It was recently reported that the foreign minister of the Israeli occupation, Eli Cohen, held a clandestine meeting with his Libyan counterpart, Najla Mangoush, in Italy last week. This brazen and strongly condemned encounter was aimed at exploring 'normalization' with the Israeli occupation. And yet, public anger proved formidable enough to force the government to dismiss Mangoush from her position.

The entire episode risks making a mockery of Libya’s sustained support for the Palestinian cause, given that Tripoli sought Italy’s favor to reopen the Rome-Tripoli air route in exchange for the meeting. This condemnable engagement should also be seen as a glaring act of departure from the established regional principles on Palestine. Together, Mangoush’s dismissal does not change the fact that the Prime Minister of the Government of National Unity in Libya, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, authorized the meeting with Cohen. All this takes the lid off Libya’s assertion that the shameful act of courtship with the “Israeli” occupation was a mere coincidence.

Hollow rhetoric about condemning “Israel’s” atrocities is a poor sell for Libya if it seeks clandestine opportunities to opt for ‘cooperation’ with a belligerent force. After all, Mangoush’s secretive exchange in Italy marked the first time that foreign ministers from "Israel" and Libya engaged directly. All this comes at a time when the same occupation shows zero signs of dialing down its aggression against innocent Palestinians, and continues to cower before the Palestinian resistance. 

Rather than maintaining unwavering support for Palestine’s legitimate pursuit of statehood and autonomy, Tripoli chooses to downplay the significance of engaging with the occupation. It even chose to confine its support for the Palestinian cause to mere lip service through its shambolic defense of the exchange.  Evidence includes glaring allegations from the Office of Libya’s foreign minister, confirming that Mangoush acted with authorization from Libya’s premier, shattering the myth of a ‘coincidence’.

Related News

What future awaits Palestinian refugees in Syria?

Who is Larry Ellison? And how does he tie digital ID, Trump, Blair and genocide in Levant?

Let’s be clear. The Israeli occupation media thrives on such controversy and mixed signals. It has even used a crippled Libyan response to project the brazen exchange as “historic” for "Israel." Such occupation triumph is overwhelmingly rejected on-ground by the people of Libya. Consider abrupt protests in the Libyan cities of Al-Zawiya and Tajoura: public anger spilled onto the streets in a clear sign of resistance and fury against their government’s attempt at exploring normalization prospects with “Israel.” "[Libya] renews its complete and absolute rejection of normalization" with "Israel", said a statement by the Libyan foreign ministry, while also rejecting "Israel’s" illusions of any “discussions, agreements or consultations” during the talks.

For a North African, Muslim-majority state that has long witnessed "Israel’s" open bloodshed against Palestinian civilians, theft of land, accelerated settlements, and deep-rooted apartheid, even the appearance of talking to occupation representatives is tantamount to betrayal. It is a fact that “Israel” has no interest in advancing Palestine’s everlasting right to self-determination and statehood. Proof lies in the occupation’s skewed media coverage following Libya’s “Israel” controversy. Several media outlets presented a range of allegations about prior Israeli contact and coordination with Tripoli, all aimed at discrediting Libya’s stated position against “Israel” normalization. The occupation also has a habit of using “normalization” as a cover to forcefully sidestep the rights of Palestinians and back US-brokered agreements to further entrench its military occupation. This is an outcome that no supporter of Palestine should endorse.

As Libya’s credibility on the Palestinian cause is called into question, it should muster the guts to make a clean break from the occupation that has enabled Palestinian suffering, casualties, and unmitigated brutality. Let’s not be fooled by the notion that a serving foreign minister will engage with her occupation counterpart without the implicit or explicit knowledge of her premier. To present this impression to the Libyan masses is blatant denial at best. 

Tripoli should know better. Attempts to recognize “Israel” can serve only a single principal purpose: helping the brutal military occupation consolidate further bloodshed as well as an internationally documented apartheid against Palestinians. History makes it clear that the very root of the initial US-led Abraham Accords was the falsehood that the occupation was keen to suspend its annexation designs. Fast forward, the “normalization” scheme continues to contribute to a sharp rise in illegal settlements as opposed to marking a break, effectively ending the case for an alternative scenario. For the moment, Mangoush’s secretive exchange with Cohen represents the core conclusion that Libya has been caught red-handed contemplating ways to appease the occupation and blindside the Palestinians. 

As public anger in several Libyan cities pushes the government into a corner and forces its foreign minister to flee, the end result is a potent reminder that any more attempts to court the favor of the occupation will not go unnoticed. It is that very underlying resistance that is living proof of the Libyan masses’ sentiments towards the issue. “Israel” can wish all it wants – grassroot resistance and public anger are not here to wane.