Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the UN is more relevant to national security than it might seem, but it doesn’t signal good news.
Amid the IDF and intelligence community’s impressive successes in Lebanon, the lack of a strategic vision to transform these gains into sweeping positive change is striking.
More troubling is that although Netanyahu identified the opportunities, his policies virtually ensure that Israel will miss them.
Netanyahu used visual aids to illustrate the choices facing Israel and the region. In bright colors, one map represented what he called the “Blessing Path,” focusing on cooperation between nations striving for progress and stability, including Israel. The other, dominated by a black patch, showed Iran and its proxies in what he termed as the “Curse Path.”
While his portrayal was accurate, the conclusion was not. The map of the Middle East indeed shows two opposing camps. Still, in his policies, Netanyahu consciously distances Israel from the “Blessing” camp, condemning the country to ongoing confrontations with those in the “Curse” camp.
One camp, led by Iran, actively destabilizes the region through violence, seeking to expand its influence. The other, comprising Israel’s peace partners – Egypt, Jordan, and the Abraham Accords signatories – as well as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, are united by their concern with Iran and their commitment to regional stability, which are essential for realizing their economic growth visions, such as Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.
For some time, the “Blessing” camp has extended invitations to Israel to join its ranks, both in forming a regional coalition against Iran and in leveraging economic, technological, and other capacities for mutual benefit. This invitation also includes normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab and Muslim countries that await Riyadh’s move.
At least five countries in this coalition – Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia – who oppose Hamas and its parent movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, have embraced Washington’s “Biden Initiative.” It coordinates efforts against Iran, as seen in the response to the Iranian attack in April, and contemplates taking responsibility for Gaza’s governance, including deploying ground forces.
To proceed on that path in Gaza and across the region, the “Blessing” camp needs three changes from Israel concerning the Palestinian issue.
First, end the fighting in the South, allowing for the deployment of their forces in coordination with Israel’s withdrawal.
Second, to avoid appearing as an occupying force, their involvement must be in response to an invitation from the Palestinian Authority, recognized globally as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Their entry into Gaza would be closely coordinated with and in support of the PA as a temporary solution to the its current inability to govern the Strip.
Third, to reduce the risk that the billions needed for Gaza’s reconstruction are being squandered in another violent outbreak, they need Israel’s commitment to offering Palestinians a credible political horizon, even if its implementation takes years. This political outlook would offer Palestinians a vision of hope to counter Hamas’s ideology of despair and destruction, thus reducing young Palestinians’ inclination to join terror organizations.
Those who needed more evidence of the centrality of the Palestinian issue to these countries received it on the very same day of the Netanyahu speech and at the same UN headquarters, as Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud announced the formation of an “International Alliance to Promote a Two-State Solution.” He stated, “Implementing the two-state solution is the best way to break the cycle of conflicts and suffering and establish a new reality where the entire region – including Israel – enjoys security and coexistence.”
While the Israeli government attempts to convince moderate Arab states (and its public) that normalizing relations does not hinge on the Palestinian issue, it seems that even those countries that have already normalized relations with Israel disagree. The UAE’s freezing of joint projects and its government’s decreased communication with Israel suggest otherwise. So does Saudi Arabia’s new initiative.
Ongoing conflict
The trauma of October 7 and the war have highlighted for many countries in the region and beyond the detrimental impact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on their vital interests. Although this conflict is of an existential nature for Israel, and setting a border with the Palestinians is essential for its future as a Jewish and democratic state, these nations are ahead of Israel in appreciating the need to shift from rhetoric to action in embracing a two-state solution.
As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bluntly put it, “No relations with Israel will be established before progress is made toward establishing a Palestinian state.”
Netanyahu’s refusal to meet these expectations deprives Israel of a historic opportunity to join a regional coalition and normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and others. It also stifles the chance to achieve the primary goal of returning the hostages and withdrawing from Gaza while preventing the resurgence of Hamas.
Moreover, rejecting the “Blessing Path” forces Israel to confront the “Curse Path” under increasingly harsh conditions, including an open-ended war in Gaza, a West Bank devolving into chaos, and growing international isolation, potentially leading to sanctions and legal actions in international courts.
Whether Netanyahu’s stance is driven by his dependence on his ultra-nationalist coalition partners or by a worldview that prefers managing conflict instability (which led to October 7) over-cautiously advancing toward its resolution, his policies outline a deeply problematic path. This is particularly troubling when the security forces have provided him with optimal conditions to shift direction, take initiative, and enlist regional support for Israel.
The IDF and other security agencies have rebounded from the failures of October 7, proving their capabilities every day. It is time for the political leadership to recover as well, abandon the strategy that brought about Israel’s worst disaster since its founding, and adopt a security doctrine that combines military strength with local and regional political arrangements.
Tamir Pardo is a former Mossad chief. He is a member of Commanders for Israel’s Security. Dr. Nimrod Novik was the senior policy adviser to prime minister Shimon Peres, is a member of Commanders for Israel’s Security, and is a fellow at the Israel Policy Forum and at the Economic Cooperation Foundation.