According to The New York Times, in 2016 then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry proposed that Egypt and Jordan "guarantee" Israel's security within the framework of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
Due to the importance of good neighborly relations with these countries, we do not need to reflect on the absurdity of this idea. However, we can note that while the entire Middle East was awash in waves of terror and violence – from Islamic State to Iranian belligerence – the person in charge of America's foreign policy blatantly ignored the reality in the region, whether out of ignorance or worse, because Israel's security was extremely low on his list of priorities.
Then-President Barack Obama gave the standard answer to those who objected to his unfavorable policies toward Israel: "Security cooperation between America and Israel has never been better."
In many ways this was true, but security is not measured solely by planes, weapons, joint military maneuvers and monetary support, all areas where the Obama administration was indeed very generous. Security is also measured by geopolitical, geographic and even demographic factors, which the previous administration ignored. (In this context, we must also mention the important strategic role played by the submarines Israel purchased from Germany.)
The global strategic and military discourse has recently focused on the "hybrid war," in other words aggression through external forces and proxies whose belligerence does not necessarily lead to an escalation of hostilities or massive retaliatory action. Indeed, Iran has implemented this method across the entire Middle East, including against Israel. Israel is alert to Iran's modus operandi and has decided not to play by the rules of this game. What happened on Saturday on the northern border is practical evidence of this conviction.
Israel needs to prepare for the threat of a hybrid war on other fronts as well. That is to say, a double war, because in addition to its narrow and limited scope, Israel simultaneously has to be ready for conventional aggression, backed by missiles, and so-called "guerrilla geopolitics" (in the form of terrorist activity).
From these two perspectives, Jordan does play an important strategic role in Israeli security (without even acknowledging Israel's even greater importance to Jordan's security). First, Jordanian territory is part of Israel's vital strategic depth. Second, Jordan prevents terrorist elements from spilling across the Jordan River into Israel, essentially reinforcing the IDF in the Jordan Valley. Of course, Egypt's positive role on the southern border should also be noted.
Also strategically important to Israel's security are the large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria and the communities in the Jordan Valley and Golan Heights. As then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan once said: In Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights, the IDF must also be backed by a civilian presence, lest it be viewed as a provisional occupation army.
In this regard, incidentally, there are question marks surrounding the current legislative proposal to annex "settlement spaces" in Judea and Samaria without specifying whether this pertains to all of Judea and Samaria or just Area C. The proposal also fails to distinguish clearly between the large settlement blocs, which are important to Israel's security, and isolated settlements, or at least some of them, which not only are not vital but actually pose a security problem. In addition to these issues, this bill unnecessarily hampers Israel in the international arena, including its crucial relationship with the Trump administration.
In Davos recently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raised several points about the future of Judea and Samaria and the people who live there, saying: "The Palestinians will have complete authority to manage their affairs, except for security matters – the Palestinians need to have the authority to govern themselves, but not to threaten Israel, and Israel will maintain security comprehensively, including in the Jordan Valley."
He added: "I don't want to annex the Palestinians as citizens and I don't want them to be our subjects."
These statements can be interpreted in different ways, none of which appear to be compatible with the bill in question.
