Israel's disconnection with allies and partners has rarely been clearer
Tuesday's decision by the UK to impose sanctions on two ultra-nationalist Israeli ministers means Britain has joined Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway in taking the extraordinary step of introducing travel bans and financial restrictions on members of an ostensibly friendly government to these countries.
Perhaps even more extraordinary was the response from one of the ministers concerned. A statement issued by the office of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich the same day confirmed that Israel cancelled a waiver that allowed the country's banks to work with Palestinian ones. Instead of retaliating against the UK directly, Mr Smotrich instead authorised a move that threatens to paralyse Palestinian financial institutions.
Such intransigence – and its deeply embedded position within the current Israeli government – explains why more and more of the country's allies and trade partners are losing patience and taking action. Tuesday's sanctions are the latest example of Israel's increasing isolation and the substantial diplomatic and political cost it is paying for its war of collective punishment in Gaza and continuing military occupation of Palestinian land.
The fact that Mr Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir are determined opponents of a just political settlement of the conflict also highlights the disconnection between Israel's current leadership and most of the international community. Next week, hundreds of diplomats will gather in New York for a UN summit on the two-state solution, co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France.
Israel's leadership has already said it will not attend; that is its choice, but it is a poor one. Determinedly opposing the majority of international opinion – that is in favour of an equitable settlement – puts the onus on Israel to provide a realistic alternative that does not involve further displacement or other illegal policies. If it cannot, then it will be clear that Israel, which is currently led by a divided and precarious coalition with an uncertain future, is on a collision course with the international community, one that may even try the patience of a much more capricious and transactional White House.
The coming UN summit must be bold and ambitious, holding fast to the overall framework of a solution that most of the international community supports: an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the return of the remaining Israeli hostages, the release of Palestinian detainees as well as a process that leads to Palestinian freedom coupled with security guarantees for Israel.
Sanctions on individual Israeli ministers are a statement that the country needs to think hard about where it is headed
It is a source of frustration that the case for this position has to be made time and again. Arab nations have already said they are ready to play their part, as was made clear in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Last September, while speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said 57 Muslim and Arab countries were 'willing to guarantee the security of Israel in the context of Israel ending the occupation' and allowing for the emergence of a Palestinian state.
However, what the world is witnessing right now on the streets of the West Bank and in the rubble of Gaza is what the absence of a peace process looks like. More partners of Israel are making it clear that this situation is simply unsustainable. Sanctions on individual Israeli ministers are a statement that the country needs to think hard about where it is headed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
30 minutes ago
- Khaleej Times
Israel says working to intercept missiles launched from Iran
Iran said that it has begun its response to Israel's attack that included hitting over 200 targets The Israeli military said on Friday that it had identified missiles launched from Iran towards Israel, and said it was operating to intercept "the threat". Air raid sirens sounded in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
US deports two Palestinians who landed with valid visas for an interfaith mission
Two Palestinian peace activists who were detained upon landing in the US during a trip sponsored by a synagogue were deported from San Francisco on Friday, friends and fellow activists have told Middle East Eye. Eid Hathaleen and Awdah Hathaleen, cousins from the Masafer Yatta village of Umm al-Khair in the occupied West Bank, possessed valid visas and, after being detained, had their visas revoked upon landing in the US on Wednesday. Eid, an artist and photographer, and Awdah, an English teacher and contributor to Israeli magazine +972, landed in San Francisco on a flight from Doha, Qatar, on Wednesday. The trip was sponsored by Kehilla Community Synagogue in Piedmont, California. The cousins were scheduled to speak at churches, synagogues, and other establishments as part of an interfaith humanitarian mission that was supposed to take them from California to Washington, DC, and then Boston. Eid had been to the United States multiple times on the visa he held. Awdah had been issued a visa in May and was going to the US for the first time. But the two were detained on arrival, had their visas summarily revoked, and were informed that they would be deported in 24 hours. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Phil Weintraub, lead organiser of a Palestinian solidarity committee at the Kehilla Community Synagogue in Piedmont, which sponsored the trip, told MEE: 'We are heartbroken that our friends were denied entry for their humanitarian mission. They came to thank us and raise funds for their village's summer camp. The Trump regime cancelling their visas was an act of cruelty and nothing else.' The two landed back in Qatar on Friday. They are currently stuck there, with no flights onwards to Jordan because of Israel's attack on Iran. 'Non-violent peace activists' US authorities have so far provided no explanation for their actions, despite a Bay Area congressional delegation that includes senior Democrat Nancy Pelosi issuing a statement demanding a justification for the deportations. Erin Axelman, co-director of the documentary Israelism, who has seen Eid speak on numerous occasions and is a supporter of his work, told MEE the cousins were 'profoundly important Palestinian peace activists who travelled to the US legally at the invite of progressive Jewish communities, for a speaking tour about peace and justice in Palestine.' 'The Trump administration detained them, and now deported them, solely because they are Palestinian,' Axelman said. 'Detaining Eid and Awhad does nothing to advance Jewish safety, saying so is a horrible joke, and is offensive to Jewish Americans' - Erin Axelman, filmmaker and activist Ben Linder, co-chair of the Silicon Valley chapter of J Street and the organiser of Eid and Awdah's first scheduled speaking engagement, which was supposed to take place at a Methodist church on Thursday, told MEE that friends and sponsors of the Palestinians had similarly been kept in the dark. Linder, who has known the cousins for ten years, described them as "true non-violent peace activists". "They came here on an interfaith peace-promoting mission. Having the US government revoke already granted, already screened visas, to crack down on peace activism is a new chapter," Linder said. "That peace activism by Palestinians is verboten is a scary, scary thought." According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, since October last year, the US has "removed" 157,948 people from the country, which includes 72,179 done during the first 100 days of Trump's administration. The administration claims it has removed double that figure, but those numbers have not yet been verified. Many of those removed from the country had valid visas or permanent residency and are part of a mass deportation plan pledged during Trump's presidential campaign. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he has revoked thousands of visas, primarily from students. The administration says it has also arrested over 158,000 "illegal aliens". A large number of the deportations or revocations of visas have been done on the basis of people's views or protests related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and people with pro-Palestinian views have been targeted and punished for those views. The administration routinely equates pro-Palestinian activism with antisemitism. "Detaining Eid and Awhad does nothing to advance Jewish safety, saying so is a horrible joke, and is offensive to Jewish Americans who see similarities between how Palestinians are being treated, and how Jews were treated in Europe for so many centuries,' Axelman, the filmmaker, who is Jewish, said.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
US ambiguity shouldn't stop work on a two-state solution
On Friday, it was reported that next week's planned UN conference in New York to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict had been postponed following Israel's military strike on Iran. Originally, the meeting had been envisioned as an opportunity for several UN member states – including some permanent UN Security Council members – to recognise Palestinian statehood. That ambitious agenda has apparently been scaled back, however, with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres now indicating that the objective is 'to keep the two-state solution alive'. Not surprisingly, Washington won't attend the now-postponed UN confab. It's not that US President Donald Trump necessarily opposes Palestinian statehood. Rather, it seems his administration is largely disinterested. The conflict is just too time-consuming and intractable. During his trip to Riyadh last month, the President abjured from discussion of two states. Mr Trump didn't explicitly rule out the formula but instead talked about 'a future of safety and dignity' for the Palestinian people. In 2020, however, during his first term, the President advocated for a two-state solution in his much-maligned peace plan. Alas, the Palestinians rejected the Trump proposal before the Israelis had a chance to do so. Still, the fact is that every US president since Bill Clinton has supported the two-state solution, at least rhetorically. Mr Trump hasn't articulated his current position on Palestinian statehood. Recently, the administration's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, indicated that the US no longer backed the project. His statement was quickly walked back by the State Department spokesman, who said Mr Huckabee 'speaks for himself'. The current ambiguity of administration policy contrasts with that of George W Bush, the last Republican president. During the second intifada, the Bush administration conditionally backed Palestinian statehood. In his June 24, 2002, Rose Garden speech, he said: 'If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.' This was notable in making clear that not only Israel, but also the Palestinians have obligations if a Palestinian state were to come into existence. In that same speech, Mr Bush pledged that the US, along with the EU and other international organisations, would oversee governance, financial and judicial reforms, help to create a 'working democracy', and increase humanitarian assistance 'to relieve Palestinian suffering'. In 2007, Mr Bush convened the Israelis, Palestinians and 40 countries in Annapolis to end the 'bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict'. To be sure, the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, had an impact on Mr Trump's perspective on the immediate feasibility of a Palestinian state. That day, and the nearly two years of war in Gaza that have followed, soured already-sceptical Israelis and Palestinians on the notion of peace and compromise – traditional prerequisites for statehood. Mr Trump probably doesn't see this moment as conducive for advancing the peace process. At the same time, his second term has been characterised by transactionalism, an emphasis on burden-sharing, an aversion – as he articulated in Riyadh – to 'nation-building' and a strong preference to local solutions to regional problems. The President is looking for quick foreign policy and economic wins and for partners willing to assume responsibility for solving thorny problems. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Palestine, Mr Bush was a 'nation-builder', committed to promoting democracy and American values abroad. Not only did he pledge US technical support and financial assistance to Palestinians, but his administration also helped engineer the appointment of a technocratic, non-corrupt prime minister to usher in reforms. Mr Trump opposes this type of US engagement abroad. His focus on wins explains why his first planned foreign visit was to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar. The President was seeking investment deals with partners to benefit the US economy, rather than discussions about further financial, political and military commitments for Washington in the Middle East. Along these lines, Mr Trump's most successful meetings to date appear to be those in which a foreign head of state offers to do something for the US instead of asking something of Washington. To wit, King Abdullah of Jordan's Oval Office meeting in February concluded successfully after he proposed bringing sick Gazan children to Amman for treatment. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's didn't end so well. The bottom line is that the Palestine-Israel conflict offers no obvious wins to the President. In lieu of significant diplomatic investment in an improbable peace process, the Trump administration will remain narrowly focused on the urgent and important short-term goal of a Gaza ceasefire and the return of the hostages held by Hamas. Many Middle East governments are applauding Mr Trump's new approach, especially his criticism and rejection of western states 'giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs'. At the same time, there is clearly plenty of disappointment in the region with the US policy on Gaza. For better or worse, however, this is unlikely to change anytime soon. The bottom line is that the Palestine-Israel conflict offers no obvious wins to US President Donald Trump Which brings us back to the UN conference on the two-state solution. Notwithstanding signs that Mr Trump may be frustrated with the Israeli government's refusal to end the war in Gaza, expectations that his administration will pressure Israel into peace talks are misplaced. Mr Trump may eventually press harder for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to wrap up the campaign – Gaza is undermining prospects of enlarging the Abraham Accords – but he is not going to deliver the Israelis to the negotiating table right now. There will be no Annapolis II during this administration. As Mr Trump himself likes to point out, he is the antithesis of Mr Bush. The Trump administration's reaction to the conference, when it takes place, will be shaped by the meeting's outcome. Reiterating old, tired diplomatic resolutions and embracing symbolic recognitions will be met with antipathy – or at best apathy – in Washington. Alternatively, a meeting could produce a series of tangible steps outlining not only Israeli obligations, but also what Palestinians need to do. Even more importantly, the European and Arab states could put skin in the game and commit to the post-war diplomatic and financial heavy lifting, including direct engagement to ensure that the Palestinians can be an effective partner in future diplomacy. If this is the outcome of a rescheduled UN meeting, a reticent US administration might be encouraged to engage. The war in Gaza has gone on far too long. It would be a shame if such a high-level international meeting – like the last Middle East Peace Summit in 2017 hosted by then-French president Francois Hollande – failed to deliver a workable plan for a better way forward for Palestinians and Israelis.
