Benjamin Netanyahu hastened to condemn the recognition of Palestinian state by many Israeli historical allies, but his choices are perhaps more limited than his supporters would like to believe.

And while he has repeatedly threatened with annexation of occupied Palestinian territories and bilateral action against countries involved in the wave of recognition, he knows very well that the official claim of part or the whole of the West Bank would endanger Abraham’s agreementsthe historical agreement that normalized bonds with regional forces, including United Arab Emirates, and which the Donald Trump and the Joe Biden They hoped to expand to include Saudi Arabia, the Guardian said.

This agreement was perhaps the most prominent achievement of foreign policy of its first presidency Donald Trumpwhich had even mentioned the nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize wished by the US president, and one of Netanyahu’s milestones.

UAE, one of the most important US partners, have already stated that the annexation is ‘Red Line’ And that the collapse of the agreement would have a high risk of alienation of the most important Netanyahu supporter.

Israel chose the tactic of a bilateral response when Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized a Palestinian state last year, including the recall of Israeli ambassadors from these countries.

Choosing the same now that so many of his main allies have followed the example of the three countries would be much more complicated – and could lead him far from his goals, according to former Israeli diplomats.

In addition, it would not accelerate Israel’s course to the isolated state of ‘Super-Sparta’, which Netanyahu cited last week as a financial model. Speaking about the international isolation of his country, he had said – at a conference of the Israeli Ministry of Finance – that Israel will need to adapt to an economy with ‘Self -sufficiency characteristics’ and that, by combining the two great powers of antiquity, it will be at the same time “Athens and Super Sparta”.

His statements upset markets and the Israeli prime minister hastened to clarify that meant the defense industry.

THE Alon Liela former diplomat who served as Israel’s Consul General in South Africa, said: “I think it’s such a difficult dilemma for Netanyahu. Israel is not likely not to answer and there is no way Israel will respond in a clever manner. The Council of Ministers is forced to discuss which mistake he should do. “

The Jewish New Year, which is celebrated Monday and Tuesday, which coincides with the UN General Assembly in New York, gave Netanyahu the opportunity to take a breath and save time while examining its choices. “Israel will not attend the UN Security Council meeting on the situation in the Gaza Strip because of the Jewish New Year”announced the Israeli ambassador to the UN, characterizing ‘Sad’ The fact that the meeting will take place without his country.

On September 29, Israeli President travels to the US to meet with the US president Donald Trump. This meeting will take place after the US president’s meeting with Arab leaders in New York.

Prior to his departure, Netanyahu convened a meeting of Israeli Security Council of Ministers to discuss possible reactions to recognition, Israeli media reported.

In an obvious indication of his concerns about the dangers of attachment, the two strongest supporters of this approach -the far -right ministers Ithamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich– They were not invited.

“However, the internal political pressures he receives due to his trial of corruption and the upcoming elections may outweigh concerns about a confrontation with Trump,” said the Pinkanother former Israeli diplomat.

“Netanyahu two or three years ago would not dare to annex anything”said Pinkas, who, among other things, saw in the past Consul General in New York.

“The Netanyahu of September 2025 is cut off. Cut off from reality, and in an acute phase of illusion about the idea that it is remodeling the regional map. He is afraid of the elections. He is afraid of his trial. If all this leaves him room for a partial annex, he may do something, “he added.

Inside Israel there is confusion over the theory that recognition is an irrelevant gesture towards a blank symbol and the anger towards the countries that have progressed.

Throughout the political spectrum of Israel, from the far right to the leader of the center -left Yair GolanPalestinian State recognition move has been convicted as “Reward of terrorism”.

But even if the possibility of a dominant Palestine remains more of an idea and not a reality, recognition has deep legal and diplomatic implications. British recognition has a particular diplomatic and historical burden because of the role that Britain played in preparing the bases for the creation of the State of Israel with the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

With Balfour Declaration of 1917, signed by the then Foreign Minister Balfour ArthurBritain first expressed its support “In the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and was accompanied by a formal promise “That nothing will happen that could harm the bourgeois and religious rights of existing non -Jewish communities in Palestine.”

“I see it as more than just a bilateral event. Should be understood by its historical point of view Balfour Declaration. Will be like a kind of correction of British historical role ‘, Liel notes.