Where is the diplomacy of the patrol boat in the Palestinian cause?

A few weeks ago, President Sánchez had a “happy idea” when, while in New York at the United Nations, he gave the order, without observing the provisions of the Organic Law of National Defense (article 4.2), that a limited-range patrol boat carry out assistance and rescue functions of the pro-Gaza Flotilla, led by Ada Colau, the former mayor of Barcelona and other anti-Zionist activists, in defense of Palestine and the population of the Gaza Strip, mistreated by Netanyahu’s war, where among other atrocities the weapon of hunger has been used as a weapon of war, which goes against International Humanitarian Law.

The Flotilla finished its journey last week as expected, blocked by Israeli forces, and its members returned to their respective countries, with the glory of having participated in the “salvation” of the Gazan people and of having brought peace (shalom) to the area a few days later, as the Minister of Catalan in the EU, Mr. Albares, tells us in his fairy tale.

All the effort and expense of the Spanish State with patrol boats involved, official planes to return the reputed heroes, will be left in the water, before the bath of realpolitik of these days.

Meanwhile, American diplomacy, well directed by the American Secretary of State, Marcos Rubio, of Cuban origin, has woven with the countries of the area that give credibility to what was agreed that at the moment we see in its beginnings, but that It is the only hope to redraw the Middle East board after the painful war of these last two years, started, let us not forget, by the terrorist group Hamas, which tried to blow up the last route of the Abraham Accords of recognition of Israel by the Arab world (moderate and Islamic) and which a Netanyahu on a war mission has taken so far.

Surely the enlightened ones who advise Sánchez on foreign policy, with his ingenious patrol boat diplomacy ordered as if he were the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, in the American way ignoring the national Parliament, should reflect on his occurrences and their consequences for the role of our country in the international arena.

From being a mediating country that could seat the Arab and Israeli world in a Conference, and the main international actors (Bush Sr., Gorbachev…) on the scene as happened with the Madrid Middle East Conference (1991), to place ourselves in the most absolute international irrelevance due to the ideologization of foreign policy for internal electoral purposes and the PSOE to carry out a policy typical of radical and populist parties that sit in the Government and outside of it.

As is known, the Arab-Israeli conflict began in 1948 with the creation of the State of Israel on the former British Mandate of Palestine, and as ambassador Jorge Dezcállar recalled (Who had a foreign minister like him and not the correveidile of Albares!), in his book embrace the world2022 has been configured as a permanent scenario of war in various historical periods (among others, in 1949, 1956, 1973, 1982), through occupations, annexations, popular revolts, terrorist attacks and much suffering to all its protagonists, with the weakest suffering as always.

The first test of the Peace Agreement has been successfully passed, with the ceasefire and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip, under the terms of the negotiation. There is still a long way to go after the handover of the live and dead hostages by Hamas and also to accept the new Mandate on Palestine co-led by Trump and Tony Blair, and the military intermediation force.

The manipulation of the Palestinian issue, which has led to a sort of new intifada in numerous Western countries, fueled by Hamas and radical groups together with people of good will against Israel (and especially against its premier Netanyahu) with Spain as co-leader of the revolt against Israel, places our country’s relations with Israel on the verge of patrol diplomacy that will have consequences yet to be seen, and at disagreement with the US.

The use of foreign policy as a cover or shield for excesses in domestic policy has always been a resource of rulers in trouble, which in our case has been taken too far, mobilizing public opinion in a sense that will not always bring benefits for our country.

Various dark clouds are hanging over our hieratic president who runs the risk, of continuing with his personal and defensive policy, of becoming a pillar of salt in the face of coming events and then there will be no war to appeal to for his defense. Wait and see.