
It’s not this or that practical scheme.
Muslims believe that every peace of land ever conquered by Muslims is the inalienable property of the Umma. They can’t give it up. Even moderate Muslims, except for the handful of unrepresentative Muslim Zionists, who point out that Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran and Mohammed said, early on, that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews, are just willing to say, ok, we’ll take it back at a later date.
This isn’t about land. It’s a politico-religious conflict. The war will be over – if it ever is – when the Arabs, when the Muslims surrender, when they are defeated in such a way that they LOSE ALL HOPE.
Making concessions to them only whets their appetite.
Whether in the long run or the short, they will not accept a Jewish state the size of a postage stamp, I forget who it was who said.
To parapharase Mao – who was paraphrasing Teddy Roosevelt – “Peace flows from the barrel of a gun.”
Do you seriously think the incoming government will contemplate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and giving up any part of the Jewish patrimony?
And you haven’t answered what you think of the proposal for open borders between Israel, Jordan and all the surrounding states as listed in this plan.
If you’re worried about chaos and violence, not to mention invasion by Iran and its proxies, you can’t possibly contemplate that.
This reminds me of the schemes to turn Gaza into the Singapore of the MIddle East. Problem is – the Muslims don’t want that. They don’t think like us. They don’t value life over the dictates of their murderous religion.
With the Gulf States,, temporarily, Israel can postpone the conflict with common defense against Iran and its proxies – such as the Houthis – and economic assistance to retool in the coming post-oil era and water conservation and medical problems.
But, its temporary. They are the enemy. And peace only comes from strength. The Oslo accords never said anything about settlements, recall.
They are like sharks smelling blood in the water with each new concession.
@David Singer Yes, we’ve heard all that before.
Simple repetition of the same arguments won’t make it more convincing.
The plan calls for open borders. Comment please.