While the new government holds a cluster of threats that could spark violence in the West Bank, the UAE is the first country to publicly legitimize Ben-Gvir by connecting him to Netanyahu’s commitment to the Abraham peace accords
By Zvi Bar’el, HAARETZ Dec 4/22
Far-right Otzma Yehudit Chairman Itamar Ben-Gvir shakes hands with Emirati Ambassador Mohamed Al Khaja, last week.
Diplomatic protocol didn’t require the embassy of the United Arab Emirates in Israel to invite National Security Minister-designate Itamar Ben-Gvir to the Persian Gulf state’s 51st anniversary celebration. The new Israeli cabinet has not yet been sworn in, and political leaders are asking themselves what message the invitation might be sending to other Arab states, to Israel’s Arabs and especially to Palestinians.
A Jordanian official said the invitation should be seen as expressing Amman’s desire to influence the actions of the government that incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is putting together.
“As a goodwill gesture to [Israel’s] most extreme representative as a way of setting a honey trap for him. It’s clear to all of us that the new government holds a cluster of threats that could spark violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and from there to the entire region. But instead of warning and threatening, Abu Dhabi is using ‘positive diplomacy.’ Will this approach help Ben-Gvir take steps to Judaize the Temple Mount? We’ll have to wait and see,” the official said.
One source said in this context that the UAE conditioned its signing of the Abraham Accords on Netanyahu retreating from plans, real or imagined, to annex the West Bank. The UA’s crown prince, now its ruler, scored a big win when he legitimized the Abraham Accords and created dependence, even if only for appearances’ sake, between the Palestinian issue and peace with Israel.
Now it seems that the intent is similar: To remind Netanyahu of the bedrock on which the peace agreement with the UAE is based and to connect Ben-Gvir to Netanyahu’s commitment.
What is more, the UAE is the first Arab country to give legitimacy to Ben-Gvir, and thus it not only signals the desired direction to other Arab countries at the moment, it also might produce the dividend of being the Arab country with the greatest influence on the new Israeli government.
Jordan, like Egypt, Morocco and Bahrain, has meanwhile maintained silence officially. Their leaders have not publicly expressed an opinion on the new government or Ben-Gvir. Official media outlets, especially in Egypt appear to be toeing the party line that presents the “threat” moderately, highlighting mainly the danger faced by the Palestinians – but without calling for public responses in Arab countries.
Last week a long article appeared in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram about Ben-Gvir’s personal and political life in a style that was almost dry. Only at the end did a paragraph appear stating: “The fear of Itamar Ben-Gvir is not only among Palestinians and 1948 [Israeli] Arabs, it also stretches toward the Israeli citizen, who fears a right-wing religious revolution from the outcome of the election and the way it will impact the life of the simple citizen.” Not a word about the impact of the new government on Israel’s relations with Egypt and no call on the Egyptian government to “take a stand.”
Sharp criticism and threatening prophecies can be read and heard in Arab media outlets published outside the Middle East or in countries that do not have diplomatic ties with Israel. “Murderous Zionism takes center stage”; “The Zionist entity reveals its true face”; “Arab countries must wake up and act to halt the aspirations of the Zionist government”; these are only a few of the sentiments expressed in commentaries.
A senior scholar at the Egyptian Al Ahram Center for Political Research suggests not to let these statements make an impression meanwhile, that “we heard similar ones in the previous Netanyahu governments.”
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, he told Haaretz he believes that the leaders who signed peace agreements with Israel will take a pragmatic approach to each country according to its interests.
“Egypt has an interest in close cooperation with Israel, both to stop violent developments in the Gaza Strip and to market gas to European countries. The Palestinian issue is very important, but Egypt also understands that there is no point now in talking about the two-state solution, and it had better focus on maintaining the situation in Gaza,” the scholar said.
“The assumption is that even under the new government, this common interest will be preserved. After all, Ben-Gvir also has no interest in setting off rockets from Gaza. It’s clear that Egypt’s interests are not identical to those of Jordan or the UAE, but neither are they separate from them,” he added.
In this statement, the scholar refers to the danger that lurks – for both Egypt and the UAE – from developments in the West Bank and Jerusalem, of a nature that could lead to mass protests in the streets of Cairo, Amman and Rabat.
“We live in a system of ‘linked vessels’ in which the Palestinians still have one focus of power and that it – to influence Arab public opinion and disrupt regimes,” says the editor of a Jordanian government newspaper, who is a Palestinian by origin.
“We are not innocent. Over the years the power of the Palestinians to motivate Arab public opinion has greatly eroded. The only place that perhaps can still produce protest is the Temple Mount. But that is also the place that Ben-Gvir and his colleagues on the extreme right are seeking. It is also Jordan’s weak spot, and when ties between Netanyahu and the king are far from friendly, the king will have to rely on other Arab leaders and on the United States to calm the Israeli government.”
The role of the U.S. to curb the Netanyahu government from “running amok” might be critical, but it cannot be relied on with certainty. Recent statements by senior officials, including the U.S. president, members of Congress and Jewish community leaders about the formation of the new Israeli government, especially giving Ben-Gvir and his ally MK Bezalel Smotrich senior positions, attests to concern, but that is still not policy.
“I know that the Biden administration is in the process of doing everything they can to try to limit the potential for damage to the inclusion of these extremist elements within the governing coalition,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen at the annual Sadat Forum at the University of Maryland.
Also, U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price called Ben-Gvir’s attendance at a memorial for racist ideologue Rabbi Meir Kahane “abhorrent. There is no other word for it.” Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menendez warned Netanyahu directly against bringing Ben-Gvir and Smotrich into his governing coalition.
“Our experience shows that the U.S. has been able to change Israel’s policies only on tactical matters, not strategic ones. We have also seen Israel’s position on negotiations on the nuclear accord when it stood defiantly against U.S. efforts, the Al Ahram scholar said.
“But perhaps this time we’ll see more effective American activism, and it had better show its strength before the leaders of countries that are signatories to the peace agreements are forced to initiate a policy dictated by public opinion.”
The choice of an Israeli cabinet member was never going to break the accords, and if it could, it would only demonstrate the reality that the Accords have no significant purpose or application.
The Accords are about self interest, and it is not in the UAE’s interest to destabilize the accords, but rather, their interests lie in the complete opposite direction. Indeed, the Accords were the work product of Bibi’s policy of Peace thru Strength, which is a process in which the weak threads, ie the Arab states, self thread thru the eye of the strong needle, ie Israel. Notably, the needle does not chase the threads. And so, a network of cooperation is achieved, with all parties working toward the same objective, but all parties are not equally enabled to function independently of each other. The Iranian threat is significant and the ability to isolate Iran will be more difficult the second time around, requiring a united front by the Sunni’s in support of Israel’s anti-Iran policy. Accordingly, the Accord members will accept the current reality, such as it is, with which they have no ability to alter. They will do so, if for no other reason, than to pursue a future in which their society may still exist, if not thrive.