It would be hard to overstate the shock of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and his small entourage when they were informed about Tuesday's terrorist rampage in Beersheba. Bennett carried out his usual ritual of whitewashing a problematic reality and hoping the public would buy it.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
He presented a terrible failure of hundreds of deaths in the fifth wave of COVID as a "dizzying success." The declaration of his personal home as the "prime minister's residence," which comprises a serious blow to the status of Jerusalem and the office of prime minister, is being shown off by his advisors as a minor matter that falls under the auspices of the Shin Bet security agency. At the end of the War of Independence, David Ben-Gurion declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel to establish facts on the ground. Since US Ambassador Tom Nides arrived, he has been living in a hotel in Jerusalem, because it is our capital. Bennett, with inconceivable flippancy, took a step that none of his 12 predecessors – not even the most megalomaniacal – dared to do and made his personal home the residence of the prime minister.
But the sight of four bodies in the heart of a city is something that even the thickest-skinned cannot ignore. The shock after the attack was worse than usual, both because of the number of people killed and because earlier warnings had focused on east Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. No one pointed to Beersheba or the parts of Israel within the Green Line at all.
The attack brought Bennett and his people back down to earth with a thud, shortly after they returned from a historic summit in Sharm e-Sheikh. They landed at 3:12 p.m. Less than an hour later, reports came in about the slaughter in the capital of the Negev. A burst of hatred for Jews had left behind a killing field.
Bennett couldn't do very much about the attack. The structure of his strange government makes the Israel Police and the Border Police the responsibility of Public Security Minister Omer Barlev, whereas Defense Minister Benny Gantz handles the IDF. The Shin Bet is the only security institution relevant to the attack to which Bennett has the authority to issue instructions, but all they could do was collect information after the fact. The Opposition rushed to link the attack to Ra'am leader Mansour Abbas' membership in the coalition and the battle over tree planting in the Negev. The truth is they have nothing to do with each other.
Even when Benjamin Netanyahu was prime minister, there were terrorist attacks in and around Beersheba, including rioting and lynches during Operation Guardian of the Walls. Governability in the Negev is limited. The waning of the status of the pro-Israel Bedouin and the spread of radical Islam in their community – all that happened on Netanyahu's watch.
The protocol of confiscating the weapons of civilians who shoot terrorists and the appointment of Kobi Shabtai as Israel Police commissioner are also a Netanyahu legacy. Neither he nor his Likud comrades can complain about them now.
But if there is one thing Netanyahu did right, and left Bennett big shoes to fill, it is the ties Israel formed with Arab states. Netanyahu laid the foundation, and Bennett is building on it. On the interpersonal level, the current prime minister is softer than Netanyahu, and therefore it appears to be easier for him to form friendships with the leaders he meets. That's part of the explanation for the tripartite summit in Sharm e-Sheikh, the first of its kind – two Arab leaders holding nearly a day-long meeting with an Israeli prime minister, publicly, and with the Israeli flag on display. And possibly most important – they weren't talking about war, peace, or the Palestinians – but about issues between neighbors. A kind of normalcy.
Originally, the meeting wasn't supposed to be publicized, or at least that's what Israel says. Still, Channel 12 News reporter Yaron Avraham spilled the beans before it began. According to the little information that came out of it, it appears that the talks were a kind of brainstorming session about various issues of the day. It doesn't look like there was any discussion about joint action.
So what did they talk about? Two major issues are shaking up the world and the region. One is the war in Ukraine and the second is the Iran nuclear deal. The invasion of Ukraine is leading to a spike in fuel and wheat prices, which are pushing Egypt's economy to the brink of collapse. What can the United Arab Emirates do about it? Mostly, increase the aid they send to Cairo. What can Israel do? Before the war broke out and before the government was formed, Egypt started changing its tune when it came to Israel. The model of a "warm peace" demonstrated by the UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain prompted Egypt to seek our partnerships it had avoided for more than 40 years of peace. Last spring, just before Israel's fourth election, then-Intelligence Minister Eli Cohen (Likud) paid a visit to Egypt as head of an economic delegation. Among other things, that meeting led to an agreement on flights between Israel and Sharm e-Sheikh. The positive momentum picked up steam after the current government was formed.
Over the last few days, the final details about flights to the Sinai resort spot were sewn up. Bennett even spoke with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi about opening the route up to Egyptian airlines to bring down costs. Meanwhile, as Israel Hayom reported, the border crossing at Nitzana will be upgraded to allow Israel to purchase more goods from Egypt.
The bigger issue was, of course, energy prices. The West wants to punish Russia by embargoing its gas and oil industries. But that will send prices spiraling as well as leaving Europeans without gas in their ovens. US President Joe Biden is now reaching out to all the other energy producers in the world – including tyrannical Venezuela, an ally of Iran and an enemy of the US – and asking them to increase output.
The old dilemma
But the Emirates and Saudi Arabia are not only refusing to comply with Biden's request, they are even refusing to answer his calls, each for their own reasons. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is getting even with Biden, who has avoided contact with MBS over the affair of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's murder.
MBS is also furious at the American helplessness on Iran. Saudi analysts are asking what the entire region is wondering – why Russian aggression draws a harsh international response, while the West's response to Iranian missiles on Jeddah and Dubai are payments to and a nuclear deal with the ayatollahs?
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
El-Sissi also has his own issues with Biden over the pressure the US administration put on him in its early days.
Given all this, we can assume the three leaders saw eye to eye when it comes to the US's problematic policy in the Middle East.
Criticism of the US is one thing, but an actual provocation is something else, and that's what preceded Emirati Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan arrival in Sharm e-Sheikh. A day before he landed, he rolled out the red carpet to welcome the arch murderer and president of Syria Bashar Assad.
That meeting angered the US, which was already furious with the Emirates. The Americans are outraged over what they see as bin Zayed and bin Salman's "unfriendly" behavior in refusing to increase their countries' oil output. But the Americans see the embrace of Assad as a new level of chutzpah.
The process of legitimizing Assad didn't start last Saturday in Abu Dhabi. For months, Arab countries have been making noise about bringing Syria back into the Arab League. The Emirate leader, who is spearheading the move, has an interest in downplaying Israel's objection.
Much like with the invasion of Ukraine, Israel is again caught up in a dilemma between moral considerations and regional and global interests. In principle, it's obvious that any sane person would object to Assad being re-legitimized. But pragmatically, Israel wants to oust Iran from Syria, and so do Russia and America. So if bin Zayed gains more influence in Damascus at the expense of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, and the price paid for that is "only" a stamp of approval for Assad, whose regime is already secure, perhaps it might not be worth Israel's while to torpedo the process. Bin Zayed gave Bennett and el-Sissi the background for the meeting, as well as new information that could move Jerusalem's stance on the matter.
To the best of this writer's knowledge from government officials, Israel has not yet adopted an official stance on Assad. When the leaders of the country meet to discuss the issue, they will need to take into account who the US would view a lukewarm Israeli response. Meanwhile, Israel's near-neutral stance on the war in Ukraine and the status of mediator Bennett wisely secured for himself, are viewed with understanding in Washington and American public opinion.
But if Israel accepts Assad, it could be one step too far. Even now, extremists in the Republican party, and certainly the Democratic party, are attacking Israel for taking too mild a stance on Putin. If we stammer about Assad, too, that criticism will grow.
In other words, if regional considerations make it preferable for Israel to ignore the deal with Assad in exchange for removing Iran from Syria, it could move Israel closer to the realm of illegitimacy.
Some particularly hostile journalists already wondered this week why the US punished Iran and Russia for human rights violations, but supports Israel's alleged similar acts. There is a reason why questions like these have moved from the fringes to center stage.
