Led by Premier Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel faced protests sparked by the reform decisions of its most right-wing government in history in recent weeks. However, even after the Netanyahu government’s U-turn, the country’s domestic politics remain fragile, with protesters struggling to calm down.
Netanyahu, who has left his mark on Israeli politics for many years, included the country’s radical right-wing figures in his Cabinet during the complex government formation process. It is possible to say that the government, which includes controversial figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, has three main focuses: a judicial reform that will transfer most of the judicial power to the executive, support for open-ended settlement expansion and the prevention of the rise of the Arabs in Israeli politics. Although this anti-democratic tendency of the new government, which caused national and international reactions, limited Netanyahu in many respects, he made great efforts to realize this judicial reform due to the corruption investigations launched against him.
This chaotic environment in Israel’s domestic politics also affects its foreign policy in many ways. In his January speech to the U.N. Security Council, Netanyahu said, “We will carry out a revision in foreign relations: Our voice will be heard in the world.” He also stated that they intend to take an assertive stance in foreign policy. However, the radical attitudes of the new government cast a shadow over the realization of this robust discourse. Because countries that influence Israel’s foreign relations follow the crises in Netanyahu’s new government.
As it is known, Iran appears as an important threat from Israel’s security perspective. Therefore, encircling Iran is the backbone of Israeli foreign policy. The United States tries to limit Tehran’s power and is an important partner for Israel in the fight against Iran. As the historical guardian of Israeli security, the U.S. has taken important initiatives to support Israeli policies in various parts of the world. However, the last government can jeopardize Washington’s policies associated with Israel, particularly in the Middle East. Biden’s government demands that Israel provide arms support to Kyiv as part of the Ukraine-Russia war. The old government was ideologically more positive toward Ukraine. However, the new Israeli government is more distant from Ukraine ideologically. It avoids fulfilling the U.S. request for arms support to Ukraine to prevent overshadowing its relations with Russia.
In this context, the statements of Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, who had talks with his counterparts in Ukraine and Russia at the beginning of January, attracted considerable attention. In Cohen’s statements, the message that Israel will not provide the requested military support to Ukraine and his refrain from choosing sides in the conflicts disappointed the Ukrainian and U.S. governments but pleased Russia.
This attitude of Israel, which worries Washington, is quite strategic because the Tel Aviv government cares about Russia’s support in its fight against Iran, which it sees as a threat to its national security, and Iran-backed Hezbollah, which is active in Syria. For this reason, within the scope of the “Russian-Israeli Entente” created in 2015, Russian and Israeli military elements cooperate in Syria. Although this cooperation occasionally has ups and downs, Israel wishes to maintain its relations with Russia on a positive course.
On the other hand, Israel and the U.S. attach great importance to developing relations with Arab countries to limit Iran in the Middle East. The “N7 Initiative” designed for this purpose and the Abraham Accords, valid since Sept. 15, 2020, are initiatives that Washington and Tel Aviv governments attach great importance to. As a result of these initiatives, Israel has taken necessary steps toward normalization with many Arab states, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, Oman and Jordan. However, the anti-Palestinian attitudes of the new Israeli government and the settlement policies it plans to continue in the West Bank threaten these normalization attempts.
Indeed, many exemplary developments have recently shown that the Palestinian issue is a gigantic rock standing tall before the doors of Israeli foreign policy. As it will be remembered, since Africa is an important region where Israel has excellent political and economic interests, Netanyahu attached great importance to developing relations with the continent. With Netanyahu’s initiatives and the support of the U.S., there have been some normalization developments in countries such as Chad, Morocco and Sudan. However, a group of countries led by Algeria and South Africa has a negative stance against Israel’s third request to grant observer status in the African Union (AU) in 2020 due to its Palestinian policy. Moreover, at “the 36th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU” held on Feb. 18-19, security guards expelled Israel’s Ambassador to Ethiopia because Israel did not fulfill the accreditation requirements. After the crisis at the summit, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued harsh statements about South Africa and Algeria. Subsequently, the South African National Assembly accepted a proposal to lower relations with Israel.
The Palestinian issue can potentially weaken Israel’s hand in many foreign policy issues and its relations with African states. With the support of the U.S., Israel is trying to create a bloc of Sunni states against Iran in the region where it is located. The moderate atmosphere observed in relations with Türkiye in the recent period is for this purpose. Another important country for this purpose is Saudi Arabia. To break the influence of the Tehran regime in the region, Israel seeks to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is trying to use its normalization card in ties with the U.S. to support its civil nuclear program and restrict arms sales. Therefore, a foreign policy crisis arising from the new radical government in Israel may indirectly affect Washington’s relations with Saudi Arabia.
On the other hand, Washington and Tel Aviv watched with concern as Saudi Arabia sat down at the table to negotiate with Iran with the brokerage of China. Especially the opponents in Israel evaluated this development as a failure of the Netanyahu government.
As a result, the new foreign policy that will make Israel’s voice heard worldwide, promised by Netanyahu, has remained in the darkness of the crises in Israel’s domestic politics. In particular, the sharp policies and anti-democratic attitudes of the radical politicians in the new government toward Palestine are considered worrying by many countries in the world. Netanyahu’s new government is a burning stone even for the foreign policy of the U.S., Tel Aviv’s biggest strategic partner for many years. Many Western countries called Tel Aviv to stop this anti-democratic trend in Israel as soon as possible. The ambiguity in Israel’s new foreign policy resulting from the crises in domestic politics may also slow down the previous attempts at normalization.
