logo
Why Israel barred Saudi FM and counterparts from Ramallah

Why Israel barred Saudi FM and counterparts from Ramallah

Yahoo3 days ago

Jordan's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi called the move an example of how Israel 'kills any chance for a fair and comprehensive Israeli-Arab settlement.'
Israel's decision last week to block a planned visit toRamallah by the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and three other Muslim countries triggered predictable handwringing around the world, especially in those countries themselves.
Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud, whose trip would have been the highest-ranking visit by a Saudi official since 1967, said the decision showed Israel's 'extremism and rejection of peace.'
Jordan's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi chimed in as well, calling the move an example of how Israel 'kills any chance for a fair and comprehensive Israeli-Arab settlement.'
A joint statement by some of the ministers who were scheduled to take part accused Israel of 'arrogance,' of 'disregard for international law,' and of pursuing 'illegitimate measures and policies that besiege the brotherly Palestinian people and their legitimate leadership.'
These condemnations were loud, coordinated, and expected. But they were also, for the most part, performative — aimed more at international optics and domestic audiences than at actually changing Israel's position.
Why would Israel agree to green-light a high-profile delegation intended to lend momentum to efforts to push forward a two-state solution precisely at a time when Jerusalem, in the wake of October 7, is adamantly opposed to the idea? Not only is the government opposed, but as polls show, the majority of the public is as well.
AnInstitute for National Security Studies (INSS) poll in March found that support for a two-state solution declined to 24% among the general public, down from 38% in September 2024. Ten years ago, by comparison, a similar INSS poll found that 60% of the public supported the idea. In the March poll, only 15% of Jewish Israelis favored a two-state solution, a decline from 31% in September.
A Jewish People Policy Institute survey from March had similar results, with only 11% of Jewish Israelis in that poll expressing support for negotiations toward a Palestinian state.
The foreign ministers' visit was to come just two weeks ahead of an international conference organized by Saudi Arabia and France in New York to push for a two-state solution, with France considering unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state and urging other Western countries to do the same.
In that context, the Ramallah visit was not an isolated diplomatic gesture. It was a launchpad. Allowing it to proceed would have been, in Israel's view, akin to scoring an own goal.
Some argue that barring the Saudi foreign minister could further stall long-term normalization with the kingdom or sink hopes of bringing Riyadh into the Abraham Accords framework. But the Saudis themselves have made it abundantly clear: normalization is contingent on tangible Israeli steps toward Palestinian statehood. That's a line this Israeli government — and much of the public — is unwilling to cross, particularly after October 7.
From the Israeli perspective, the Palestinians had a mini-state of their own in Gaza before October 7. That experiment failed — catastrophically. Hamas quickly took over, stockpiled weapons, built an underground terror infrastructure, trained a terrorist army, and launched the deadliest attack on Israel since its founding. To now replicate that failed model in Judea and Samaria would, in the minds of most Israelis at this time, be an act of sheer madness.
Moreover, a look at the countries represented by foreign ministers in the delegation, at least according to some reports, reveals that Turkey and Qatar were on the list. Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan is vehemently anti-Israel, implacable in his poisonous rhetoric, and hosts Hamas leaders in Ankara.
Qatar, for its part, continues to host Hamas' leadership and is a major force, if not the primary force, behind the demonization and delegitimization of Israel around the world.
Why, then, should Israel allow representatives of these countries into Ramallah to make political statements that could inflame tensions and further undercut Israel in the international arena?
This is especially true as June shapes up to be one of the more diplomatically challenging months Israel has faced since the war began. The upcoming French-Saudi conference in New York is likely to rejuvenate calls for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital. That's not a framework Israel is prepared to accept — and it need not play along.
Not allowing the foreign ministers to visit was one way for Israel to try to prevent the move from picking up steam.
Another option being floated in Jerusalem is a more muscular countermeasure: declaring that unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood will trigger Israeli unilateral responses, such as annexing certain parts of the West Bank. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer have reportedly relayed this message to some European counterparts.
Whether or not Israel ultimately takes that step, the message is clear: if the international community is going to act unilaterally, so might Israel.
That message needs to be delivered forcefully because Israel's diplomatic isolation, exacerbated by the war in Gaza and its humanitarian toll, has emboldened key players like France and Saudi Arabia to try to dictate terms. Jerusalem cannot allow that to happen.
Blocking the visit to Ramallah is one way to push back. It sends a signal that Israel is not going to stand by quietly while others try to predetermine its security needs and future.
Partial annexation — as a warning or a reality — may be another.
In this environment, symbolism matters. High-profile diplomatic visits carry weight, and so does denying them. Israel has made it clear: it will not be a passive participant in a process it fundamentally rejects and believes will endanger its security, certainly not in the shadow of October 7.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Detained Columbia graduate claims ‘irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release

time29 minutes ago

Detained Columbia graduate claims ‘irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release

NEW YORK -- A Columbia graduate facing deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus has outlined the 'irreparable harm' caused by his continued detention as a federal judge weighs his release. Mahmoud Khalil said in court filings unsealed Thursday that the 'most immediate and visceral harms' he's faced in his months detained in Louisiana relate to missing out on the birth of his first child in April. 'Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' the 30-year-old legal U.S. resident wrote. 'When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.' He also cited potentially 'career-ending' harms from the ordeal, noting that Oxfam International has already rescinded a job offer to serve as a policy advisor. Even his mother's visa to come to the U.S. to help care for his infant son is also now under federal review, Khalil said. 'As someone who fled prosecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States,' he wrote. 'Why should protesting this Israel government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians result in the erosion of my constitutional rights?' Spokespersons for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Khalil's 13-page statement was among a number of legal declarations his lawyers filed highlighting the wide-ranging negative impacts of his arrest. Dr. Noor Abdalla, his U.S. citizen wife, described the challenges of not having her husband to help navigate their son's birth and the first weeks of his young life. Students and professors at Columbia wrote about the chilling effect Khalil's arrest has had on campus life, with people afraid to attend protests or participate in groups that can be viewed as critical of the Trump administration. Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote the government's primary justification for removing Khalil — that his beliefs may pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy — could open the door to vague and arbitrary enforcement. Khalil was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against .

Rubio sanctions 4 ICC judges for "targeting" U.S. and Israel
Rubio sanctions 4 ICC judges for "targeting" U.S. and Israel

Axios

time2 hours ago

  • Axios

Rubio sanctions 4 ICC judges for "targeting" U.S. and Israel

The Trump administration announced sanctions on four International Criminal Court judges on Thursday over what Secretary of State Marco Rubio called "illegitimate actions" that he said targeted the U.S. and Israel. The big picture: The sanctions are in response to the ICC issuing arrest warrants in November for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant and the court's investigation into alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. The action is "pursuant to" an executive order President Trump issued in February sanctioning the ICC following warrants it issued for the Israeli officials for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Neither the U.S. nor Israel recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, which has also issued an arrest warrant for a Hamas leader for alleged war crimes in Gaza. The ICC in a statement Thursday said the measures were "a clear attempt to undermine the independence" of the court. Driving the news: Rubio announced the measures against Judges Solomy Balungi Bossa, of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou, of Benin, and Beti Hohler, of Slovenia. He said in a statement they were "directly engaged in" ICC efforts "to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without consent from the United States or Israel," he said. "As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel." The action means that all property and interests that the judges own in the U.S. "are blocked and must be reported" to the Treasury Department, per a Treasury statement.

President Donald Trump Brings Back Travel Ban, Names 12 Countries
President Donald Trump Brings Back Travel Ban, Names 12 Countries

Black America Web

time3 hours ago

  • Black America Web

President Donald Trump Brings Back Travel Ban, Names 12 Countries

President Donald Trump unveiled a controversial travel ban against a small number of countries with majority Muslim populations, and revived the policy this week. On Wednesday (June 4), President Trump signed a proclamation that slapped a new travel ban against a dozen countries and partial restrictions on seven others. The White House shared the proclamation on its website, which detailed the Trump administration's plans to bar entry to the United States to individuals hailing from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. In addition to the aforementioned countries, the proclamation placed partial travel restrictions on individuals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. From the proclamation: As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety. The travel ban that was enacted in 2018 was wildly unpopular as it seemingly targeted countries that President Trump perceived to be enemies of the state. With the Republican Party holding majorities in both chambers, Trump and his administration have been emboldened to expand the travel ban to include mostly African and Muslim countries, and have the support of Republican members of Congress. Sen. Chuck Grassley defended President Trump's renewed travel ban, stating that it was in the best interest of national security, as reported by KCRG. 'I don't know what the basis was for him making that decision, but I assume it's come because of some terrorist attacks we've had in the United States,' Grassley said. Amnesty International posted a response to the travel ban, which can be read here. SEE ALSO President Donald Trump Brings Back Travel Ban, Names 12 Countries was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store