Israeli foreign policy trends over the past six months – Yahya Abdullah

The entire content of this article is based on a report on Israel’s relations with the region prepared by the Israel Foreign Policy Research Institute, published in Issue (13) January 2024, compiled by Dr. Roi Kibrick and Dr. Orni Livni, covering the period from January to June 2024. An initial comment on the report is that it is too general and avoids going into detail. Meaning, it is like broad lines; he also contradicts facts and reality in some of his points and passes on many fallacies, which we will comment on with puns as we present his views.

• • •
First: Regarding Israel’s war on Gaza, the authors of the report believe that the world wants to end the war and implement a two-state solution within the framework of a regional solution, while Israel has always avoided presenting a plan after the war. The United States, Europe and the countries of the region are pushing for an end to the war (in my opinion, this is an exaggeration. If the United States only wants to really push for an end to the war, it needs to do so for many strategic reasons (there is not enough space to list them all) and establish an alternative to Hamas in Gaza in the form of an independent Palestinian state under the administration of the developed Palestinian Authority, while linking this measure to a regional solution (the expected regional solution first implies Israel’s integration into the region and the normalization of its presence. And the formation of a regional alliance against Iran or any emerging regional power, in which Israel will play a leading role), and it has shown its willingness to mobilize to achieve this goal.
But the Israeli government strongly opposes the two-state solution (it is not just the government that opposes the two-state solution; opposition to the two-state solution is almost a social consensus, even within the ranks of the opposition), refuses to offer Hamas an alternative similar to the Palestinian Authority, and insists on avoiding presenting the reality of the day after the war.
• • •
Second: The report states that Israel is taking advantage of the ongoing war in Gaza to consolidate its annexation of the West Bank and weaken the position of the Palestinian Authority, noting that the Israeli government encourages Jewish settlements in the West Bank, expels some Palestinian groups, and supports settler violence (against peaceful Palestinian civilians), with full support, and the transfer of civil administration in the West Bank from the army to the Ministry of Defense (the author of the report is still the Ministry of Defense). What is not mentioned is that this issue goes beyond encouragement and support, and in fact, it is carried out within the framework of a government program aimed at expanding settlements throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem and eliminating the possibility of establishing Palestinians. Didn’t the leader of the far-right party “Religious Zionism” appoint Israeli Defense Minister Bezalel Smotrich to coordinate government actions and civil affairs in the occupied Palestinian territories. In addition to being the Minister of Finance in the current Netanyahu government, the government there? ! ). At the same time, the government is committed to weakening the Palestinian Authority, especially in the economic field (the authors of the report do not elaborate on the harsh punitive measures taken against it by Finance Minister Smotrich). The report notes that, although not explicitly stated, measures taken by the U.S. government and some other countries against individual settlers have not stopped the Israeli government’s actions in the settlement sector.
• • •
Third, on the issue of negotiating a cessation of the Gaza war and the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, the authors of the report confirm a well-known axiom that Israel is not ready to pay the price required to stop the Gaza war. Despite the support of the Israeli public and the support of the security forces to proceed with the deal. But they do not explain the reasons for the refusal, nor do they show that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses for partisan and personal reasons. Ending the war would mean the dissolution of the government coalition he leads and the end of his political future. On the other hand, the report confuses the general Israeli desire to capture prisoners of war with stopping the war, but this is partly correct, because even after the prisoners of war were captured, there was still almost a consensus within Israeli society to continue the war. . It is true that the public desire to continue the war is no longer as strong as it will be after October 7, 2023, but it is still a matter of consensus.
• • •
Fourth: The report’s authors argue (and they are right) that the legitimacy of the war against Hamas, and even the legitimacy of the State of Israel itself as a member of the international community, has been undermined, and that the administration of justice by the International Court of Justice in The Hague and other international bodies has become a challenge to Israel. (The report’s authors do not explain why this legitimacy has been eroded. They do not mention crimes against humanity committed by Israel against the civilian population of Gaza, nor war crimes, nor attempts at ethnic cleansing, nor calls by Israeli ministers for the Israeli government to use nuclear weapons against the civilian population of Gaza, nor calls for killing by starvation and siege.)
• • •
Fifth: On the issue of the Lebanese war, the report authors believe that Israel recognizes the existence of a continuous and escalating war of attrition with Hezbollah on the northern border and is pinning its hopes on the deterrence of the United States and the diplomatic efforts of the United States and France to prevent the transition to a full-scale war. The report points out that Israel and Hezbollah continue to exchange fire while trying to study new rules of the game and draw red lines for all parties so as not to cross them and engage in a full-scale war (Israel violated these red lines when it assassinated Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr in the southern suburbs of Beirut and when it attacked Hezbollah positions in the Lebanese Bekaa (at a depth of about 100 meters inside Lebanese territory).
• • •
Sixth: The authors of the report point out that regarding Israel’s relations with the United States, in the context of the Gaza war, the Israeli government tried to “tighten the rope” on the US government, rather than cut it, so that it had greater freedom of action and so that it would not pay a political and military price. But they claim that the United States of America uses the necessary assistance to Israel to influence Israel’s behavior and prevent the outbreak of a regional war (reality refutes this claim, as the United States of America repeatedly warned Israel not to enter Rafah, for example, but the latter continued to implement its plans and ignored these warnings. The events in the southern suburbs of Beirut show that Israel is trying to involve the United States in a regional war, which means that the United States is trying to prevent the outbreak of a war, which is just a reaction to what Israel has done. The authors of the report admit that the US government and the Jewish community in the United States, despite “criticizing” the Israeli government, still support Israel.
• • •
Seventh: Regarding relations with Europe, the report authors noted that Europe supported Israel in its war against Hamas, but criticized Israel’s way of war because of concerns about violating international law and fear of public criticism, which also included calls for Israel to ban the export of weapons to Israel. On the other hand, the report noted that Israel has worked to strengthen relations with European right-wingers and those who take a position against EU interference in current affairs and integration of EU countries. The report said that some European countries chose to recognize the State of Palestine in order to play an effective role in the conflict. Regarding relations with Turkey, the report noted that the crisis with Turkey has reached an unprecedented level and that commercial activities between the two countries have been affected more severely than the political crisis. On the other hand, the report noted that Greece helped Israel circumvent the challenges of direct trade with Turkey and Cyprus helped Israel with intelligence, political and military efforts in Israel’s wars on Gaza and Lebanon.
• • •
Eighth: The Gaza war has an impact on the path of deepening and expanding normalization in the region. The report points out that despite the scenes broadcast from Gaza and the resulting pressure, Israel’s relations with countries in the region seem to be tough and have not been officially cut off, but their nature has changed, and the driving force behind the relationship has become waiting and waiting. The report claims that public relations with Bahrain and Morocco (which means that private relations exist) have frozen, the multilateral regional framework formed in the normalization process has not healed, and normalization with Saudi Arabia is advancing issues that were on the agenda before the outbreak of the war and are now stagnant. Now Israel is ready to end the war and advance the two-state solution. On the other hand, the report points out that Israel’s cooperation with some countries in the region will inevitably be reflected in responding to Iran’s direct attack on Israel on the night of April 14, 2024.