Sitting at my desk in NW Indiana, I'm obviously in no position to comment on Israeli reactions to the thaw in relations between that country and various Arab states. But I think I know why the usual suspects here in the US have reacted to it with such sourness. As noted above, loathing of Trump has something to do with it, there are deeper currents.
For decades the claim that the solution to all problems of the Middle East depended on an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement constituted—I was about to say "conventional wisdom," but it was more like holy writ—among those who concerned themselves with the matter. And as a corollary, it was held that Israel had the duty to make "sacrifices for peace." Now this has been exposed as a fallacy, so of course those who believed in it have their noses out of joint. The same thing happened with the demise of the Soviet Union and its satellite people's republics in Eastern Europe. There was much grumbling and tut-tutting and negativity from those in the West who'd made a career out of whitewashing "real, existing socialism" in places like the DDR. Nobody likes to be shown up as a self-deceiving blowhard. So it is in the case under discussion here.
Four Arab countries openly edging towards normalising relations with Israel is a big deal for those countries' people - hence the weasel words about what this means (liaison office yes, embassy no, continued rhetorical support for Palestinians and a two state solution). It's also clearly in the US' interests imho. None of these countries are proper democracies, but their Governments' authority may be diminished by taking these steps, leaving them more dependent on force to maintain their power. A more dependent ally is a more dependable ally?
While this is probably outside of the scope of this article the obvious downside of not resolving the Palestinian question is eventually Palestinian nationalism will die out and be replaced by a demand for one man one vote inside of Israel. Maybe the Israeli political establishment can hold this off for another generation but that is probably it on the current track. In fact it could be argued the Israeli Arab vote within the Green Line is already having a impact on Israeli election results. The second issue is Israel to the surprise of many Americans and Europeans who travel there and interact with Israeli businesses is more "Middle Eastern" than most imagine and to the extent Israel becomes even more part of the Middle East(with all the downsides in terms of corruption etc this entails) this may very well loosen some of the cultural and business ties with the EU and US. Some of this goes all the way back all the way back to Israel being "founded" by American and European Jews but "settled" by Middle Eastern ones.
Sitting at my desk in NW Indiana, I'm obviously in no position to comment on Israeli reactions to the thaw in relations between that country and various Arab states. But I think I know why the usual suspects here in the US have reacted to it with such sourness. As noted above, loathing of Trump has something to do with it, there are deeper currents.
For decades the claim that the solution to all problems of the Middle East depended on an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement constituted—I was about to say "conventional wisdom," but it was more like holy writ—among those who concerned themselves with the matter. And as a corollary, it was held that Israel had the duty to make "sacrifices for peace." Now this has been exposed as a fallacy, so of course those who believed in it have their noses out of joint. The same thing happened with the demise of the Soviet Union and its satellite people's republics in Eastern Europe. There was much grumbling and tut-tutting and negativity from those in the West who'd made a career out of whitewashing "real, existing socialism" in places like the DDR. Nobody likes to be shown up as a self-deceiving blowhard. So it is in the case under discussion here.
Four Arab countries openly edging towards normalising relations with Israel is a big deal for those countries' people - hence the weasel words about what this means (liaison office yes, embassy no, continued rhetorical support for Palestinians and a two state solution). It's also clearly in the US' interests imho. None of these countries are proper democracies, but their Governments' authority may be diminished by taking these steps, leaving them more dependent on force to maintain their power. A more dependent ally is a more dependable ally?
While this is probably outside of the scope of this article the obvious downside of not resolving the Palestinian question is eventually Palestinian nationalism will die out and be replaced by a demand for one man one vote inside of Israel. Maybe the Israeli political establishment can hold this off for another generation but that is probably it on the current track. In fact it could be argued the Israeli Arab vote within the Green Line is already having a impact on Israeli election results. The second issue is Israel to the surprise of many Americans and Europeans who travel there and interact with Israeli businesses is more "Middle Eastern" than most imagine and to the extent Israel becomes even more part of the Middle East(with all the downsides in terms of corruption etc this entails) this may very well loosen some of the cultural and business ties with the EU and US. Some of this goes all the way back all the way back to Israel being "founded" by American and European Jews but "settled" by Middle Eastern ones.