On November 11, Friday, the Special Committee on Politics and Decolonization (yes, there is such a thing) met at the United Nations headquarters in New York and by a majority of votes approved the request of the Palestinians to submit to the International Court of Justice in The Hague a legal opinion which, among other things, determines what is the “legal meaning of the occupation” the continuous Israeli”.
In short, it will be said that the adoption of the above definition will turn Israel into a “colonial” country with all that implies, and will harm us in many important areas. As part of this column, I will try to explain how we reached a situation where the Palestinians managed to pass by a majority of votes (98 in favor, 17 against and 58 abstentions) a proposal that means a serious harm to the interests of the State of Israel. In order to answer the question, it is also useful to refer to the timing and ask why why it happened now.
Like everything in life, there is no vacuum in the political field either. As long as the State of Israel promoted a clear and activist policy in the Palestinian channel, we could deal with the Palestinians more easily; As soon as Israel gave up its policy and decided to adopt a conciliatory policy, the first to recognize the change were of course the Palestinians.
And so, in the last year and a half since the establishment of the Bent-Lapid-Abbas government, the order of Genesis has changed in the relations between Israel and the Palestinians and in any case in the attitude of the international community towards the “political process”. Most of us may not be aware of this, but in order to understand the things that happened and are still happening, I would like to present Israel’s policy until the establishment of the Bent-Lapid-Abbas government, and the new policy that began to take shape immediately after the inauguration of this government.
Until mid-2021, when a new government led by Bennett was sworn in, Netanyahu’s central principle stated that Israel would not conduct any negotiations with the Palestinians until they recognized the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The logic is simple: if the Palestinians do not recognize the State of Israel, how can the State of Israel negotiate with them? Netanyahu convinced the US and other countries that it was Israel’s right to insist on this demand as a condition for opening talks, and the Palestinians for their part stubbornly refused.
This is why since 2014 the negotiations have been frozen and stuck. There were no political meetings between Israel and the Palestinians and certainly not between the leaders of the two sides. For seven years, as long as the Palestinians fortified themselves in their refusal, Netanyahu presented the Palestinians as refusers and as those who are harming the renewal of the political process. It should be mentioned that for part of the period, President Barack Obama served in the White House, who, as we know, was not a big fan of the Israeli position.
Palestinian stubbornness led to their isolation, and at the same time Israel began to successfully explore different directions vis-a-vis Arab countries. This is how the ‘Abraham Accords’ paradigm was born, which claimed that the political process vis-a-vis the Arab countries should not be turned into a hostage for the Palestinians. With the signing of the four Abraham Accords with the Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, the Palestinians were further marginalized and became irrelevant. This was the case until the crowning of Bennett as Prime Minister.
One of the first moves made with the establishment of the Bennett-Lapid-Abbas government was the invitation of Abu Mazen to the home of Defense Minister Benny Gantz, with Bennett’s knowledge and consent. This meeting changed the mindset among the Palestinians. They realized that the isolation imposed on them by Netanyahu was over, and began promoting moves to make themselves a relevant player with regional influence again.
During the past year, ministers in the Israeli government traveled to Moketah to meet with Abu Mazen, and at the same time the Israeli government sent clear messages that Netanyahu’s policy has ended and is now promoting a new policy. The Bennet-Lapid government, de facto without explicitly declaring it, renounced the basic Israeli condition of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state as a binding requirement for returning to negotiations. This was seen by the Palestinians as proof of their justification in not submitting to Israeli dictates, knowing that in the end the Israeli side is the one that, as usual, will fold.
And so, while the Bennett-Lapid government is convinced that the renewal of the political process is an achievement, the Palestinians saw the renewal of the process without concession on their part as a victory over Israel. Moreover, they interpreted the renewal of the political process as a return to the Oslo outline – returning the Palestinians to the center of affairs and pushing the Abraham Accords to the margins, including the attitude that in the name of the holy “process” Israel should contain terrorism.
The Palestinians realized that no matter what they do and what happens, the Bent-Lapid government will not stop the political process. This understanding translated into encouraging terrorist attacks without fear of exacting a price. Over the past year, the number of deadly terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of twenty-five innocent Israeli citizens increased and multiplied. And wonder of wonders, the Bent-Lapid government did not stop the political process and did not threaten the Palestinian Authority, but took the Oslo approach of war on terror regardless of the political process.
Bringing up again my report from yesterday regarding the intention of the US government and the FBI to investigate the Shireen Abu Aqla case. A serious and precedential watershed in the relations between the countries pic.twitter.com/j4tpy1acoW
— The old and stately Akiva Bigman (@akibigman) November 15, 2022
When Lapid entered the Prime Minister’s office, he went further, when in his speech from the UN podium he called for a return to the “two states for two peoples” paradigm. This declaration was seen by the Palestinians as an overwhelming victory. Not only do they not recognize the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, but they accept A reward in the form of an Israeli declaration of its ambition to establish a Palestinian state, regardless of the actions of the Palestinians.
This reality encouraged the Palestinians to continue and transfer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the corridors of the UN, faithful to their way of harming Israel in any way and at any time, and this is how we arrived at last Friday.
When you read Lapid’s weak response, you realize that once again the Palestinians were right in their assessment of his government’s “determination”. Except for Rav Lapid’s words, he did not show rigidity or strength, only endless sentences about harming the political process, about everyone’s responsibility for stability and other general statements lacking substance. Lapid can be credited with the fact that he also understands that he has finished his role and therefore has no desire or ability to change his policies in his last days as the transitional prime minister. But Lapid’s departure does not solve the problem that he, Bennett and Gantz left us – a Palestinian Authority that returned to relevance without recognizing the State of Israel as their Jewish state.
The Netanyahu government will have to deal from day one with the feeling of the Palestinians that they are an actor on the ‘right’ side while Israel is on the side of the unwilling, and will have to act firmly and quickly to prevent further political escalation to the detriment of Israel.
In order to do this, we must return to the policy of an unequivocal and uncompromising demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as a condition for the renewal of the political process. Without such recognition, Israel will have to act to isolate the Palestinians among the international community. In order to succeed, Israel must deepen the paradigm of the ‘Abraham Accords’ by inciting the addition of more moderate Muslim countries to the circle of peace, and other additional moves in this channel. The ‘Abraham Agreements’ have been proven to be a stabilizing and important factor, and therefore it is a regional and global interest to which both the US and the international community can be harnessed.
The Israeli government must not be tempted and give up the basic condition of recognizing the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, without which the Israeli government will not negotiate with the Palestinians.
Gilad Katz previously served as the Israeli Consul General in the Southwest USA and served as an advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
(Visited 1 times, 8 visits today)