Arabic
Persian
English
Zionist Regime’s Strategies for International Legitimacy Post-1967 War
Following its military success in the Six-Day War of 1967, the Zionist regime faced internal and external pressures regarding the decision to withdraw from some of the territories it had captured. The war enabled Israel to seize the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, and West Bank, significantly expanding its territory. After the war, Israel embarked on a new phase of its overarching plan, employing several strategies to gain international legitimacy, particularly in normalizing relations with Arab countries. This approach was based on the fundamental idea that establishing diplomatic relations and peace agreements would strengthen the regime’s standing in the international community, thereby paving the way for advancing its other objectives. Below, the primary reasons for withdrawal, the gains Israel achieved through this step, and the process of pursuing the second phase of Zionist actions are explored.
Confronting International Pressures: As mentioned, significant pressures from the international community emerged at that time for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories in exchange for peace. These pressures were conveyed through diplomatic channels, including the proposal of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which emphasized the principle of “land for peace.”
Strategic Considerations: Concluding a peace agreement with Egypt, particularly concerning the strategically and militarily significant Sinai Peninsula, was crucial. Regime leaders concluded that maintaining control over Sinai at that juncture could lead to continuous conflicts and instability, overshadowing any potential benefits of controlling the territory. This was clearly evident in the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, where Israel committed to returning Sinai in exchange for recognition by Egypt.
Shifts in Domestic Policy Decisions and Priorities: In the post-war transformations, Zionist decision-makers concluded that occupying vast territories could lead to unsustainable tensions and demographic challenges with Palestinians residing in these areas, which was undesirable at that stage. Moreover, opinions on retaining occupied territories largely centered on the notion that the military, economic, and political costs of long-term control far outweighed the benefits.
Gains from Withdrawal: By withdrawing from specific areas like Sinai, Israel was able to solidify its position as a key regional player. The war initially bolstered the regime’s national security and military stance, and through these calculated withdrawals, they aimed to reshape relations with neighbors, particularly Egypt, by entering a new phase of formal relations through a peace treaty that offered attractive benefits to Egyptian decision-makers. In fact, leveraging peace treaties also allowed Israel to operate with greater initiative on the international stage while gaining the desired legitimacy.
Overall, influenced by these factors and motivations, Zionist decision-makers advanced their new agenda focused on consolidating and strengthening their regional and international standing and gaining recognition as a sovereign, independent state. Achieving this significant goal facilitated a smoother path toward their broader objectives by altering other countries’ perceptions of them.
Process of the Second Phase of Zionist Actions
Strategic Withdrawal from Occupied Territories and Acceptance of UN Resolution 242: The foundation of the Zionist regime’s diplomatic strategies was the acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which implied withdrawal from territories occupied during the 1967 war. This resolution was considered the basis for all subsequent peace negotiations and signified a shift in the international community’s approach toward diplomatic solutions for the conflict. Although the resolution downplayed Palestinian rights by reducing their cause to issues like the refugee crisis, its significance for Israel was the ability to pursue peace agreements with neighboring Arab countries based on its own prioritized terms.
Negotiations for Peace Agreements with Arab States: One of Israel’s key strategies to reshape relations with its neighbors was its willingness to withdraw from territories captured during the 1967 war in exchange for peace. This approach is evident in the peace treaty with Egypt, where Israel agreed to return the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations. Indeed, Menachem Begin, shortly after his election, initiated peace negotiations with Egypt. The Israel-Egypt agreement forced Zionists to dismantle settlements built in the Sinai Peninsula since 1967, ostensibly to demonstrate a significant shift in the regime’s outlook on relations with Arabs. Thus, during the 1970s and 1980s, Zionists focused on concluding peace agreements with Arab countries to achieve a desirable level of legitimacy:
- Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979): Finalized with US mediation and also known as the Camp David Accords, this peace agreement between the Zionist regime and Egypt committed Israel to withdraw its forces from the Sinai Peninsula. This treaty was significant as it represented recognition of Israel’s sovereignty by a major Arab country without any preconditions related to the Palestinian issue, something Israel described as a “diplomatic victory.”
- Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty (1994): Zionist diplomatic efforts extended to Jordan, resulting in the signing of a peace treaty that further solidified Israel’s position in the region and its acceptance by Arab states.
Leveraging US Support: The role of the United States in the Zionist regime’s efforts to normalize relations and gain international legitimacy was crucial. Israel’s strategy was to align its interests and plans with those of the United States, simultaneously reinforcing US diplomatic objectives in the region. The US initially strengthened and stabilized the regime’s security by providing military and economic aid while promoting the idea of achieving peace through normalized relations.
The United States has consistently positioned itself as a key mediator in Middle East peace agreements, citing the 1978 Camp David Accords as evidence of this role. However, a closer examination of the US role in this treaty, often hailed as a diplomatic victory, reveals that Washington, rather than acting as a neutral arbiter, frequently aligned its policies and interests with those of Israel. As Rashid Khalidi notes: “The United States has consistently acted as Israel’s advocate, openly prioritizing Israel’s concerns over the genuine aspirations of Palestinians for autonomy and self-determination.” This strategic alignment has influenced subsequent peace initiatives, with American diplomacy often complicating Israel’s actions in the peace process and undermining Palestinian rights.
Furthermore, other critical perspectives, such as those provided by Naseer Aruri, suggest that the US role in the Israel-Palestine conflict should be fundamentally described as flawed and defective, as it has often assisted Zionists in eliminating the possibility of a balanced resolution (in favor of the other side). With the continuation of the US-Israel alliance, Washington’s deviation from its claimed role as a neutral mediator has become increasingly apparent, fostering a narrative that American diplomatic efforts, though presented as aimed at achieving peace, have primarily served to bolster Israel’s strategic and territorial ambitions. This duality—where the US portrays itself as a mediator and facilitator of peace while obscuring the realities of Palestinian suffering and resistance against Zionist occupation—has led to agreements that, in practice, have offered no tangible benefits to Palestinians and merely perpetuated the status quo.
Utilizing Public Diplomacy and Promoting an Image of a Peace-Seeking Nation: At this stage, Israel employed a robust public relations campaign to portray itself as a nation seeking peace and compromise. This included narratives that framed the regime’s withdrawal from occupied territories as a gesture of goodwill aimed at achieving regional stability, even while simultaneously expanding settlements in these lands. Israel’s withdrawal from territories, particularly Sinai, was not only a practical decision to reduce military tensions but also a strategic move to gain international legitimacy. The peace negotiation process enabled Israel to present itself as a country making sacrifices for peace, thereby doubly reinforcing its legitimacy. This policy was pursued with greater momentum in light of US-Israel relations, with Israel successfully becoming a strategic and significant ally of Washington through its prior military successes—a partner combining military deterrence with diplomatic dialogue.
Engagement in International Forums: During this period, Israel actively sought engagement with global forums and leveraged peace initiatives to position itself as a reliable partner, always willing to collaborate in various areas, including peace negotiations. This tactic included participation in multilateral discussions, such as those related to the “Oslo Accords,” which led to the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and, after years, indirectly gave some international relevance to Palestinian demands.
Continuous Pursuit of Normalization with Arabs: Israel did not abandon the tactic of offering peace proposals to Arab states and normalizing relations with them in exchange for concessions like recognition and strengthened diplomatic ties. The “Arab Peace Initiative” of 2002, which called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories in exchange for normalized relations with the Arab League, reflects this ongoing Zionist strategy of seeking legitimacy through peace proposals and negotiations while continuing occupation actions in Palestine.
Use of International Law: Zionist efforts aimed to frame their actions within the standards of international law, particularly concerning the Oslo Accords. The goal of Israeli leaders was to present their policies as compliant with international norms, using legal language and frameworks to validate their claims and prove their legitimacy.
By employing these strategies, Israel not only managed to consolidate its territorial claims in Palestine but also crafted a new narrative, transforming its image from an aggressor to a law-abiding, independent state seeking peace and recognition in a region surrounded by hostile states. A combination of diplomatic negotiations, reliance on US support and aid, deceptive public diplomacy actions, engagement in international dialogues, and exploitation of legal frameworks played a significant role in shaping the desired trajectory for Israel in its subsequent phase of activity.
US and Israeli strategies to destabilize Iran
No comment