The news of last Thursday, that Israel and the UAE have reached a peace agreement, is exciting and important, but more exciting and important is the price Israel will be paying for this agreement. The annexation of parts of the occupied territories is “off the table”. However, as with most “exciting and important” news coming out of the Middle East, the soup is never eaten as hot as it is served, and the truth, in the eye of various beholders, is very flexible.
Let’s take a look at the Peace agreement with the UAE. Rumors about an impending agreement have been around for quite a while and apparently, normalization of relations is in the interest of both countries. From the three sources of media declarations (Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi and Washington) it is still very unclear what has been decided and what is still being negotiated. While from the UAE, the wording of the press release included having agreed to cooperation and a road map to establishing full bilateral relations, in Israel the term “full formal peace” was used, which would include exchange of ambassadors, direct flights and tourism. In Washington the talk was about “direct ties” and a step in the process of Peace in the Middle East.
But while the UAE proudly volunteered the information that the agreement reached includes the abandoning by Israel of the Annexation of Palestinian lands, in Washington it was presented as “the Annexation is suspended and is off the table”, and in Israel, the words “for now” were added to the American statement, with Netanyahu adding, for local consumption no doubt, that he would never give up on “our right to our land”. Interpretation in Israel clearly indicated that since the Americans used the word “suspended”, the Annexation is still a future possibility.
For Netanyahu, the dilemma is a serious one. Be included in the (very short) list of Israeli leaders that made peace with Arab countries (Only Rabin and Begin are on that list). Or become the hero of a large part of the Israeli population and go through with the annexation. Apparently for now he has chosen the first option, and probably depending on the reactions from his supporters he will decide if and how to pursue the annexation.
It is important to remember though, that at this point, with the world looking in awe at this new peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation, it will be very difficult if not impossible to pull back from it, and the fact that the leader of the UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, presented the agreement as a victory for the Arab world because of the prevention of the annexation, breaking that agreement would result in a backlash that Israel cannot afford. So possibly we are really looking at a historical agreement, one that both creates peaceful relations with another Arab country, while giving strength to the Palestinians by preventing the usurping of their lands.
What was the role of the United States in this development, and what does that mean for the future? Trump has already hinted that the agreement between Israel and the UAE is only the first one in a series of agreements, including other Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. This would definitely be a very positive development for Israel, where improved relations with “moderate” Arab States have always been an important goal. But, if the United States is the mediator for these agreements, will the next ones follow the same pattern that this first one did? Will Israel be required to “pay a price” for the next peace agreements as well? In that case we may hope and assume that at some point, the establishment of a Palestinian state on (most) of the West Bank will be raised as a demand, to establish relations with Saudi Arabia for instance. It sounds farfetched, but only three months ago, the Annexation (or “applying Sovereignty” as Netanyahu insists on calling it), was at the top of the agenda of the Israeli government and in three rounds of elections it played a major part and even a date was set for it to be implemented. And it has now seemingly disappeared from the options that Israel has and bringing it back will cause so much trouble that even Netanyahu will most likely not attempt to do so. All in all, it sounds like a very positive development but there are two issues that raise questions.
First, how is it possible that Netanyahu, the very slick politician that he is, did not foresee that this peace agreement and the way in which it came to be would have consequences down the road as speculated above, and if he did foresee this, why did he agree to it?
The answer to this, for Israel very important question, must be found in Washington. With Trump being up for reelection and the demise of the “Deal of the Century”, the so-called peace plan of the American Administration, Trump desperately needs some positive development in foreign policy and especially in the Middle East. Thus the idea of the peace deals with the Gulf states was born and apparently it was easier to implement than the original ideas for peace in the Middle East.
However, as a mediator the task of the Americans was not easy, especially after the UAE came up with their demand to take the annexation off the table (or maybe the Americans came up with that idea themselves to lure the UAE into an agreement). They had to make Israel agree to this demand and so what happened? Did Netanyahu agree to it and cast aside the annexation and to hell with the domestic political consequences, or did the Americans twist his arm in such a way that Netanyahu was left without a choice and gave in to the demands of the Americans?
If Netanyahu agreed voluntarily, it is just another indication how unreliable he is as a politician, and how little he can be trusted with anything that he utters. But this is not really earth-shocking news anymore, now is it?
If the Americans forced him into this, and there are many leverage points the U.S. has with Israel, it simply means that the dependency of Israel on the U.S. has reached a point where the Americans will be able to control what Israel does in the international arena and force their will upon the Israeli government whenever it is crucial for them, like in having Trump reelected.
So how should we look at this peace agreement news? No doubt for Israel it is very positive to remove another Arab state from its long list of adversaries, but it is worrisome that a foreign country has so much power over us that they can force down our throats even peace agreements with very bitter aftertaste attached to it (at least for a part of the Israeli population). Or should we say that the Israeli government is so out of control with respect to foreign policy that it is good news that someone else is taking the helm.
Whatever happened in the backrooms where this agreement was negotiated, the final outcome is good news for the state of Israel especially if it is indeed the first one in a series of agreements.
But we may have to rely on Netanyahu to make Israelis swallow the strings attached to this and upcoming peace agreements.
