The decision by President Donald Trump to close the door definitively on the idea of applying Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria did not surprise anyone who had correctly assessed the diplomatic lay of the land. In the view of the American president, who sees himself as protecting Israel daily from both internal and external threats and pressures, sovereignty grants him no benefit – only an unwelcome headache. So why would he involve himself in it at all?
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the American president's decision marks a moment to feel relieved. He now possesses a devastating answer for the right-wing sector of the coalition and members of the Likud who continually press for sovereignty. As is recorded in the Book of Esther: "For a writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no one reverse." What Donald Trump determined is now fact – and nothing can be done about it.
The Yesha Council, which managed a very successful and sophisticated campaign both domestically and in Washington, was able to elevate the idea of sovereignty high in public opinion, but it appears the council failed to accurately pick-up the broader diplomatic mood. It was evident in recent weeks that in light of the international anti-Israeli sentiment sweeping countries, it was just unthinkable to further antagonize the international community with that move.
Instead of insisting on sovereignty until the very end, the Yesha Council could have proposed a wise compromise to Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, and Benjamin Netanyahu: We will forgo the idea of sovereignty, and in return, the French president will withdraw from the initiative to recognize a Palestinian state. As this did not occur – the bitter outcome now is that Israel both received the international recognition of a Palestinian state and forfeited the sovereignty option – without any compensation. The missed opportunity is unfortunate.
However, there is also a somewhat positive angle to Donald Trump's decision. The American president effectively saved Israel from itself. Sovereignty at this juncture would have exacted extremely heavy political and economic costs, primarily in the form of European sanctions even more severe than those still anticipated to arrive. It is highly questionable how successfully Israel could have practically implemented sovereignty on the ground, given that it has more than enough critical issues on its plate to deal with these days.
Sovereignty will absolutely come eventually – but gradually, at a more appropriate time and under better circumstances. Sometimes the truest friend is the one who understands when to say "no."
