What was the truth behind Bennett’s meeting in Egypt?
NAFTALI BENNETT landed back in Israel on Monday evening from his meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the Sinai resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. No sooner had he returned than ex-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was grumbling that he had met President Sisi six times in Sinai and he hadn’t received any media fanfare for his diplomacy. He had a point there; but not exactly the one he wanted to make. Under Mr Netanyahu, the Israel-Egypt relationship had indeed steadily improved, at least once the military had got rid of the Muslim Brotherhood’s president Mohamed Morsi in 2013. But President Sisi had never once publicly greeted him in Egypt. All the visits there took place in secrecy.
There are a number of reasons why Mr Netanyahu’s visits were kept under wraps. Chiefly, he was deeply unpopular with the Egyptian public. Mr Bennett is largely unknown to them, and therefore less of a liability. But there are other reasons why the Egyptian president was eager to host his Israeli counterpart in full media limelight this time, and they have nothing to do with the identity of the Israeli prime minister. In fact, nothing to do with Israel at all. But you would have to be watching Egyptian state television to know that.
In the carefully edited report that Egyptian viewers saw that evening, the focus was on the part of the president’s remarks where he emphasised how
Egypt’s president wanted the summit to be high-profile
Egypt was “always working for peace, stability, building and development, avoiding anything that can lead to confrontation, even on issues we discussed. For example we spoke about the Renaissance Dam on the Nile. There’s understanding on this issue and we’re trying to deal with it through negotiations and dialogue, to reach an agreement on this issue which is important to us and we see it as a matter of life and death.” Then he mentioned also the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
ELECTRIC CURRENT AFFAIRS
● The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, to give the scheme its full name, is indeed a matter of grave concern to Egypt. A decade in construction on the Blue Nile River and only now starting to be filled, it is designed through its massive hydroelectric power plant to greatly advance the development of Ethiopia by delivering energy, but at the same time risks disrupting the flow of water in the Nile upstream, potentially disrupting Egyptian agriculture.
Egypt has already asked the Israeli government for support on this matter. For now, at least, Israel is hoping to stay out of this particular row, though it may have little choice but to try and help mediate. But just by talking about the matter in Mr Bennett’s presence, the Egyptian president could give his people the impression that he has Israel on side. For Mr Bennett, it was a small price to pay for a successful and – most importantly – public meeting.
The Israeli PM was fully aware that water is the main preoccupation for Egypt right now. And not just for Egypt. Mr Bennett’s first trip abroad as prime minister was to visit the King of Jordan, and he came prepared with the promise of doubling the water quota which Israel transfers to the dry Hashemite Kingdom each summer. As one senior Israeli official said after the meeting with King Abdullah: “We don’t expect that our neighbours will agree with us on everything, but if we can be aware of matters that concern them on which we can help, it can help manage the disagreements.”
ONE HUNDRED NOT OUT
● The Bennett government is nearing its 100-day mark, and the contours of its foreign policy are becoming clear. Above all, it wants to preserve the situation it inherited from the previous government, where the Palestinian issue was low on the regional and global agenda. The coalition is too ideologically diverse to make any significant moves on the Palestinian front, in any direction, so it needs to keep matters as calm as possible.
In the previous four years, it was much easier for Mr Netanyahu to avoid any external pressure to make progress with the Palestinians, as he had the blanket support of the Trump administration. That shielded him from American pressure. But other governments soon realised that there would be no movement until there was a change in Washington.
With both Trump and Netanyahu out of office, there were fears in Jerusalem that various players, perhaps including the Biden administration, would look towards renewing pressure. Mr Bennett’s meeting with Joe Biden at the White House two weeks ago put paid to those fears, at least for now. The Americans are too preoccupied with Afghanistan, Covid, China and the climate to spend any time pursuing a solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict that eluded all Mr Biden’s predecessors who had a lot more time on their hands.
Just like the leaders of Egypt and Jordan, the US President has other much bigger problems and will offer the Palestinians little more than lip service.
At the most, the United States will re-open the consulate in Jerusalem which handles its relations with the Palestinians after the Trump adminis
Biden will give Palestinians little more than lip service
tration closed it. This will be a political embarrassment for Mr Bennett but not a major blow. A lack of foreign pressure to make any major concessions to the Palestinians also removes the biggest potential domestic stumbling-block from his government’s path.
But it still leaves Israel having to deal with the Palestinians themselves. If violence resumes once again on any of the separate fronts, in Gaza, the West Bank or east Jerusalem, it won’t be possible just to push the Palestinian issue to the bottom of the agenda.
A VISION WE’VE SEEN BEFORE
● There are a number of buzz-words going around in Israeli policy circles right now: “shrinking the conflict,” “economic peace” and other similar terms. Anyone trying to seriously delve into these plans will find mainly reheated initiatives from previous years which are now being re-packaged with the aim of extending some sort of hope to the Palestinians and preventing a major outbreak of violence. That is what was behind the meeting two weeks ago between Defence Minister Benny Gantz and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, which dealt mainly with financial arrangements and a half-a-billion shekel loan Israel offered the Palestinian Authority.
And that is what Foreign Minister Yair Lapid was talking about on Sunday in his lecture at Reichman University where he proposed a “new vision,” for Gaza.
It was more of the same – infrastructure, desalination and power plants, an artificial island with a port – all plans that have been proposed in the past, though Lapid is a much better presenter. But the same obstacles remain.
Israel won’t deal directly with Hamas, which will remain in charge of Gaza for the foreseeable future. Or at least until President Abbas shuffles off and a new Palestinian leadership comes along which is capable of working out its internal differences, before it renews negotiations with Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, the government is willing to allow development programmes to go ahead in Gaza, if only someone palatable to Israel will take responsibility. But Abbas refuses to do anything in Gaza, even though Hamas last year agreed for the PA to return.
Nothing new there. But perhaps the prospect of something better coming along can at least stave off the next escalation for a while.
“The Palestinians know as well as we do that with the current government in Israel and with their current leaders, there’s going to be no breakthrough,” says one Israeli official. “Our challenge is to prove to them that in the interim, life can get better. There are a million other reasons why an escalation can take place, but the best we can do is to somewhat reduce the chances of that happening.”