I was, and still am, a strong believer in good, even close-knit bilateral relations with the Jordanian monarchy.  There are many reasons for this, and all pertain to the ultimate interest of both countries. Despite the honest desire to protect close relations with the kingdom, however, there are red lines that cannot be crossed.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The sense is that Jordan has crossed them. The king is talking about an Israeli plot to divide the Temple Mount between Jews and Arabs. Indeed – this is a lie. Israel has officially stated it has no such intention. The king, indirectly, helped the Islamic Waqf trust that manages the Temple Mount site to send an unofficial letter to the United States, in which it asked the Biden administration to change the status quo and give the Waqf jurisdiction over all matters, including security, at the holy site. Israel, according to the letter, would have no say in anything that happens there.

The Jordanian prime minister's recent castigation of Israel in the country's parliament was harmful, false, and offensive. His use of extremist terminology is unacceptable.

In his desire to support the Palestinian rioters, Bisher al-Khasawneh said Jews were defiling the Temple Mount (Al-Aqsa). This is jarring, repugnant terminology. Amman also summoned the Israeli ambassador to be reprimanded.

The king tried rallying the Arab world – the United Arab Emirates and Egypt – against Israel. It appears the monarchy is going for the whole pot, and it needs to be disabused of this notion.

Israel must immediately summon the Jordanian ambassador for a reprimand and kindly request that he tell his superiors that Israel is a sovereign, independent country, which is responsible for ensuring public security and order, including at the Temple Mount.

Jordan, for its part, is responsible for helping achieve this objective, as it promised senior Israeli security officials who met with the king last Ramadan, and when the Americans spoke with kingdom officials in an effort to alleviate recent tensions.

In the discussion with the Jordanian ambassador, Israel needs to say, from its perspective, that it outright rejects everything Khasawneh said, and that it maintains and will continue to maintain the status quo. King Abdullah's own problems at home are well established, but he cannot be allowed to target Israel every time the Jordanian people take to the streets to protest against him. Israel will not be his scapegoat to overcome these problems.

Abdullah's father, the late King Hussein, also faced similar troubles at home, but he was able to cope with them with rare diplomatic prudence. He understood that close relations with Israel are an asset and an interest of the highest order for the monarchy.

Over the past year, Israel has made a real effort to rehabilitate relations with Amman, which had deteriorated because of Palestinian riots at the Temple Mount and Jordan's ineffectuality. It seems אם be working. But Amman's recent conduct is running counter to this trend of improvement.

The people of Israel also have feelings and demands. If a referendum is held on the Israeli public's feelings about Jordan's recent behavior, I'm not certain the king would be happy with the results, and it's safe to assume he views these relations as important. It's easy to shift to extremist rhetoric, which is why the king must put an end to this slippery slope.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

But, if it emerges that this is the monarchy's position toward the Palestinians, as the recent public comments would seem to support, including, as stated, from key figures such as the prime minister – no one in the kingdom should be surprised that in Israel there are those who believe that Jordan is Palestine. Thankfully, this isn't Israel's official position.

Right now, both countries need to stem the escalating tide and continue mending their relationship. The concern is that the king is trying to open up a Pandora's Box that was closed. Let's hope this isn't the case.

The post Is Jordan's king trying to open Pandora's Box? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel has been dragging two heavy burdens – one since 1948, the other since 1967 – for a long time, and both must be resolved as soon as possible. This is not being written as part of any ideological or party affiliation or a belief in keeping the country whole. This is written out of a desire to find what will be benefit Israel and its residents in the long term – or in other words, forever.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

I experienced the 1967 Six-Day War as a resident of Beirut. Three months after the war, I made aliyah with my mother, as part of a prisoner exchange deal. I traveled around Israel and arrived at the insight that for the good of Israel, it must return to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria the territories is captured during the war, with the exception of Jerusalem. This insight was based on the peace treaties being signed.

Since then, the facts on the ground have gone in different directions. Today, we have to deal with a more complicated reality. I grew up in an Arab country. We are different in almost every aspect. This doesn't mean that we can't build good neighborly relations. Good neighborliness could give us the quiet, and possibly the reconciliation, we long for. There is a deep-running dispute here about a permanent solution, and therefore it should be left to the public to decide in a referendum. Most of the Middle East has already forgotten the UN Security Council's important Resolution 242 from 1967, which was passed with great effort immediately after the Six-Day War. The resolution says that a permanent peace deal will be based on familiar, secure borders. Let's repeat that – and decide what comprises a secure border for Israel. Many analysts and oped writers are discussing how to respond to the murderous wave of terrorism facing us. In my opinion, we shouldn't be looking for ways to calm the situation, but rather aspire to find a permanent solution that will allow Israel to exist in security.

The second issue we have been burdened with for a long time has to do with the Arabs of Israel. The participation of a small group of Arab Israelis in acts of ethno-religious terrorism, or the clashes in mixed cities in May 2021, should be keeping us awake at night, wondering if our approach of integrating members of that sector into our lives has been a failure. But many do not see the reality in the Arab sector correctly. Any explanation from Joint Arab List leader Ayman Odeh offers about his calls for revolt, or the deceptive maneuvers by the mayor of Umm al-Fahm, only underscore the need for a fundamental solution.

We must not be afraid to look at the problem squarely. What we need is the courage to solve it. The vast majority of Israel's Arab citizens want to live in peace and integrate into society. Arabs serve in diplomatic posts and in other government institutions, and are a credit to the country. The guiding rule is that anyone who sees themselves as an Israeli citizen, and everything that entails, is a citizen in every respect. Those who don't see themselves as citizens and opt to perpetuate the conflict and engage in terrorist activity, have no place among us.

The ongoing non-solution to these two problems will continue to embitter our lives and our ambition to keep Israel Jewish and democratic.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Look at the problems, and pursue a permanent solution appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to an Israel Hayom report, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to help President Bashar Assad make amends with the world in exchange for kicking the Iranians out of Syria but when Prime Minister Naftali Bennett came into office he nixed the idea. If this report is accurate, it shows an opportunity has been squandered, and not for the first time. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

There is an unexplained disparity between Israel's impressive military posture and its very limited tendency to proactively engage the region diplomatically. The assessment that Assad could not deliver on such a deal was based on an obsolete analysis of the situation in Syria. The Middle East keeps surprising experts and pundits who give something zero chance of happening. For example, no one could predict that Egypt would kick out its Soviet advisers until President Anwar Sadat did just that out of the blue. Likewise, everyone was sure Syria would never leave Lebanon since Damascus saw the land of the cedars as an inseparable part of its domain, but the Lebanese managed to kick them out. 

A year after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War I had lunch with a well-known journalist. When he asked me about Assad's future, who at this point was considered a goner by pundits, I replied that the Syrian ruler was going to survive and will eventually be courted. "You are the only one who thinks that," he responded with bewilderment. I retorted that circumstances change over time. 

Now the question we face in Syria is: Has the situation truly shifted in Syria? I believe so. Iran, which used to be a strategic asset for the Assad regime for many years, is now a liability when it comes to rebuilding the country. Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, the UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain want to reappoint ambassadors and bring Syrian back into the fold. Assad knows that Iran, China, and Russia are incapable of healing the country, only the West can.

A stable Syria would be of great value to the region's overall stability. Let's not fool ourselves: Assad is a war criminal and his actions are unforgivable, but a new reality in the country could result in real change in Syria and the region, potentially paving the way to put Assad on trial once his country is back on sure footing. Meanwhile, Assad knows that he would not be able to stay on the sidelines for long as more and more Sunni countries join the anti-Iran alliance. 

Israel is duty-bound to take a leap of faith in the hope of bolstering its diplomatic standing: It should take advantage of this opening and go down a path that was closed for many years. Maybe Israel doesn't have to lead this effort, but it could advocate for it. A Syria that is stable and lacks foreign forces, a Syria that is back in the Sunn-Arab fold will be commensurate with Israel's national interest. It is time for some realpolitik.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israel may benefit from a deal with Assad appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

At the beginning of February, Israeli-American White House envoy Amos Hochstein visited Israel and Lebanon, bringing proposals to promote a resolution to the gas-rich maritime territory that is disputed by the two countries. Hochstein did not reveal any details about what the visit achieved, but there was a sense that an agreement was on the horizon and both countries would do what was necessary when he returned, a visit scheduled for a few days from now.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The announcements made, including those by Hezbollah, were encouraging. There was an understanding that Hochstein had convinced the Lebanese to drop their demand for another large chunk of territory in addition to the area under dispute, which comprises about 860 square kilometers (332 square miles). To make things easier for Lebanon, which is in the midst of a massive economic crisis, Hochstein suggested that international gas companies not wait for a formalized agreement and start producing gas and splitting it between Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon rejected this idea because it saw the suggestion as a kind of normalization with Israel, and now has to respond to Hochstein's proposed division of the territory, which gives Lebanon the larger part.

But recently, everything has gone south, and ego is holding things up. The first ego is that of Lebanese President Michel Aoun himself. He wants to end the matter soon and claim victory before his term in office is over and he leaves the presidential palace.

The second ego in play is that of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. A decade ago, Berri was in charge of handling the issue, and he submitted Lebanon's claim to the UN, the same claim that forms the basis of the current talks. He sought to promote the issue and score points for himself, and indeed, a little over six months ago managed to convince the US to lead talks between Israel and Lebanon at Rosh Hanikra.

But President Aoun had different plans. He grabbed the reins and began coordinating the matter from the president's office. Now that an agreement appears closer than ever, Berri is having regrets, and wants to take charge ahead of any possible deals.

But the most problematic ego is Hezbollah's. The organization announced that it would not intervene and would allow the Lebanese government to handle things, but its political standing has been eroded domestically, and to improve it, it is sticking up its head and using the maritime border question for its own interests. Head of the Hezbollah faction in parliament declared that his organization preferred that the gas stay at the bottom of the sea rather than Israel enjoying any of it.

The Americans aren't pleased at these ego game, and want to put an end to the affair when Hochstein returns to the region. Inspired by Hezbollah, Lebanon appears to be gearing up to demand all the disputed territory for itself, an absurdity that the US and Israel cannot accept.

These demands will hold up a deal, and Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah will exploit that. Without US pressure, nothing will shift. Given Washington's current position when it comes to Putin and Ukraine, China, and Iran, one might as whether the US will exert all its influence to bring an end to the maritime border dispute. If Lebanon demands all the territory, Israel won't have to dance to Nasrallah's piping and can start producing gas in the part of the territory that is supposed to belong to it.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Ego turns gas dispute into a lot of hot air appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Whenever he has the opportunity, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah ridicules and makes threats towards Israel. The most recent opportunity came just a few days ago, on the 30th anniversary of the assassination of his predecessor, Abbas al-Musawai, at the hands of Israel. In a provocative speech, Nasrallah threatened that his organization has the ability to turn the thousands of missiles in its possession into precision-guided missiles, i.e., to precisely harm every target in Israel. Nasrallah knows that fulfilling this threat is a red line from Israel's perspective, and will result in a disproportionate response.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Despite this, he threatens. In the last few days, he was also proud of the launch of a UAV that flew for 40 minutes in Israeli airspace and returned unharmed to its base. But it seems that Nasrallah, more than wanting to demonstrate strength, is essentially fighting for his survival.

He is seeking to remain relevant as the main leader of the opposition to Israel and to be present in the public's consciousness, particularly in Lebanon. In the internal Lebanese space, the voices opposed to him and the influence of his Iranian patron are on the rise. Apart from his ally, the Amal organization led by Nabi Berri, most of the groups in Lebanon are critical of his organization's gradual takeover of the Land of Cedars.

The Lebanese forces, the strongest military force within the Christian camp, didn't hesitate to open fire on Nasrallah's people in an area under their control. Seven Hezbollah members were killed, but Nasrallah accepted this and until now hasn't responded.

Nasrallah has been compelled to soften his public opposition to efforts at demarcating the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel. He has made do with a clarification that the contacts between the sides won't lead to the normalization of relations with Israel, because he doesn't recognize them.

The new electoral law allows 250,000 Lebanese citizens living abroad to take part in the general election that is scheduled for May. Nasrallah doesn't have the capability to influence them from afar, and it's reasonable to think that most of these votes will go to the Christian camp, something that, to his dismay, is liable to change the parliamentary makeup.

In addition, his ally, President Aoun, is distancing himself from him in the run-up to the presidential elections in a few months, in the hope that he will succeed in convincing the Christian camp to crown his son-in-law, Gebran Bassil, as his successor. Even in the Shiite camp there are more and more critical voices of Nasrallah's management of the increasing difficulties, with the situation in Lebanon on the edge of collapse.

In the Middle Eastern arena, Nasrallah is dancing on a razor's edge with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, who are demanding Hezbollah's disarmament as a condition for improving relations with Lebanon.

Iranian financial support is not what it was, and he is waiting for an improvement in the situation when Tehran will sign the nuclear agreement. More and more countries in the world are declaring that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, the Americans aren't hesitating to place sanctions on its members, and he himself has hinted that he won't automatically take part in an armed struggle between Israel and Iran.

All of these factors point to Nasrallah's weakening position. Some 30 years after the assassination of al-Musawi, the Hezbollah leader still faces obstacles that prevent him from completing his dream of taking control of Lebanon. For him, provoking Israel is a way of staying relevant. Therefore, in the face of events in Lebanon, which are not to his benefit, threats in Israel's direction are his way of staying relevant.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Nasrallah's threats are an attempt to stay relevant appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Amos Hochstein, the US mediator for indirect talks on the maritime demarcation between Lebanon and Israel, will visit the two countries this week to resolve the issue of 860 square kilometers (332 square miles) under dispute in the Mediterranean Sea.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The latest talks at Rosh Hanikra were paused several months ago, mainly due to Lebanon's demand to add another 1,460 square kilometers (564 square miles) to their original demand. Israel, of course, refused. Hochstein managed to persuade the sides to return to the talks, which will likely resume as early as this week. On the surface, it seems convenient conditions have emerged for an agreement. For its new demand to be considered official, Lebanon would have to have issued it to the United Nations signed by Michel Aoun, the country's president. Aoun, however, has declined to do so, thus opening the door for a return to negotiations. Another measure taken by Aoun was to replace the Lebanese Army's representative at the talks, known for his hard-line stance.

A solution to Lebanon's severe energy crisis doesn't appear to be on the horizon, despite Iran's delivery of four oil tankers to the country, and despite Egypt's commitment to supply natural gas via Jordan and Syria. Extracting natural gas off the Lebanese shores within the framework of an agreement with Israel would provide a suitable, long-term solution to the country's energy crisis.

Saad al-Hariri's departure from the political arena, after openly blaming Hezbollah and Iran for all of Lebanon's ills, limits Hezbollah's ability to continue opposing a maritime deal with Israel. Lebanon will hold general elections in a few months and Aoun wants to be able to showcase an achievement to the public, such as solving the acute energy crisis, in the hope that it will pave the path for his son-in-law, Gebran Bassil, to replace him as president.

Although these conditions do indeed seem conducive to a deal, the Lebanese side is worried about Israel's hidden agenda, specifically that it will use the talks to pursue diplomatic normalization between the countries. The chatter on the Israeli side has amplified these concerns. Hochstein, therefore, has a difficult task ahead. Recently, unverified reports have said he is considering allaying this Lebanese concern with an original proposal: Instead of dividing the disputed area between Lebanon and Israel, which could create technical and administrative problems in the future, an international energy consortium will be responsible for extracting the gas from the entire disputed area and then allocate the gas to Israel and Lebanon based on the distribution key determined by the first American mediator, Frederick Hoff. According to Hoff's proposal, 55% of all the natural gas in the disputed area would go to Lebanon and the rest to Israel.

Israel has already said in the past that it accepts Hoff's distribution outline. If Lebanon drops its demand for further territory, which extends into Israel's offshore Karish gas field, and in light of the conditions that have developed, the odds of finalizing an Israeli-Lebanese deal are reasonable.

American involvement at this stage is critical. Hochstein, who served in the IDF from 1992-1995, is considered one of the top energy experts in the US. To avoid sabotaging the efforts at this fragile juncture, Israel's mouthpieces must remain silent so as not to embarrass the Lebanese side or attract domestic pressures that could torpedo an arrangement. If the Lebanese want to issue statements for their own domestic consumption, that's their problem. In my view, considering the conditions that have materialized, we are closer than ever to an agreement. If the talks are successful, it will be a significant diplomatic achievement for Israel.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Is an Israel-Lebanon maritime deal closer than ever? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Arab nations are moving further toward renewing diplomatic relations with the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad, which were cut off following the civil war in the country.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

In 2011, after Assad failed to comply with the demands of the Arab League to stop the bloodshed in Syria, most Arab states announced the suspension of ties with the country. Now, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Tunisia, Oman, Iraq, and Algeria have publicly stated their desire to renew relations with Syria. The Palestinian Authority has also joined the bandwagon with a delegation headed by Jibril Rajoub currently visiting Damascus.

The rationale might be to pull Syria back into the bosom of the Arab world in order to strengthen the Arab League; perhaps the goal is to tempt Assad to distance Syria from Iran, and perhaps the Arab countries understand that without Syria, there cannot be stability in the Middle East. To be honest, all the answers are correct.

In view of the changes we are witnessing in the Middle East, the aggressive Iranian hegemony, and the internal Arab rift, the countries wishing to renew ties with Syria understand that in the current situation Assad is not the problem, but the solution to the tragedy in his country. The paradox is that the Western world has also understood that this is the situation. A decade ago, when the civil war erupted as part of what was known as the Arab Spring, intelligence sources gave Assad two weeks to a month before being removed from the political arena. It never happened. In fact, the opposite happened and Assad is still in power. It transpires that he knew how to read the map of his country and that leaning on the Russians and Iranians saved his regime.

What is outrageous about this story is that the world has forgotten about the millions of refugees displaced from Syria, about the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives, and about the fact that Assad used illegal arms, such as the use of chemical weapons against civilians Have they forgotten the use of barrel bombs that his forces threw from the skies on civilians? It seems that the world has given up on its demand for human rights and human dignity, in favor of short-term interests and industrial quiet. Today, Assad controls the majority of his country. He can continue to control it with the Golan in Israel's hands and the Hatay province in Turkey's hands.

In view of the current reality, the question arises whether it would not be prudent to strengthen the above-mentioned trend and to try and release Assad from Iran's grip. In my view, such an attempt would be worthwhile, not to give a prize to the Syrian president but to bring about a substantial change. The Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov once said to me that Moscow is willing to me is willing to play a role to bring Israel and Syria closer, and that if Israel were to make an approach it would fall on attentive ears. If Jerusalem decides to go down that path, the goal will not be to save the Assad regime. He must pay for his crimes – but to commence a process of economic, social, and political healing in Syria while maintaining its territorial integrity.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi has a major role to play in any such attempt to vis-à-vis Damascus. Israel's strong standing in the region will enable it to play its cards and pressure levers in order to bring about change in Syria that will lead to stability and the distancing of the Iranians. This is not an easy mission, but it is a possible one.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Change in Syria is in Israel's interest appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel should be encouraged by French President Emmanuel Macron's efforts to improve the situation in Lebanon. His ultimate goal is to significantly weaken Hezbollah to allow the Land of the Cedars a sense of stability. It is not by chance that Macron has enlisted Riyadh in these efforts.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The serious accusations made by Lebanese Information Minister George Kordahi of Saudi Arabia's aggression in Yemen, and the Saudi ban on all Lebanese imports in response nearly led the two countries to cut ties. Saudi Arabia has always had a warm bilateral relationship with Lebanon, and the family of former and late Lebanese Prime Ministers Saad and Rafic Hariri in particular. Riyadh had a formidable influence in Lebanon until Iran entered the picture and took primacy. In recent years, Riyadh grew tired of Lebanon and decided to punish Beirut. Saudi Arabia sees Hezbollah as the sole reason for Lebanon's malaise. At the same time, Riyadh has seen that the country's leaders – including Hariri – have not done enough to keep the Shiite terrorist group from further establishing its grip to the point of having total control over the country.

Macron saw an opportunity and pressured Kordahi to resign. Equipped with Kordahi's resignation letter, Macron departed for a brief trip to Saudi Arabia and convinced Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to renew his interest in Lebanon. Unfortunately for the French leader, the two had differences of opinion. Macron aspires to a long-term solution that would end Lebanese ethnic rule while the Saudi heir seeks a more immediate and less tumultuous resolution that would see a continuation of the current situation albeit with a weakened Hezbollah.

Arguing for the need for reform and believing the Lebanese military is the only organization authorized to bear arms, Riyadh would like to see either a reduction in Hezbollah's arms or the complete disarmament of the terrorist organization. When the agreement that ended the 15-year Lebanese Civil War was signed in the Saudi city of Taif, the Saudis agreed to allow Hezbollah to keep its weapons while the other militias were disarmed. This move was aimed at keeping up opposition to Israel. Hezbollah also needed its weapons to defend Lebanon, which was licking its wounds at the time.

Much water has since flowed under the bridge. The situation in the Middle East has changed, and there is a real possibility Israel and Saudi Arabia could at one point maintain direct ties. That is why Riyadh is demanding Hezbollah's disarmament. The mission is a difficult one because Hezbollah, as an Iranian agent, is also active outside Lebanon's borders. Should there be a public discussion of Macron's ambitions or an international conference that obligates all sides as the head of Lebanon's Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch, Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rahihas, has proposed, this could generate momentum that if used properly could surprise. If these Saudi-French efforts begin to take shape, Israel must hope for their success.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post France's Lebanese diplomacy is Israel's gain appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Four years have passed since Israel left the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, slamming the door behind it. Israel withdrew from UNESCO in a show of solidarity with the United States after it made the decision to quit the UN body. Both countries left in response to anti-Israel, politically motivated resolutions passed by the organization, which was originally established to handle purely professional educational and scientific issues. The Arabs and their supporters succeeded in changing UNESCO's objectives and turning it into yet another Israel-slandering organization.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Now, however, the US is seriously contemplating ending its boycott. Israel, at this stage, is now also weighing such a move, and rightfully so. The four years in which Israel boycotted the organization did nothing to change its anti-Israel behavior. Neither the US's nor Israel's withdrawal did anything to make UNESCO reconsider its conduct or effect change in its pattern of adopting shameful resolutions.

A continued boycott of UNESCO is unlikely to change the current reality. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, whose father is the Jewish senior adviser to King Mohammed VI of Morocco, was unsuccessful in her efforts to bring about the requested change. Abandoning the arena to our enemies has emboldened their unruly behavior because there is no one to stop them.

It turns out that this situation does not serve the interests of either Israel or the US. Just as you don't abandon a military post to your enemies, bitter as they may be, so too don't you stay away from such a hostile organization. Better to fight to influence things from the inside than yield the territory to Israel's detractors. The argument that understandings must be reached on the totality of our relationship with the Palestinian Authority before Israel returns to UNESCO are impractical. The PA wants to hurt us any way they can, so it won't give up on such an important organization that has repeatedly adopted resolutions that were tough on Israel.

The problem lies with the UN mechanisms. If Jerusalem were to quit every time an anti-Israel resolution was adopted, we'd soon find ourselves outside the UN completely. That is not the kind of situation we want to be in. If the US returns to UNESCO, and all the signs point to that being the case, Israel cannot remain outside on its own. It will follow the US's lead and rejoin the UN body.

As a matter of fact, there are many countries that are not exactly impressed by UNESCO's anti-Israel resolutions. The resolutions are not binding, and they have no impact on the ground. When we reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the situation at UNESCO will change, so today's resolutions can be overturned tomorrow.

In light of all this, the usefulness of being a UNESCO member outweighs the benefits of not being familiar with what happening on the inside. When you're on the inside, you have a presence: You fight Israel's detractors, enlist supporters, and enlist your allies' help in canceling anti-Israel resolutions. You can also propose your own resolutions.

And there are other options: The Middle East is changing before our eyes. Relationships with Arab states are being forged. Israel is being courted. All of this will influence UN organizations like UNESCO one of these days because Arab states are beginning to realize Israel is the solution and not the problem. We will therefore get a hold of our justified anger at UNESCO, take only our interests into consideration, and inform Washington that should they decide to rejoin, in a show of solidary, we will do the same.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israel must rejoin UNESCO appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The joint IDF-Egyptian military committee, which was formed when the two countries made peace in 1979, convened recently within the framework of biannual meetings. The committee gathers every six months, once in Israel and once in Egypt. Officials use the forum to discuss common military and security issues, and at the traditional dinners at the respective ambassadors' residences, they also share their views on diplomatic affairs as well.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The meetings have always been held in a positive atmosphere and in accordance with the "Chatham House Rule" whereby anyone who attends a meeting is free to use information from the discussion but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. In the most recent meeting in Cairo, we learned that Israel's political echelon consented to Egypt's request to allow the Egyptian army to enter the demilitarized Sinai Peninsula to fight the jihadist terrorist groups operating there.

After many years of combatting terror, Egypt is still far from winning this fight on its own soil. A little over a year ago, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi publicly declared that some 20,000 Egyptian soldiers were currently in the Sinai. The number of Egyptian troops near our border, it stands to reason, will substantially increase in light of the recent request. Allowing Egyptian soldiers near our border – then and now – directly contravenes the peace treaty, which limits the number of soldiers and types of weapons Egypt can deploy beyond the Suez Canal. The purpose of this clause is to prevent future surprise attacks.

It's important to note that then, and now, Egypt has only deployed military forces to the Sinai after issuing a formal request and only after Israel has granted full permission. The countries' improved relations have been conducive to this dynamic. Some Israeli officials have expressed concern over this arrangement, which is only natural – after all, just a few years ago a president from the Muslim Brotherhood ascended to power in Egypt, who seriously considered revoking the peace treaty with Israel. Had he done so, we would be left with Egyptian soldiers on our border. To everyone's relief, this never materialized.

Other Israeli officials hold the opposite view. The unprecedented security and military ties with Egypt were forged due to mutual interests and historical changes taking place in the Middle East. Above all else, Egypt is showing a willingness not to conceal, as it did in the past, its ties to Israel. This is a welcome shift that should also be utilized to channel relations in the right direction. For many years there was a gap between the positive security ties between the countries and their otherwise anemic bilateral relations. Commerce, tourism, culture, business and more – all virtually non-existent.

In the area of open bilateral relations, el-Sissi faces obstacles he will struggle to overcome. Any change in this regard will require time and patience. The professional associations, the public's hostility, a contentious media – all these are preventing him from openly cultivating bilateral relations with Israel.

The current atmosphere, though, is a good opportunity for progress. Hence, Israel must identify areas where el-Sissi is freer to enact change. Until now, post-Anwar Sadat Egypt prohibited Israeli diplomatic envoys in Egypt from developing direct ties with the Egyptian echelon. Conversely, the doors in Israel are always wide open for Egyptian diplomats.

Now, in this rare hour of goodwill between the countries, and because Israel has allowed, for the second time, Egypt to increase the size of its military contingent in the Sinai at el-Sissi's request and at Israel's own risk, albeit calculated – Israel must feel at ease to ask the Egyptian leader to allow its diplomats to forge direct ties with senior Egyptian officials – ministers, party leaders, university directors and more. El-Sissi can issue a directive of this sort, which is more administrative in nature than political.

At this stage, el-Sissi can tell Egyptian ministers they are free to meet with Israeli Ambassador Amira Oron, for work purposes. Just as el-Sissi has cultivated a national narrative of forging a better future, we can create our own narrative of forging more normal relations. We can do איןד by striking when the iron is hot.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Strike while the iron is hot, improve ties with Egypt appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.