Ben-Gvir’s Temple Mount visit and the decision to legalize the Homesh outpost have put a dent in the prime minister’s aim of diplomatic ties with Riyadh
Itamar Ben Gvir after visiting the Temple Mount in March, Jerusalem.Credit: Ohad Zwigenberg
Just a few minutes of Itamar Ben-Gvir’s defiant stroll on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount Tuesday were enough for the international community to make it clear to Benjamin Netanyahu that it has no patience for the whims of his new government.
The flood of condemnations sent the new-old prime minister a clear message: Washington, European states, Jordan and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf expressed, in nearly identical statements, concern about the provocation of the new national security minister. The previous day it was the notification to the High Court of Justice of the coalition’s plans to amend the disengagement law and leave the settlement outpost of Homesh in place that caused an uproar in European capitals.
An ambassador from one European country described his own government’s measured response. On the one hand it criticized the new coalition’s extremist tack, but it decided there were mitigating circumstances that precluded going too far: Ben-Gvir is in fact responsible for security at the site; he visited early in the morning, when the compound was empty; he neither prayed nor tried to stir things up, and he did not stay for long.
Three weeks ago, Netanyahu laid out an optimistic vision of his intention to establish diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and to sweep the U.S. administration and European countries to promote the adventure. But dreams are one thing, reality another. Ben-Gvir’s Temple Mount visit and the decision regarding Homesh started Netanyahu’s new government on the wrong foot. “There is no chance of advancing relations with Saudi Arabia as long as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are in the coalition,” said an Israeli official who is involved in the efforts. He named several additional and unrelated obstacles to moving forward.
Saudi Arabia reiterated Tuesday what it thinks about a public rapprochement with Israel. In addition to registering strong protest to Ben-Gvir’s actions, the foreign ministry in Riyadh stated that the actions “undermine international peace efforts and contradict international norms and principles of respecting religious sanctities.” The statement also reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s “solid stance of standing by the brotherly Palestinian people,” a clear signal of the expectation of a significant improvement in Israel’s attitude toward the Palestinians.
On the eve of his inauguration, Netanyahu announced in interviews with foreign media outlets that his first official visit would be to the United Arab Emirates, the first of its kind since he signed the Abraham Accords. There are ongoing talks to this end, which may soon bear fruit, but in the past week Israel’s new friend in the Persian Gulf has also repeatedly come out clearly against the government in Jerusalem.
As the representative of the Arab League in the UN Security Council, the UAE requested Tuesday an emergency meeting of the body to discuss Ben-Gvir’s visit, on behalf of the Palestinians. And on Friday it voted in favor of the Palestinian request to ask the International Court of Justice in The Hague to issue an advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides visits Yad Vashem, Thursday.Credit: David Azagury / U.S. Embassy Jerusalem
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides recently said in an interview with Haaretz that the Netanyahu government will be judged by its actions and not by the statements of its coalition partners. Ben-Gvir’s actions Tuesday led him to speak less diplomatically. “Ambassador Nides has been very clear in conversations with the Israeli government on the issue of preserving the status quo in Jerusalem’s holy sites. Actions that prevent that are unacceptable,” the embassy said in a statement.
On the eve of taking office, Netanyahu himself sought to allay concerns. In conversations with concerned leaders, he made it clear time and time again that he would be “everyone’s prime minister” and that he controls his government with both hands on the steering wheel.
He knows full well that the latest event does match what is expected of him and that it exposes a clear split with the international community that presumably cannot be reconciled – not in regard to advancing a two-state solution, not in the demand to freeze expansion and legalization of settlements and not in the demand to leave the status quo on the Temple Mount intact.
@Dogan
I am in the process of writing about the “Status Quo”. I expect to finish it today or tomorrow.
Would Israpundit please publish some papers about the so- called “status quo”. What exactly does it mean? What are the juridical authorities that govern it? precisely what rights does it confer upon Israel and Israelis, Israel and Jordan?
Last year or the year before Saudi Arabia sponsored a resolution at the U.N .G.A about respecting religious sites and it was adopted. What impact would the adoption of that resolution have upon the status quo?
Dogan Akman
Let’s not use the leftist argument against ourselves.
1. Wait and see.
2. No surprise about the “international” response. It was to be expected.
3. In comparison with, for example, Kamala Harris, Ben Gvir went to the front to see for himself what was going on, like every good manager should do!
The Saudis will drive Israel into the ditch. They have their own agenda.
The war against Israel goes unabated!
Status quo unacceptable!
Haaretz not much different from US liberal (Jews)!
I disagree. The Saudis are not the Emeriatis. They will choose their own path and we will see what that path might be, but I would not consider the choice of the Emirates to be that chosen by the Saudis. In fact, the Saudis were and remain a primary target of Iran, and resolving this dilemma was the immediate, though not exclusive, focus of the Abraham Accords. Whatever the choice of the Saudis, however, Israel needs to focus upon her own interests and let the Arab nations do the same. Israel is not a moderate Arab state, it is the Jewish State. To declare a trip by Ben Gvir to the Temple mount as being a raid, actually establishes the very real need for the status quo to be not just challenged, but to be entirely replaced. Failing to do so would simply maintain an Arab control over the holiest of Jewish sites in the Jewish state, and this should be deemed to be unacceptable to us all.
Ahem.
Haaretz?
Don’t we read Haaretz
In order to find out what the Self hating Jewish Left are thinking?