Bennett must usher paradigm shift in foreign policy of Israel

Naftali Bennett government has been endowed a unique opportunity to bring positive changes in the foreign policy of Israel. A perception is being created that this government will be ineffective due to the ideological differences among its member parties. 

It is also believed that Israel’s foreign policy was distorted under Benjamin Netanyahu regime and his departure from office will create positive diplomatic momentum. This offers fertile ground for action on which the government could agree despite its diversity.

Despite Netanyahu achievements, Abraham Accords on top, his acts created deep antagonism, especially on the part of leaders of liberal democracies. He was regarded as challenging the fundamental principles of governance and democracy, supporting racist parties in Israel and abroad, and undermining prospects of a two-state solution.

Netanyahu’s credibility was questioned in Washington, Paris, Amman and perhaps in other capitals. His aggressive approach prompted loud clashes with critics of Israel, even with those inherently enjoying friendly relations. It also became evident that during the recent political crisis Netanyahu’s actions were driven, first and foremost, by his desire to remain in power.

This criticism was generally voiced behind the closed doors, but it surfaced occasionally and created much-publicized crises. Netanyahu’s oust enable the new government to improve diplomatic relations with the many countries, particularly the Muslim world.

However, the foreign policy potential of the new coalition does not stem only from Netanyahu’s absence. Yair Lapid serving as foreign minister has long been preparing himself for the job. He has entered the office with experience, contacts and plans to revamp Israeli diplomacy.

Most notably, he clearly has a strong desire to strengthen the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and its public standing. The approval of appointment of 35 ambassadors could be the biggest achievements, which Netanyahu has been holding up for over six months.

The participation of the Labor and Meretz parties in the new government will also contribute to restoring diplomacy to its rightful place in Israeli decision-making. Members of Knesset from both parties have challenged Netanyahu’s foreign policy approach repeatedly and sought to advance new paradigms and guiding principles shaping a pro-peace, multi-regional, internationalist, modern and inclusive Israeli foreign policy.

Labor and Meretz will be in charge of the Ministry of Regional Cooperation and the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs in the new government, both with distinct diplomacy components, as well as the Ministries of Health and Environmental Protection, both of which deal with issues high on the global diplomatic agenda to which Israel has much to contribute.

Their voices are also expected to be heard and exert influence regarding the Palestinian issue. In addition, the election of Israel’s new President Isaac Herzog – a pro-peace, liberal democratic leader with extensive diplomatic experience and who enjoys international respect – will bolster the assets of the new Israeli leadership and its capabilities in the international arena.

There are reasons to believe that the coalition parties can reach agreement on a series of urgent foreign policy goals that include: 1) rebuilding trust with the Jordanian monarch and restoring Israel’s strategically important ties with the kingdom; 2) deepening ties with the US Democratic Party to restore bipartisan support for Israel; 3) leveraging the normalization agreements with Arab states to forge bilateral and regional cooperation; 4) improving relations with European Union and renewing the high-level dialogue (Association Council) which has not convened since 2012; 5) leveraging opportunities in the Eastern Mediterranean, including restoring relations with Turkey and advancing maritime border negotiations with Lebanon and 6) strengthening the moderate Palestinian leadership, along with restoring Israeli-Palestinian dialogue channels to advance mutual interests.

Although, the new government is not likely to achieve a final-status peace agreement with the Palestinians, which should be a top foreign policy and national security for Israel, it could be instrumental in mending and healing Israeli foreign policy and leaving a significant diplomatic legacy that will better position Israel in the region and internationally.

Arabs will take time to understand Naftali Bennett

After more than a decade under Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has a new prime minister, Naftali Bennett. Netanyahu’s years in power have been extremely significant for country’s relations with the Arab world. Most notably, with the aid of former US president Donald Trump, Netanyahu signed normalization agreements with four Arab and African countries.

Bennett, head of the right-wing Yamina Party, has been a part of Israel’s political system for 15 years, but his regional and international presence has been relatively minor. Now, the Arab world, which has complicated relations with Israel, is crafting its image of Israel’s new premier.

The Qatari-based media giant Al Jazeera published an article about Bennett shortly after he was sworn in, calling him “Netanyahu’s student.” The article took note of that fact that Bennett is the first prime minister to come from what Al Jazeera called “the hard-line religious right,” and said that he is “one of the strongest opponents to the founding of a Palestinian state.

The Saudi-financed Al-Arabiya news website notably does not mention Bennett’s position on the Palestinian-Israel conflict. In an article that can almost be called flattering, Al-Arabiya tells of the new premier’s success in business, his background in Israel’s elite military forces and his various political exploits in recent years.

Oraib Al Rantawi, Founder and Director General of the Al-Quds Center for Political Studies in Amman, told The Media Line, in light of the recent political upheaval, “First of all I think there is a deep feeling of relief, among most of the Arab countries – especially in Palestine and Jordan – at seeing Netanyahu depart.”

In terms of how Bennett is viewed in the Arab world, Rantawi said, what matters is his approach to the Palestinian-Israel conflict. He’s in the far-right camp.” Bennett, he adds, is seen as opposing the two-state solution and a Palestinian state, as well as supporting Jewish settlements in the West Bank. This, and statements perceived as hawkish in the past, have built his image as a hard-line leader in Arab eyes, which Rantawi calls a cause for pessimism.

At the same time Bennett is seen as a weak leader, lacking the international status and personal charisma to rival Netanyahu, Rantawi says. 

“He has no charismatic personality, no connection with the international scene – this will make it easier to counter the Israeli narrative, especially in the US decision-making institutions. We don’t think that Bennett can fill the vacuum of Netanyahu or succeed in establishing strong influence in many international capitals. Not only in Washington and European countries, but also with Russia,” he said.

 “Some countries... are not happy to see Netanyahu depart the scene, especially the Emiratis, and the Saudis to a certain extent,” he also said. “For them, Netanyahu, together with Donald Trump, was a strong ally” regionally and, most notably, against a mutual enemy, Iran. Others such as the Jordanians and the Palestinians often termed ‘The Resistance Axis’ – Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, are happy.”

Many Arab voices in the media are saying that Bennett and his partners will be a continuation of the same policies because Netanyahu’s legacies will outlast his presence as prime minister.

The new government notably includes an Arab Israeli minister from the left-wing Meretz Party and an Arab-Israeli party, the Islamist Ra’am (United Arab List) Party, headed by Mansour Abbas. While this may be seen as something that would help ease relations between the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors, Rantawi believes it will have little to no influence.

Takeaways from meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister and US Secretary of State

Israel and the United States should not air their disagreements publicly but instead should discuss them directly, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said Sunday at the start of a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Rome.

“Israel has some serious reservations about the Iran nuclear deal being put together in Vienna,” he said. “We believe the way to discuss those disagreements is through direct and professional conversations, not in press conferences.”

Jerusalem and Washington share the same goals, and disagreements between them are about how to achieve them, Lapid said.

Lapid also thanked Blinken for US support for normalization between Israel and Arab states.

“I look forward to working with you to widen the circle of peace in our region,” he said. “That is the best way to bring stability and prosperity to the Middle East.”

Other issues Lapid on the agenda for his meeting with Blinken were: strengthening our ability to defend ourselves, working to minimize conflict between us and the Palestinians, while making life better for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Blinken agreed with Lapid that the US-Israel relationship is “based... on a set of shared values and shared interests.” US President Joe Biden “feels very, very strongly about... a deep, enduring, abiding commitment on the part of the United States to Israel’s security,” he said.

Blinken put the reconstruction of Gaza at the top of the agenda for his meeting with Lapid.

“The work, I hope, can be done to, as you say, offer a more hopeful future for everyone, Palestinians and Israelis alike, with equal measures of opportunity and dignity,” he said, repeating a phrase Biden administration officials used throughout Operation Guardian of the Walls last month.

Blinken used the phrase “the Abraham Accords” – contrary to criticism of the Biden administration that it had refused to use the Trump-era branding – and said they “strongly support this, and hopefully there’ll be other participants.”

Blinken said, “I think we’ve also discovered, or perhaps rediscovered, that as important as they are, as vital as they are, they are not a substitute for engaging on the issues between Israelis and Palestinians that need to be resolved.”

Iran or Israel: which is a bigger threat for Arabs?

For decades I have been reading that Iran is a bigger threat for Arabs as compared to Israel. Today, I was completely shocked when I received a message, originating from Pakistan, indicating names of Muslim countries enjoying diplomatic relations with Israel. It included name of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Initially, I was ready to believe the ignorance of the sender, but then realized that the sender has been thoroughly brain washed or he is part of the group that has been mandated the task of spreading disinformation about Iran. To put the record straight, Iran was the second Muslim majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey.  After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and the government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state.

As against this many Muslim/Arab countries enjoy cordial relations with Israel. These include Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, United Arab Emirates and Morocco. Some of these countries ‘normalized’ relations with Israel under ‘Abraham Accords’. All these Muslim countries have been dished out some favors. In return, some of these countries are now stopping United States from rejoining JCPOA and/or to impose fresh sanctions on Iran.

While Arabs and Iranian has a long history of animosity, the recent anti-Iran stance has been drilled into their brains by Israel and western media. The overwhelming impression is that Iran is playing the role of ‘game spoiler’ and resisting normalization of relationships between Israel and Arab countries.

Israel has also been portraying Iran as ‘proxy fighter’ in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. The fact of the matter is that Isreal has been occupying huge landmass belonging to its neighboring Muslim countries since 1967. It has also been constructing settlements on occupied land.

After reorganization of Jerusalem as capital of Israel by the United States, Israel has accelerated the annexation process. Benjamin Netanyahu has intensified his acts to save his premiership. He believes that evicting Palestinians and bringing in more Jews in Jerusalem could help him in prolonging his tenor. His shortsightedness has also ruined ‘Two State’ concept.

It seems, Netanyahu believes that two state policy will weaken Israel, but many Jews believe that if by allocating some land for Palestinians they could buy sustainable peace, it may promote the culture of ‘mutual peaceful coexistence’ rather than living under ‘constant state of war’.

Time to reject Israeli manta that Iran is top menace of Middle East

A massive campaign is going on for some time that the recent moves by the US administration are aimed at creating peace in the Middle East. The multiple US-brokered deals between Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, known as the Abraham Accords are creating a new reality in one of the world’s most combustible neighborhoods.

The US leadership promises a more prosperous and securer future for Arabs and Jews alike. The Western plays the trumpet that impetus behind this historic normalization of relations between the Jewish state and its Muslim neighbors is practical. The media portrays Iran as phantom, a common threat labeled by the US State Department as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism for nearly four decades. 

Western media portrays that Iran has been metastasizing across the region since its founding in 1979. From funding and arming anti-Israel terrorists, to blowing up Saudi oil facilities, to pirating commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf. They go the extent of saying Iran is the Middle East’s preeminent menace. 

Western media also says that the regime in Tehran does not represent the Iranian people. They quote the example of this chasm was on display after a US drone strike killed Iran’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani. Despite the mullahs’ efforts to turn this murderer into a martyr, Iranians ripped down the propaganda posters glorifying him. They also rejected the regime’s attempts to stir up hate against the United States and Israel. Videos from Iran showed average citizens going out of their way to avoid stepping on the US and Israeli flags printed on the ground outside of shopping malls, schools, and mosques – even on the day of Soleimani’s funeral.

The fact of the matter is that the Iranian people have more pressing issues at hand than the regime’s clumsy attempts at propaganda. Tehran’s sponsorship of terrorism, pursuit of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to deliver them, and unconscionable hostage taking triggered the most crushing economic sanctions in history, crippling Iran’s energy, financial and industrial sectors, among others. Despite the immense resources of Iran, Iranians cannot even find the basics of food and housing, let alone dream of economic opportunities.

The biggest deception behind the Abraham Accords is that the Arabs are more interested in pursuing hi-tech and entrepreneurial opportunities rather than hating the Jews – and that Israel is actually the regional partner of choice in these areas. The biggest prove of this dichotomy is ongoing construction of settlements in the West Bank and other occupied territories.

Israeli Prime Minister promises direct flights to Saudi Arabia

Israeli Prime, Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to launch direct flights to Saudi Arabia if he is victorious in Tuesday’s elections. “I’m going to bring you direct flights from Tel Aviv to Mecca,” Netanyahu said in an interview with Channel 13 on Saturday night. 

Speculation had always been high in the last year of the Trump administration that such ties would come to fruition under the rubric of the Abraham Accords, in which Israel established normalized relations with four Arab states.

But normalized ties with Saudi Arabia never materialized. Saudi Arabia has granted Israel flyover rights, something it had denied to the Jewish state in the past.

In his Channel 13 interview, Netanyahu touted those four agreements and promised that four more deals would be finalized. It was a pledge that he made last week as well.

He brushed aside criticism with respect to the failed and ultimately canceled meeting with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Netanyahu had been scheduled to fly to the United Arab Emirates for the meeting, but first it was canceled because of a diplomatic snafu with Jordan. As a result of the fiasco, Amman would not let an Emirati plane leave Amman for Tel Aviv to collect Netanyahu for the visit.

The UAE rejected an attempt to reschedule the visit, explaining that they did not want to be part of Netanyahu’s reelection campaign.

When pressed by Hasson about whether ties with the UAE were problematic, Netanyahu said, “Our relations with the UAE are very strong” and pointed to the UAE pledge to invest NIS 40 billion in Israel.

Netanyahu in his Channel 13 interview also touted his close ties with both US President Joe Biden, who he has known for over three decades, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The relationship with Putin, he said, was particularly important when it came to ensuring Israel Air Force’s ability to operate aerially in Syria, so that it could attack Iranian-related targets and prevent Tehran from entrenching itself in that country.

When asked about the impact of the US-Russian tensions on his relations with both countries, he said that he knew how to stay the course in both cases.

Biden Middle East Policy: Need to disentangle United States from Iran-Saudi Arabia rivalry

The Biden administration will face a number of challenges in the Middle East over the next four years. The diplomatic landscape of the region offers the United States ample opportunities to offer peace initiatives. 

Some have been successful and enduring, like the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. There have also been many more notable failed attempts, such as the stalled talks between Israelis and Palestinians during the Obama administration.

Diplomacy does not have to be big and bold to be successful. The Biden administration has an opportunity to stabilize the Middle East by disentangling from the regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This has the prospects of reducing the temperature of relations between these two regional rivals and possibly even prompting them to settle some of their differences on behalf of regional stability.

One may like it or not, the United States has become party to the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of course there are profound issues related to wars in Syria and Yemen and instability in Iraq and Lebanon that separate them. But much of the enmity they harbor for each other relates in no small way to Washington. Iran sees Saudi Arabia (and Israel) as the tip of the spear of US efforts to undermine it. Iran sponsored attacks on Saudi oil facilities in 2019 after Washington’s maximum pressure campaign is prima facie evidence of this.

Saudi Arabia has felt little incentive to even entertain diplomacy with Iran given the large US military footprint in the Persian Gulf and Trump’s hostility toward Iran. Not only is the United States a party to the Iran-Saudi rivalry, but it has hardened the resolve of both sides, driving them further away from diplomacy, with negative consequences for the entire region.

The United States lacks the capacity to persuade either of the regional rivals toward rapprochement. But Washington can play a constructive role by extricating itself from the role of central character in this conflict. This will require recalibrating relations with Saudi Arabia, supporting Riyadh but also making sure that it does not continue using Washington as a crutch for shunning diplomacy.

It also necessitates the United States working to ensure that the Abraham Accords between Israel and the UAE are used as a bridge for building further regional cooperation and not merely as a cudgel for deepening hostilities to Iran. And it will necessitate the United States moving toward a diplomatic track with Iran, starting with rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal, on the condition that Tehran reverts to compliance.

The US will need to use leverage to move a stubborn Iran into a more constructive regional role, but skillful diplomacy can deprive Iranian leaders of the narrative that their regional adventurism is a necessary defensive crouch for deterring a hostile Washington.

Disentangling the United States from the regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia won’t ensure peace between the two regional powers. But it can force Iran and Saudi Arabia to deal with each other on their own terms, and not hide behind relations with Washington.

If successful in cooling the temperature of relations between these two powers, it can also possibly have other benefits, such as sucking some of the oxygen out of the proxy conflict dimension of the civil wars roiling Syria and Yemen and helping stabilize Lebanon and Iraq.

While the United States can’t start a peace process between Iran and Saudi Arabia, peace should be the objective of the US diplomacy. Rebalancing relations with friends and foes would go a long way toward this objective. Steady resolve rather than bold diplomacy might be just what the region needs from Washington right now.

Return to Iran deal could spark Middle East nuclear arms race, says Henry Kissinger

The new US administration should not return to the spirit of the Iran deal, which could spark an arms race in the Middle East, said former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger at a Jewish People Policy Institute online conference.

He criticized the 2015 Iran deal, which President Donald Trump left in 2018. President-elect Joe Biden seeks to return to it if Iran agrees to comply again with the agreement’s limitations on its nuclear program.

“We should not fool ourselves,” the 97-year-old diplomat, consultant and author said. “I don’t believe that the spirit [of the Iran deal], with a time limit and so many escape clauses, will do anything other than bring nuclear weapons all over the Middle East and therefore create a situation of latent tension that sooner or later will break out.”

The current leaders in Iran “don’t seem to find it possible to give up this combination of Islamist imperialism and threat,” Kissinger said. “The test case is the evolution of nuclear capacities in Iran, if these can be avoided.”

“I do not say we shouldn’t talk to them,” he added.

Dennis Ross, a former adviser to presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, interviewed Kissinger at the JPPI farewell event for its founding director, Avinoam Bar-Yosef.

Ross asked Kissinger what he would advise Biden and his administration to do to take advantage of the Abraham Accords, in which four Arab states normalized ties with Israel.

“We should not give up on what has recently been achieved in these agreements between the Arab world and the Israeli world,” he said. “I would tell the incoming administration that we are on a good course.”

The accords “have opened a window of opportunity for a new Middle East,” Kissinger said. “Arab countries understood that they could not survive in constant tension with parts of the West and with Israel, so they decided they had to take care of themselves.”

Normalizations with Israel show that the four states taking part “have come to the conclusion that their national interests transcend their ideological interests,” said the secretary of state and national security advisor to presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford in the 1970s.

“So they have decided, and Israel has advocated, that they should pursue their interests and come together, and they will take into account Arab concerns where they clash.”

That idea “has worked out very well,” Kissinger said, adding that he always opposed the idea of finding “all-out solutions” to peace in the Middle East, advocating for the US “to work out the solutions that we can because they can build on themselves.”

The Palestinians need to give up on their “ultimate aims” and look for possible interim achievements, Kissinger said.

Bar-Yosef is leaving the JPPI after 18 years as president and founding director. The institute formulates policy recommendations for the government of Israel and Jewish organizations in areas such as Jewish identity, religion and state in Israel, fighting antisemitism and Jewish demographic trends.

His successor is Yedidia Stern, a law professor at Bar-Ilan University and longtime senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.

UAE-Israel Business Summit

HEAR FROM THE LEADERS OF THE WORLD'S TWO MOST PROGRESSIVE NATIONS

Wednesday, January 13, 2021
1 p.m. in Israel

Following the signing of the historic Abraham Accords, Khaleej Times and The Jerusalem Post, the two largest English-language media organizations in Israel and the UAE, are coming together to launch the UAE-ISRAEL Business Summit, in association with UAE-Israel Business Council.

The web broadcast will discuss and highlight the bilateral business opportunities between the countries.

The initiative represents a new dawn in the multifaceted economic relationship between the two countries and will bring together top government officials, business leaders, and industry experts from across different sectors, including
healthcare
hospitality
defense
security
trade
technology

View full list of confirmed speakers >>

Can Abraham Accords lead to more peace deals with Israel?

It was hard to predict in January 2020 that, by the end of the year, Israel would have relations with four more Arab countries. In Israel, January’s news cycle in some ways looked the same as today’s – the country was heading toward election in a March, but the diplomatic agenda was drastically different.

There were three big stories: 1) Naama Issachar, the Israeli woman in a Russian prison for alleged drug smuggling; 2) preparations for the Fifth World Holocaust Forum, which brought leaders of 49 countries to Israel; and 3) speculation about the Trump peace plan, which came out at the end of the month. A week later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to the White House to hear about the peace plan, along with a quick stop over in Moscow to give Issachar a ride home, there was a small hint at what was to come.

Netanyahu went to Uganda, ostensibly on a regular diplomatic visit to Africa of the kind the prime minister has made before, but there was a surprise, Netanyahu met with Sudanese leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Sudan authorized Israel to fly over its airspace, shortening flights to South America, but in the ensuing days, Burhan said this was not a step toward normalization.

A week and a half later, Jason Greenblatt, who had resigned months earlier from his position as US President Donald Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, announced that he was “very inspired” by ties between Israel and Gulf states and planned to promote them – but still said time was needed for them to move into the open. Meanwhile, the Trump peace plan train was chugging along, with the emphasis on application of sovereignty, as its supporters called it, or annexation, as its detractors said.

Netanyahu promised in one campaign speech and statement after another that he would take the plunge, with the Trump “Peace to Prosperity” plan supporting Israeli sovereignty over up to 30% of the West Bank, including all settlements and the Jordan Valley. Blue and White leader Benny Gantz made statements that were vague enough to make voters think he may support annexing the Jordan Valley, as well.

But COVID-19 got in the way, and the plan could not be implemented as speedily as Netanyahu intended. Whether he ever intended to extend Israel’s sovereignty or not is a matter of great debate, but he certainly spoke and, to some extent, behaved like he did. Israel and the US established a committee to draw an annexation map, and it met a couple of times, but didn’t get very far. At the time, senior US sources said talks between Jerusalem and Washington were much more focused on joint coronavirus policy than anything else, and those kinds of comments continued even after a so-called unity government between the Likud and Blue and White was formed. A clause in the coalition agreement said Netanyahu could bring sovereignty moves to a cabinet vote in July.

That unity coalition was anything but united, and the Trump peace plan was one of many areas where Netanyahu and his partners didn’t see eye to eye. Gantz, who was defense minister at that point, and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi spoke enthusiastically about the Trump plan – but they wanted it all, as a whole. The plan itself would have allowed for Israel to extend its sovereignty as a first step, so what they were really saying was they needed major adjustments. Ashkenazi especially worked to block the annexation element. Netanyahu had the votes in the cabinet to push it through without Blue and White’s support, but the Trump administration wanted a more united Israeli front.

In June, the world was watching Israel to see what its next steps would be, in swooped United Arab Emirates’ Ambassador to the US Yousef al-Otaiba. In an op-ed for Yediot Aharonot, which in and of itself was a unique event, Otaiba dangled the possibility of normalization of ties between Abu Dhabi and Israel if the latter would drop its annexation plans.

Since 2015, there had been more and more steps, public and secret, toward ties between Israel and Gulf states, including intelligence sharing and cooperation in combating the Iran nuclear threat, ministers and other officials visiting the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, Israeli athletes participating in sporting events in Arab states, and tens of thousands of Israelis touring Morocco each year. But these were gradual and had been happening for years. While Netanyahu and some other politicians talked openly about warming ties with Gulf States, the statements were vague.

So Otaiba’s op-ed, offering what he called the “carrots” of greater normalization and expanded ties in the Middle East, came as a surprise to many observers of the Middle East – though apparently not to Trump’s peace team. Looking back at Greenblatt’s statements and remarks by Trump’s Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, it seems they were hinting at what was coming all along and what seemed like bluster or campaign rhetoric from Netanyahu was the real deal. Kushner and Avi Berkowitz, who replaced Greenblatt, saw an opportunity in what Otaiba wrote, and jumped on it.

July 1 came and went without any sovereignty moves and very little talk on the matter. There was an oblique reference here and there by Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, but no movement. And then came the moment that changed everything, A phone call between Trump, Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, leading to the announcement of peace on Trump’s Twitter account. The deal was called the Abraham Accords, named after the forefather of Jews and Arabs.

The love affair between Israelis and Emiratis began immediately. There was an effusive outpouring of support and excitement on social media from regular people in both countries. On the diplomatic level, the governments immediately took action to make normalization a reality. Less than two weeks later, the first-ever Israeli delegation to the UAE landed in Abu Dhabi, led by National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat. Israeli flags waved in the airport where an El Al plane landed in Abu Dhabi for the first time.

The ensuing months have brought a flurry of business, cultural and diplomatic exchanges, and, of course, many thousands of Israeli tourists in Dubai this month, when the UAE was one of the only “green” countries Israelis could visit without having to quarantine when they arrived home.

Even the talk of a deal to allow the UAE to buy F-35 planes could not mar the excitement. The US, Israel and the UAE have all said that the fighter jets were not part of the peace deal and never came up between the two Middle Eastern countries. At the same time, the US and UAE pointed out that Israel lifting its opposition to the sale – after Gantz met with his American counterpart and they reached an arrangement that satisfactorily maintained Israel’s qualitative military edge – was what greased the wheels on something the UAE had been seeking for the past six years.

Over the last few months, the world has seen a veritable domino effect. It took the UAE’s courage to be the first Arab country in decades to take the plunge and establish diplomatic relations with Israel to inspire more to follow. Bahrain’s announcement came less than a month later, and its foreign minister took part in a peace-signing ceremony at the White House a few days later.

In mid-October, Ben-Shabbat led another delegation, this time to Manama. The Bahrain peace deal didn’t come with any strings attached to date, and has been purely about normal diplomatic and business ties, which have moved at a rapid pace, as with the UAE. The next two dominoes to fall were Sudan and Morocco, but in a somewhat different way. In both cases, ties with Israel came together with a major shift in US policy in favor of those countries.

Normalization with Sudan is highly symbolic for Israelis. Khartoum was the site of the Arab League’s “three noes” of 1967: no negotiations, no recognition, no peace with Israel. For Khartoum to overturn those three is truly momentous. The business opportunities in Sudan are fewer for Israelis, but Israel has already offered help in the areas of agriculture, water use, solar energy and more.

For Sudan, the normalization story was something else entirely. The announcement of steps toward ties with Israel came in late October, after pressure from Pompeo during negotiations to remove the African state from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. That removal came over a year and a half after Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir was removed and Burhan, a Sudanese Army general, and civilian leader Abdalla Hamdok formed a government aimed at transitioning toward democracy. Getting off the list will likely drastically help Sudan’s economic recovery and access to international aid.

While the US denied making an ultimatum – recognize Israel or you stay on the list – it’s clear that Khartoum felt serious pressure. Hamdok was opposed to ties with Israel, while Burhan was more in favor – after all, he had met Netanyahu already – and both realized it was risky while their country’s situation was so shaky, but in the end they did it. Normalization with Israel was a small step to take toward something that was much bigger and more important for Sudan.

The same could be said about normalization between Israel and Morocco, announced in December. In King Mohammed VI’s announcement, a few short bullet points on renewing diplomatic relations with Israel came after seven lengthy paragraphs on the Trump administration’s agreement to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. That recognition is the big prize Morocco wanted.

If the king had not been holding out for a big prize – as he saw Sudan and to some extent the UAE received – ties with Israel would have been easy. Israel and Morocco had secret ties, including intelligence sharing, for decades, and partial diplomatic relations in the 1990s. Those relations were officially suspended in 2000, but some level of ties has always continued, and many Israelis visit Morocco each year.

Still, since a million Israelis have roots in Morocco, and many have fond, positive feelings for the country and its royal family, this move was celebrated in Israel. And Morocco’s tourism minister expects 200,000 Israeli visitors a year, post-corona.

With 2020 behind us and 2021 beginning, there is discussion of even more dominoes falling, and even more countries joining the Abraham Accords. Trump administration officials have said they’re working to even make it happen in the next three weeks, before President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

Mauritania, Oman and Indonesia are the names on Israeli and American officials’ tongues these days, which makes sense, because Israel has or has had some level of ties with all of them.

Mauritania declared war on Israel in 1967, but the countries established diplomatic relations in 1999, which were suspended in the wake of Operation Cast Lead in 2009.

Former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin visited Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, and thousands of Israeli and Indonesian tourists visit each other’s countries each year.

Netanyahu visited Oman in 2018, and Israel and Oman are part of the anti-Iran axis in the Middle East.

But the big hope is for Saudi Arabia. This is where Biden comes into play. Biden and his foreign policy advisers have spoken positively about the Abraham Accords, without commenting on the strings attached. At the same time, they have been very critical of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. If the Trump administration doesn’t find a way to quickly make it worth Riyadh’s while in the next few weeks, which seems unlikely, MBS and King Salman will probably wait to see what benefit they can exact from the Biden administration to go with peace with Israel. After all, the thought is, why shouldn’t they get something out of the deal, as the UAE, Sudan and Morocco did?

A very senior official told The Jerusalem Post that Riyadh is expected to get on board in 2021. Netanyahu and MBS met in the Saudi city of Neom weeks ago. Salman is still reticent on the matter, holding on to the Arab Peace Initiative, also known as the Saudi Initiative, which requires peace with the Palestinians before normalization with the Arab League.

Looking ahead at the unfolding 2021, it seems likely that the Abraham Accords domino rally will continue, and it seems almost inevitable that it will feature the biggest coup of all, Saudi-Israel peace. But if there’s anything we learned from 2020, it is that January can be drastically different from December in ways we never expected.

What could be likely fate of Abraham Accords in Biden era?

Biden is in favor of the Abraham Accords, but they have strings attached that make his administration uncomfortable. There are expectations that the strings attached to the Abraham Accords will not be cut by the Biden administration. The US has a clear system of continuity, especially when it comes to diplomatic positions. The world has seen this with Israel over the decades. Biden may have drastically different view on foreign policy than Trump, but he is likely to make certain compromises.

Over the last few days, two countries ‑ Morocco and Bhutan – have established relations with Israel. It seems more normalizations will come in the coming weeks before US President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

US Vice President Mike Pence is going to Israel and may announce that some other countries have forged diplomatic ties with Israel. It’s yet unclear which these countries are, but Saudi Arabia is not likely to be one of them. The Kingdom is expected to wait and see how things go with Biden administration before making any move.

Broadly, Biden favors the Abraham Accords, which have led to ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. He and his foreign policy advisers have said positive things about them. Still they likely to seek normalizations come in conjunction with progress in the peace process with Palestinians.

Biden administration may not pursue diplomatic ties for Israel and Arab countries with the same zeal as US President Donald Trump, but it would be unlikely to create any obstacles. Let no one forget these normalizations have strings attached that could be uncomfortable for the Biden administration.

Many senior Emirati figures, along with high-level Israeli and American officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have said that the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the UAE was not part of the negotiations leading to the Abraham Accords.

That sale just squeaked by a Senate bill aiming to block it, but whether it will be completed before Trump leaves office is unclear. Biden could oppose the sale because many Democrats in the Senate are concerned about UAE’s involvement in the wars in Yemen and Libya.

Sudan is keen in getting off the US list of state sponsors of terrorism, seeks debt forgiveness and aid after Omar al-Bashir was overthrown last year. The US insisted that diplomatic relations with Israel be part of the deal and Sudan pushed for “legal peace,” by which Khartoum will pay over US$300 million to victims of terror, and no further lawsuits can be brought against the country for its past support for terrorism.

This, too, faced obstacles in Congress, though supporting Sudan’s nascent democracy has bipartisan support. Senators Robert Menendez and Chuck Schumer seeking to carve out an exception for victims of the 9/11 attacks, among others, to sue Sudan, which harbored Osama bin Laden and hosted Al Qaeda training camps in the 1990s.

Sudanese officials have told US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that they will not move forward with ties with Israel if the bill granting Khartoum immunity from future lawsuits does not pass by the end of 2020.

In the meantime, an Israeli economic delegation has already been to Sudan, and Israel has been lobbying Congress to pass the legal immunity bill, without taking a position on 9/11 victims. Sudan may not stop the normalization process, because Israel can help the East African country in Washington.

Democrats do not generally oppose the “legal peace” for Sudan, even though details must still be worked out, and Biden has not said anything to indicate he would block it. Yet the matter is unlikely to be at the top of his agenda if it is not done by 20th January 2021, and those delays could be a strain on the new Sudan-Israel ties.

Morocco is perhaps the most controversial move of all three. The US became the first country to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. The Trump administration’s message was that decades of attempts at negotiations between Morocco and the leadership of the Sahrawi, the non-Moroccan people living in the region, have gone nowhere and autonomy under Morocco’s king is the way to move forward.

This has serious implications when it comes to international law that can radiate outward to Judea and Samaria, Crimea and beyond – as different as those land disputes may be – and the Trump administration has boxed Biden into a change of policy.

Oman Indonesia likely next in line to normalize relations with Israel

According to some diplomatic sources, the two countries that are in line to establish diplomatic relations with Israel in the coming weeks are Oman and Indonesia.

The Trump administration is continuing its efforts to bring more Arab and Muslim countries into the Abraham Accords, in which the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have already agreed to normalize relations with Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday night, after Bhutan agreed to forged ties with Israel outside of the framework of the accords, that Israel is “in touch with additional countries that want to join and establish relations with us.”

Regional Cooperation Minister Ofir Akunis confirmed to Army Radio on Sunday morning that Vice President Mike Pence would visit Israel in January 2021. According to Akunis, during his visit, Pence may announce that another country will establish relations with Israel.

The source identified Oman and Indonesia as two countries with which talks have advanced and with whom normalization could be announced before US President Donald Trump leaves office on 20th January 2021.

On Friday, Oman welcomed the announcement of ties between Israel and Morocco, expressing hope that they will further endeavor to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Netanyahu visited Oman in 2018 and met with its then-leader, the late Sultan Qaboos. Israel had enjoyed unofficial trade relations with Oman during 1994-2000, and the countries cooperate in opposing Iranian aggression.

Israel and Indonesia do not have formal diplomatic relations but there is trade and tourism between them and Indonesia bought arms from Israel in the 1970s and 1980s and Indonesian soldiers were trained in Israel.

Then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin met Indonesian president Suharto in Jakarta in 1993.

Contrary to Hebrew media reports, the diplomatic source said normalization with Saudi Arabia was unlikely before US President-elect Joe Biden enters office, although the Saudis have given tacit approval to other parts of the Abraham Accords

Israel normalizes ties with Bhutan

Israel established full diplomatic relations with Bhutan for the first time on Saturday. Israeli Ambassador to India, Ron Malka and his Bhutanese counterpart Vetsop Namgyel signed the final agreement normalizing ties.

The countries’ foreign ministries held secret talks over the past year for forging official ties, which included visit of delegations to the two capitals, Jerusalem and Thimphu.

The effort to establish relations between the two countries was not connected to the Abraham Accords, which led to four Arab countries – United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco normalizing ties with Israel over the last four months, through the US mediation. Interestingly, Bhutan does not even have official diplomatic relations with the US.

Bhutan a Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas enjoys border with India and the Tibet, Autonomous Region of China. It has gone to great lengths to keep itself isolated from the rest of the world in order to avoid outside influences and to preserve its culture and natural resources. The country limits tourism, especially from outside South Asia.

The landlocked country has formal diplomatic relations with only 53 other countries – a list that does not include the US, UK, France and Russia, has embassies in only seven of them. Neither does the country have ties with China, having closed its border to the country on its north after China’s 1959 invasion of Tibet.

Malka said in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post that the ceremony marking official diplomatic relations between Israel and Bhutan was “exciting... modest, but very special.” The ambassador said that in recent years, Bhutanese governments have reached out to Israel.

“They have been impressed by Israel’s abilities for many years, and their prime minister wanted relations,” he said. “We advise them on topics that are important to them like water management, agriculture and technology... education and professional training as well. They’re very interested in the topic of medicine.”

Bhutan’s government “thinks of Israel as a leading country in technology and innovation that can help them progress and use more advanced technology and train their youth.”

Another area in which Thimphu has sought Jerusalem’s advice is in building a national service program for its youth.

As for tourism, the country that limits the number of outsiders who can enter will now likely be more open to Israelis, Malka said, though no precise numbers have been discussed.

“They let very few people visit, even though it is very attractive, because they want to preserve its history and its nature and environment,” Malka said. “It was very hard before, but now Israelis will be more accepted – and they will want to develop [Israeli] tourism.”

Malka has visited Bhutan twice and said that it is “a very special place that is different from anywhere else. They really preserved their culture and their natural resources. There is not even one traffic light; it is very natural.”

It is still unclear if Israel will open an embassy in Thimphu; Malka may become the non-resident ambassador to Bhutan, just as he is to Sri Lanka in addition to residing in Delhi, from which Thimphu is a two-hour flight.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi and Foreign Minister of Bhutan Tandy Dorji spoke on the phone last weekend.

“I want to thank the Kingdom of Bhutan and praise the decision to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel,” Ashkenazi said. “I invite my friend Foreign Minister Dorji to visit Israel to promote cooperation between the countries. I hope that in the next year we will host the King of Bhutan for his first official visit to Israel.”

Ashkenazi also thanked Malka and the embassy staff for working to strengthen Israel’s ties to Bhutan and for bringing them to fruition.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the new relations and called it “another fruit of the peace agreements,” adding that Israel is in touch with more countries that want to establish ties with the Jewish state.

Hundreds of Bhutanese citizens have participated in agricultural training programs through MASHAV, Israel’s development agency.

Israel briefly had a non-resident ambassador to Bhutan in 2010. Mark Sofer, was ambassador to India and non-resident ambassador to Sri Lanka at the time.

In 2017, Gilad Cohen, the head of Israel’s Asia-Pacific division, became the most senior Israeli official to visit Bhutan. During his trip, he met the country’s prime minister.

Bhutan, which is about twice as large as Israel but only has 800,000 residents, is thought to be one of the most beautiful countries in the world, allowing television and the Internet only in 1999.

It uniquely measures its quality of life by “Gross National Happiness” instead of gross domestic product (GDP) – in fact, the World Happiness Report was a joint initiative of the Bhutanese prime Minister and the UN secretary General in 2011.

That metric emphasizes sustainable development, environmental conservation, preservation of culture and good governance, as well as mental and physical health, among other values.

The Bhutanese are thought to be among the happiest people in the world, and the happiest in Asia, but they are also among the world’s poorest.

Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal slams Israel

Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal accused Israel of colonialism and apartheid. “All Israeli governments are the last of the colonizing powers in the Middle East,” bin Faisal said at the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Manama Dialogue in Bahrain’s capital.

The Saudi prince accused Israel of establishing an “apartheid wall” in the West Bank, of “demolishing homes as they wish, and assassinating whoever they want,” of having 20 nuclear weapons and of “denying non-Jewish residents equality under law. What kind of democracy is that?” he said.

He reiterated statements from Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) that Riyadh would only establish diplomatic relations with Jerusalem if the latter accepted the 2002 Arab Peace Plan, which involves a full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines, a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem and a “fair settlement for Palestinians refugees,” which is generally understood to be a euphemism for allowing some to live in Israel.

Prince Turki said that only after making peace with the Palestinians “can we together meet the other colonizing pretender that boasts of its control of Arab capitals, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa.”

Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi was taken aback by the Saudi prince’s tone, as were his Bahraini interlocutors, who had invited them to a panel on cooperation and partnerships.  Ashkenazi chose not to escalate and merely expressed “regret for the comments” Prince Turki made. “I don’t think they reflect the spirit and the changes taking place in the Middle East,” Ashkenazi added.

He also thanked Saudi Arabia, saying that without the kingdom’s approval, the Abraham Accords, in which Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates normalized ties with Israel, could not have happened. Most of Ashkenazi’s remarks focused on the hope that the Abraham Accords would bring a better future to the Middle East, and called for more countries to join.

 “The months to come will be significant in the future of the region,” Ashkenazi added, a possible reference to Biden’s policies when he enters office next month.

Ashkenazi also called on the Palestinians to enter direct negotiations with Israel without preconditions.

“We believe that Israel moving from annexation to normalization is a window to resolve this conflict,” he stated.

In response to a question soon after, Prince Turki called settlements “a precondition” and suggested that they should all be removed before Israel enters negotiations with the Palestinians.

Jebel Ali Port receives first shipment from Israel

According to media reports, Jebel Ali Port, a major Dubai port has received the first export shipments from Israel. The shipment has been sent by Emirati firm Kimoha from Ashdod of adhesive tape manufactured by Israeli company Davik. The shipment is the first to arrive in the United Arab Emirates and even more notably at one of the busiest ports in the world, since the Abraham Accords normalized ties between the two countries.

“We would like to congratulate Kimoha Entrepreneurs FZCO for adding value to the UAE and Israel diplomatic relations by initiating trade association with Israel-based establishments,” Dubai Ports World (DP), which operates the port, CEO and chairman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem said in a statement.

“And we are glad that Jebel Ali Port could be an intrinsic part of the transfer from Israel to the UAE. We take great pride in being involved in this momentous achievement that is integral for both countries. This operation is just the beginning of trade and commerce activities. We are confident that this move will be the starting point for trade activities that will have a significant impact on both economies, and the business in the region. We are in complete support of the leadership of the UAE and will do everything in our capacity to foster trade ties with Israel and accelerate economic growth.”

“It is an honor to be able to partake and initiate a significant move that will greatly influence the trade exchange in the UAE and Israel,” said Kimoha chairman Kiran Asher.

“This move will go down in the history of the two countries. We cannot thank DP World enough for helping us to make this transfer a seamless process. We have been running operations from Jafza since 1988, and I must say that it is an ideal location to set industries and connect with the world. Emirates NBD, the largest banking group in the UAE supported this transaction seamlessly.”

DP World is playing an active role since ties between Israel and the UAE were normalized. In early November, it teamed up with Israel Shipyards to try to win the tender to run Haifa Port, and the company is an expert at maximizing efficiency of harbors, even one as relatively small as Haifa's.