Under Chinese auspices, on 10 March in Beijing, longtime regional competitors Iran and Saudi Arabia reached an agreement to restore diplomatic relations, after a break of seven years.
In its most optimistic reading, the deal can be seen as a historic strategic agreement, reflecting major changes underway in West Asia and the world. At worst, it can be characterized as an “armistice agreement” between two important rivals, that will provide a valuable space for direct, regular communications.
The Sino-Saudi-Iranian joint statement on Friday carried strong implications beyond the announcement of the restoration of diplomatic relations between Tehran and Riyadh, severed since 2016.
The statement is very clear:
The embassies of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic Iran will reopen in less than two months.
Respect for the sovereignty of States.
Activating the security cooperation agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran signed in 2001.
Activating the cooperation agreement in the economic, trade, investment, technology, science, culture, sports and youth sectors signed between the parties in 1998.
Urging the three countries to exert all efforts to promote regional and international peace and security.
At first glance, the first four clauses suggest that the Chinese-brokered deal is essentially a mending of diplomatic relations between the two longtime adversaries. But in fact, the fifth clause is far from the standard text inserted into joint statements between states.
It appears to establish a new reference for conflicts in West Asia, in which China plays the role of “peacemaker” — in partnership with Iran and Saudi Arabia — in which Beijing assumes a role in various regional conflicts or influences the relevant parties.
Sources familiar with the negotiations have revealed to The Cradle that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not merely coat-tail a deal already underway between Tehran and Riyadh. Xi has, in fact, personally paved the way for this agreement to materialize. The Chinese head of state delved deep into its details since his visit to Saudi Arabia in December 2022, and then later, during Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s visit to Beijing in mid-February 2023.
More than one round of negotiations was held under Chinese auspices, during which the Iranians and Saudis finalized details negotiated between them in Iraq and Oman, during earlier rounds of talks.
It was by no means a given that the two sides would arrive at an agreement in their last round of discussions (6-10 March, 2023). But the Chinese representative managed to overcome all obstacles between the two delegations, after which the parties obtained approval from their respective leaderships to announce the deal on Friday.
China as regional guarantor
In the past couple of days, much has been written about the strategic implications of a Chinese-brokered Saudi-Iranian agreement and its impact on China’s global role vis-à-vis the United States. The Persian Gulf is a strategic region for both powers, and the main source of China’s energy supply. It is likely why Beijing intervened to stem tensions between its two strategic allies. It is also something Washington, long viewed as the region’s “security guarantor,” could never have achieved.
Undoubtedly, much will be said about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MbS) “strategic adventurism” and his exploitation of global changes to offset the decline of US regional influence. The rise of a multipolar, post-American order allows traditional US allies some space to explore their international options away from Washington, and in service of their immediate national interests.
Saudi Arabia’s current interests are related to the ambitious political, economic, financial, and cultural targets that MbS has set out for his country, and are based on two pillars:
Diversifying regional and global partnerships in order to adapt to global systemic changes that will help realize Riyadh’s grand plans.
Establishing security and political stability to allow Saudi Arabia to implement its major projects, especially those outlines in MbS’ “Vision 2030,” through which Riyadh envisions itself transforming into a regional incubator for finance, business, media, and the entertainment industry – similar to the role played by the UAE in decades past, or by Beirut before the Lebanese civil war in 1975.
In short, regional and domestic security and stability are vital for Riyadh to be able to implement its strategic goals. As such, confidential clauses were inserted into the Beijing Agreement to assure Iran and Saudi Arabia that their security imperatives would be met. Some of these details were provided to The Cradle, courtesy of a source involved in the negotiations:
Both Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake not to engage in any activity that destabilizes either state, at the security, military or media levels.
Saudi Arabia pledges not to fund media outlets that seek to destabilize Iran, such as Iran International.
Saudi Arabia pledges not to fund organizations designated as terrorists by Iran, such as the People’s Mojahedin Organization (MEK), Kurdish groups based in Iraq, or militants operating out of Pakistan.
Iran pledges to ensure that its allied organizations do not violate Saudi territory from inside Iraqi territory. During negotiations, there were discussions about the targeting of Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia in September 2019, and Iran’s guarantee that an allied organization would not carry out a similar strike from Iraqi lands.
Saudi Arabia and Iran will seek to exert all possible efforts to resolve conflicts in the region, particularly the conflict in Yemen, in order to secure a political solution that secures lasting peace in that country.
According to sources involved in the Beijing negotiations, no details on Yemen’s conflict were agreed upon as there has already been significant progress achieved in direct talks between Riyadh and Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement in January. These have led to major understandings between the two warring states, which the US and UAE have furiously sought to undermine in order to prevent a resolution of the Yemen war.
In Beijing however, the Iranian and Saudis agreed to help advance the decisions already reached between Riyadh and Sanaa, and build upon these to end the seven-year war.
Hence, although the Beijing statement primarily addresses issues related to diplomatic rapprochement, Iranian-Saudi understandings appear to have been brokered mainly around security imperatives. Supporters of each side will likely claim their country fared better in the agreement, but a deeper look shows a healthy balance in the deal terms, with each party receiving assurances that the other will not tamper with its security.
While Iran has never declared a desire to undermine Saudi Arabia’s security, some of its regional allies have made no secret of their intentions in this regard. In addition, MbS has publicly declared his intention to take the fight inside Iran, which Saudi intelligence services have been doing in recent years, specifically by supporting and financing armed dissident and separatist organizations that Iran classifies as terrorist groups.
The security priorities of this agreement should have been easy to spot in Beijing last week. After all, the deal was struck between the National Security Councils of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and included the participation of intelligence services from both countries. Present in the Iranian delegation were officers from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and from the intelligence arms of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
On a slightly separate note related to regional security — but not part of the Beijing Agreement — sources involved in negotiations confirmed to The Cradle that, during talks, the Saudi delegation stressed Riyadh’s commitment to the 2002 Arab peace initiative; refusing normalization with Tel Aviv before the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital.
What is perhaps most remarkable, and illustrates the determination by the parties to strike a deal without the influence of spoilers, is that Iranian and Saudi intelligence delegations met in the Chinese capital for five days without Israeli intel being aware of the fact. It is perhaps yet another testament that China — unlike the US — understands how to get a deal done in these shifting times.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Efforts to stop Iran from spreading its influence are preventing the alleviation of Lebanon’s economic crisis
Despite the recent signing of a historic maritime border agreement, tensions continue to remain high, with both Israel and the United States attempting to force Lebanon into compliance with their regional agenda.
Although Israeli and Lebanese leaders signed letters of intent earlier this month ending their long-standing maritime border dispute and averting a major escalation in their ongoing conflict, the two sides still remain technically at war. Beirut refuses to recognise the Israeli state, maintaining the stance that first the Palestine issue must be resolved, as Israel maintains control over the Shebaa Farms area which Lebanon claims to be its territory.
Last week, drone strikes were reported to have killed up to 25 people after targeting a fuel aid convoy that had just passed the Al-Qaim crossing into Syria from Iraq. There are conflicting reports on who actually carried out the attack, with both Israel and the United States accused of having been behind it. The US military instantly distanced themselves from the incident, by denying they had carried out any strikes, whilst the Israeli government refused to comment and is now widely assumed to be culpable. According to Iraqi authorities, the fuel trucks, numbering 22 according to Iranian state-media, were approved for heading out of the country and seemed to be part of Iran’s new agreement with Lebanon to provide free fuel.
Despite opposition from top US officials, in August Lebanese Prime Minister Nijab Mikati accepted an offer from Tehran to supply Lebanon with fuel free of charge. Although the US ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, had warned Beirut not to take the offer from Iran, it was decided that going ahead with receiving the Iranian gift was in the Lebanese national interest. It is likely that the temporary US silence following this was in large part to do with the then-ongoing maritime border dispute between Israel and Lebanon. The US has repeatedly attempted to counter Iranian influence in Lebanon, even going as far as claiming Beirut is not in need of the Iranian fuel, whereas the country is clearly in a state of economic collapse and suffers a shortage.
After Hezbollah, one of Lebanon’s most popular political parties, organized Iranian fuel shipments in 2021, Washington quickly took to countering any future attempts for Tehran to come to the aid of the Lebanese economy. A deal was then organized in September of 2021, under US supervision, for Egypt to supply natural gas through Jordan and Syria into Lebanon, in order to ease the energy crisis. However, the US government had pledged to amend its Caesar Act sanctions that it currently implements against Damascus to allow for the deal to go ahead, but has so far failed to do so. Although the Lebanese State is now quickly taking to exploring and, it hopes, extracting natural gas from the offshore Qana prospect, which it secured its rights to under its maritime border agreement with Israel, this process could take years to bear fruit.
In the short term, Lebanon needs a solution to its energy crisis and Iran is offering free fuel to supplement part of its needs. The US and its close ally Israel see this as a plot between Hezbollah and Iran to take control over the Lebanese State. Although Lebanon is technically an independent state, the reality is that France, the US and the Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia, hold huge shares of influence in the political and economic affairs of the country, and none of them feel comfortable with the idea of Tehran having a significant influence.
The regional strategy of the United States government, which Israel is also in lockstep with, is to combat the influence of the Iranian government. Part of this strategy is to pressure more Arab States to normalize ties with Israel and to give up on the consensus amongst Arab League States to adhere to the Arab Peace Initiative. The initiative maintained that recognition of Israel by Arab states, along with the establishment of military, economic and political ties, could not come without the realisation of a Two-State solution under which the creation of a viable Palestinian State would be established. So far the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Egypt, Sudan and Jordan have all normalized ties with Israel, abandoning the Palestinian cause for statehood. The US Biden administration is clearly seeking to add Saudi Arabia to the list, but eventually wants to go further than that.
At the recent COP27 climate meeting, held in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh, Lebanese, Iraqi and Israeli representatives were all photographed standing near each other and had agreed to a distant cooperation on combating climate change. In Israeli and US media, this has been framed as somewhat of a breakthrough, despite being officially undermined by both Baghdad and Beirut. What is certain, however, is that the US and Israel are continuing to send a message to Lebanon, that they will not let it simply go about its business and thrive without adhering to their own agenda. Hence the US has not allowed for the Egypt-Jordan-Syria deal for transfer of fuel into Lebanon.
The most insidious part of the stance maintained by the US government is that Lebanon cannot simply leave the Iranian sphere of influence altogether and Washington is well aware of this. As long as Lebanese Hezbollah remains a popular force in the country, there will always be a link between Tehran and Beirut. This means that the US policy is designed to punish the Lebanese people for not getting rid of Hezbollah, something that neither the US nor Israel will dare try to do themselves. If Israel and the US are both in lockstep about preventing Iranian fuel from reaching Lebanon, then this means that they are simply depriving Lebanon of its ability to get back on its feet, all in the name of combating Iran and Hezbollah. In their eyes, if the Lebanese people perceive the Iranian fuel imports to be their saving grace, this runs counter to US hegemony and, together with the latest perceived victory for Hezbollah in forcing the Israelis to negotiate a maritime border settlement, Tehran would come off with greater support in Lebanon.
The US and Israel are proving incapable of allowing the Lebanese people to achieve a greater standard of life, due to the fact that Hezbollah and Iran are still there. Meanwhile, getting rid of Hezbollah would not only be militarily impossible, but there is also no evidence that such a move would actually bring stability – as evidenced with the case of Sudan, which normalized ties with Israel and earned itself a place in the good books of the US government, but the West is yet to aid the country, which endures a continuous state of crisis.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.
While the Arab Summit in Algeria affirmed its adherence to the so-called ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ as a final solution to the Palestinian issue, Israel’s response came quickly and resolutely with the return to power of Benjamin Netanyahu and the anti-Arab religious Likud bloc.
In the 1 November legislative elections, Israelis voted in large numbers for the anti-Arab, racist, religious parties, which openly embrace a policy of killing and expelling Palestinians from all of occupied Palestine, and promote a solely Jewish-Zionist identity of the country.
The “Jewish Power” party, which won 15 seats, and is led by the two most racist figures in the short history of the Jewish state, Bezael H. Cherish and his deputy Itamar Ben Gvir, will be the backbone of Netanyahu’s coalition government.
The leader of this party, which will be the most prominent partner of the Arab monarchs who signed peace agreements with Israel, has called for killing Arabs, expelling them and wrapping the bodies of the martyrs in pigskin “in honor” of them.
Normalization the new norm
Nonetheless, it is likely that red carpets will be laid out for Ben Gvir and Netanyahu in Arab capitals, where they will enjoy Arab hospitality and drink from their gilded goblets. Indeed, there is no difference between the winning Israeli coalition and the defeated one (Lapid-Gantz).
Both converge on their mutual hostility and hatred of Arabs and Muslims. General Benny Gantz, the Israeli Minister of Defense in the previous government, used to boast that he was the Israeli who killed the largest number of Arabs – and this is true, as his government has killed 166 Palestinians since the beginning of this year.
There is a silver lining, however: This racist government will hasten Israel’s demise and lead to its inevitable end, not at the hands of the battered Arab armies, but at the hands of the Palestinian resistance and their regional allies, their missiles and drones.
There are three steps that the Netanyahu government and his extremist coalition may take upon assuming power:
First, a return to reviving the Trump-era ‘Deal of the Century,’ the annexation of the West Bank, and the deportation of most of its Palestinian residents to Jordan as an “alternative homeland.”
Second, the escalation of incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the consolidation of Jewish control over East Jerusalem, and the obliteration of its Arab and Islamic identity. The first step may be dividing it on the model of the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, then demolishing it, and erecting the alleged “temple” on its ruins.
Third, the canceling or freezing of the maritime border demarcation agreement with Lebanon, similar to what happened to the Oslo Accords with Palestinians. Netanyahu announced his intent to do so openly in his election campaign.
This option appears especially likely given that extraction of gas and oil from the Karish field has already begun, while the Qana field, which was “partially” recognized as Lebanese, remains untouched, with no surveys or exploration conducted until this moment.
It is likely that the Lebanese gas fields will lay dormant for the foreseeable future. The same US mediators did not guarantee the implementation of even 1 per cent of the Oslo Accords, and they will most likely not guarantee the rights of the Lebanese people.
Renewed Palestinian armed resistance
But Netanyahu is set to assume control over a very different state of affairs, both domestically and internationally. For starters, Israel is facing an escalating internal conflict, and most importantly, a revived intifada in the form of West Bank armed resistance.
We cannot talk about West Bank resistance without discussing the phenomenon of The Lions’ Den whose political and military influence is expanding, while the Palestinian public’s embrace of the movement is growing. Not a day passes without witnessing a commando operation in various parts of the West Bank; in Nablus, Jenin and Hebron – later in Ramallah, and then in the pre-1948 occupied Palestinian territories.
Netanyahu may succeed in including one or two more Arab governments in the Abraham Accords, which was signed under his last premiership. However, such political acrobatics will have no value in light of the “awakening” of the Palestinian people and their return to armed resistance.
The returning Netanyahu will not forget the May 2021 battle of the “Sword of Jerusalem” that humiliated him, and its missiles that isolated the occupying state for more than 11 days, forcing millions of Israeli settler-colonizers into shelters and bunkers.
These missiles are still present and ready, along with hundreds of armed drones. Perhaps it is also worth reminding the incoming Israeli Prime Minister of how he ended an electoral meeting in the city of Ashdod (my ancestors’ hometown) and fled in terror from the 400 missiles launched by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement in retaliation for the assassination of its leader, Baha Abu al-Atta.
Just another day in the office?
The “Israel” to which Netanyahu returns is not the same Israel he left, and the world he knew when he was last in power, is not the same world today. His US supporter is mired in an unprecedented proxy war of attrition with Russia in Ukraine, where his co-religionist, Volodymyr Zelensky, has so far lost about a fifth of his country’s territory, and has plunged it into darkness and despair.
While Netanyahu is viewed as as being close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, that friendship had deepened before the Ukraine war. The situation has now changed dramatically, and he will be forced to choose between Washington and Moscow in an era of multipolarity.
As for the Lions’ Den, they have effectively changed all the equations and rules of engagement in occupied Palestine – and perhaps in the Arab world as well – and within this context will actually “welcome” the hardliner Netanyahu’s return to power.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
يحاول الإعلام الأميركي والإسرائيلي والخليجي الترويج لمقولة اعتبار إيران الخاسر الأكبر من زيارة الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن الى المنطقة، من خلال تصوير الالتزامات الأميركية مع كيان الاحتلال بالدعم المالي والعسكري والسياسي من جهة، وإجراءات التطبيع التي ستقوم بها دول الخليج مع كيان الاحتلال من جهة مقابلة، بصفتها خسائر لإيران وخسائر تسببت بها إيران بسبب دعمها لحركات المقاومة في المنطقة من فلسطين الى اليمن، التي تسببت بهذا الدعم الأميركي للكيان وهذا الاقتراب الخليجي نحو التطبيع.
–
التدقيق في مفاصل ومجريات الزيارة وخطاباتها السياسية سيكشف لنا أن الرئيس الأميركي جاء يلعب بالإسرائيليين والخليجيين لحساب كسب الأصوات في معركته الانتخابية من جهة، عبر ما تقدمه الصورة المنقولة الى الداخل الأميركي عن “الحنان” الأميركي تجاه “إسرائيل” للتأثير باتجاه ونسبة تصويت اليهود وفعالية اللوبيات الصهيونية لصالح حزبه انتخابياً، ولتظهير السخاء النفطي الذي يأمل بالحصول عليه من دول الخليج عموماً والسعودية خصوصاً، رهاناً على فعالية تأثيره في أسعار أسواق المحروقات على الأميركيين، وتأثير ذلك على وجهة تصويتهم.
–
بالتراتب، بعد الربح الأميركي، أو بالأحرى ربح بايدن وحزبه، يأتي الربح الإسرائيلي، بإعلان تطابق الرؤية الأميركية المقدّمة نظرياً تحت شعار حل الدولتين للصراع حول مستقبل القضية الفلسطينية، ليقدم تماهياً مع الرؤية الإسرائيلية، حيث لا مكان للقدس، ولا لوقف الاستيطان، والبحث بإطلاق المسار التفاوضي، وهي العناوين التي كانت تشكل مفاصل التمايز الأميركي عن الرؤية الإسرائيلية، وبدلاً من تخفيض مستوى الدعم الأميركي لـ”إسرائيل” بسبب عدم تجاوبها مع هذه العناوين كما كان يجري عادة في زمن الإدارات الديمقراطية الأميركية خصوصاً، جاء بايدن يعلن التراجع الأميركي عن هذه العناوين لحساب التطابق مع الرؤية الإسرائيلية، ويزيد عليها جوائز مالية وعسكرية يكافئ بها “إسرائيل” على إغلاق الباب نهائيا أمام فرص حل الدولتين، عبر التهويد المتزايد للقدس, تكريسها عاصمة موحدة لكيان الاحتلال، وتنامي تقطيع أوصال الجغرافيا المتصلة للضفة الغربية بالمزيد من المراكز الاستيطانية، واختزال التفاوض بالتنسيق الأمني الذي يجعل السلطة الفلسطينية مجرد جهاز أمني رديف لأمن الكيان إلى جانب أجهزتها لملاحقة المقاومة، لا شريكاً سياسياً.
–
على الضفة الخليجية، بمعزل عن حجم الخطوات التطبيعية التي سوف يحصدها بايدن لحساب كيان الاحتلال، ومهما كانت محدودة، تعبيراً عن القلق السعودي من التوازنات الدولية المتغيّرة، وتجنبها الإقدام على خطوات متهوّرة في لحظة تغير الموازين، سيبقى قرار من نوع فتح الأجواء السعودية أمام الطائرات الإسرائيلية الذي استبق وصول بايدن الى السعودية، كافياً لإطلاق الإشارة بأن المبادرة العربية للسلام التي كانت تشكل قيداً ذاتياً عربياً اقترحته السعودية في القمة العربية المنعقدة في بيروت عام 2002، للامتناع عن أية إجراءات تطبيعية إلا ربطاً بحصول الفلسطينيين على حقوقهم السياسية، كما وردت في المبادرة، وبالقياس لما وفرته عمليات التطبيع مع الإمارات والبحرين والمغرب من كسر لهذا الامتناع، سيكون القرار السعودي، الذي سيقال إنه شكلي وهامشي، كافياً لمنح الختم السعودي لمبدأ إزالة الحظر عن التطبيع وربطه بالقبول الإسرائيلي بالمبادرة العربية للسلام، وهذا كاف على الأقل بالنسبة للآن، لكل من واشنطن وتل أبيب، طالما أن الموقف السعودي يقول إن مسألة التطبيع لم تعد مسألة عربية جامعة مرتبطة بالقضية الفلسطينية، بل هي الآن قضية سيادية تخص نظرة كل دولة لمصالحها، وبقياس تخلي العرب سابقاً عن الحرب كأداة لنصرة فلسطين، ثم تخليهم عن النفط كسلاح، يأتي التخلي عن حرمة التطبيع إعلان فك نهائيّ وشامل الارتباط بالقضية الفلسطينية، وإسقاطها من سلم الأولويات والالتزامات العربية.
–
يحاول بعض المتحدثين الخليجيين رمي مسؤولية هذا الانهيار الأخلاقي العربي على إيران بالقول إنه لولا الخوف الخليجي من إيران لما حدث ما حدث، لكن ما حفلت به الصحف الإسرائيلية عن التاريخ السري للعلاقات الإسرائيلية الخليجية، وحجم التنسيق والتعاون في مجالاتها المختلفة، يقول ما قالته الصحف نفسها بأن ما نشهده من إجراءات تطبيعيّة ليس إلا نقلاً لما كان في السر إلى العلن، وبالتوازي كيف يكون الذهاب لتقديم الجغرافيا العربية لـ”إسرائيل” التي تزداد فرص المواجهة بينها وبين إيران، نتيجة للخوف الخليجي من إيران، وهو يزيد فرص جعل الجغرافيا الخليجية مجرد حقل رمي إيراني لمواجهة التمدد الإسرائيلي، بينما الطبيعي عندما يكون الخوف المزعوم هو السبب أن تكون النتيجة الابتعاد عن كل استفزاز يمكن أن يصعد فرص الاستهداف.
–
كل هذا في كفة، وفي كفة أخرى ما هو مخفيّ بين السطور، بالتدقيق في البيان الأميركي الإسرائيلي المشترك، سنجد كل ما نحتاجه لنعرف أن الأميركي حصل على الموافقة الإسرائيلية على المضي قدماً بالتفاوض توصلاً لاتفاق على الملف النووي مع إيران، وقد تم تزيين هذه الموافقة بتعابير رنانة من نوع التعهد بمنع إيران من امتلاكها سلاحاً نووياً، وجاء ما تلاه من كلام إسرائيلي على لسان مسؤول المخابرات العسكرية في جيش الاحتلال للواشنطن بوست حول أن الاتفاق مع إيران لا يزال الطريق الأمثل لمنع امتلاكها سلاحاً نووياً يفسر هذا الاستنتاج، بعدما حمل بايدن حبات البقلاوة العربية لـ”إسرائيل”، دافعاً من جيوبهم، أثمن ما لديهم، ثمن الحصول على الموافقة الإسرائيلية التي يحتاجها ليعاود التفاوض طليق اليدين.
Despite regularly calling for peace, the Israeli occupation’s actions speak otherwise. From the non-stop aggressions it continues to commit against the Palestinian people to the refusal to make the slightest concession, the occupation seems to understand only the language of force.
Ever since the partition plan of Palestine on November 29, 1947, and the immediate recognition of “Israel” by the United States of America, “Israel” has had the unwavering support of the USA
The sight of the Ukrainian refugees evoked very sad memories of our own eviction from Palestine, which ceased to exist in 1948. Not only because of the eviction but because of the massacres and the razing of hundreds of villages and reducing leading cities into ghost towns, which took place at the time, so as to obliterate the history of our country, some of which were only made public many years later on by the Israeli new historians. It was a historical event known as “the Nakba” (Catastrophe), which turned out to be an ongoing Nakba to this day, as Israel, the occupying power, continues to deprive the Palestinians of their right of return according to the UN GA resolution 194 on December 11, 1948, and refuses to withdraw from the rest of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967 according to UN Security Council resolution 242 on November 22, 1967, over and above tits daily violations of Palestinian human rights.
I am not going to dwell on the political atmosphere, and the role of the USA and NATO in provoking that war, but it had hardly started when the cry for sanctions on Russia was loud and clear. However, never did the international community come up with the word “sanctions” regarding “Israel”, despite its brutal measures against the Palestinians as well as its flouting of UN resolutions for the last seven decades. It is high time “Israel” realizes that it will never feel secure while it continues to kill, confiscate, and deprive the Palestinians and the prisoners of their freedom and their basic human rights. Furthermore, it allows the settlers to terrorize the Palestinians in their towns, in their fields, vineyards, and olive groves, as well as in their holy places, all under the protection of the Israeli police force. In fact, three renowned organizations monitoring the region, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and Human Rights Watch came to the conclusion in their reports recently, that “Israel” is an apartheid state. Of course, “Israel” refuted their reports and labeled them as anti-Semitic. Ironic indeed when one of them is an Israeli organization.
It is unreasonable to forget two facts. One pertaining to the Oslo Accords, and the other pertaining to the Arab Countries The Oslo Accords signed between the PLO and Israel on September 13, 1993, gave us the impression at the beginning that they were going to bring about a new dawn of hope for peace and liberation, especially after seeing the Israeli army withdraw from the Palestinian towns occupied in 1967. However, it did not take long to expose the loopholes in these accords, especially when the basic issues like al-Quds, borders, as well as refugees, and the building of illegal settlements were deferred to the last stage of negotiations, over a period of five years. This turned out to be an open-ended period of five-times-five that stopped abruptly with the incursion of the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to Al-Aqsa mosque which led to the Second Intifada. That gave “Israel” the excuse to end all the negotiations. The following years gave “Israel” the opportunity to create a new reality on the ground as its settlements mushroomed all over the occupied Palestinian territories. Over and above, the issue of security for Israel was to be coordinated with the new Palestinian Authority. This certainly seemed to be a unique situation when the occupied had to coordinate security matters with the occupiers. The absurdity of these two items alone showed that those accords were never studied thoroughly and scrutinized by the PLO before they signed them and recognized “Israel” as a state in the region, whereas Israel never committed itself to recognizing a Palestinian state as it signed those accords with the PLO.
The second fact is the stand of the Arab countries who despite their rhetoric were never able to bring about the pressure to end the occupation. However, all the Arab countries endorsed the Saudi initiative made by Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabic during the Arab summit meeting in Beirut in 2002 in which the prince presented his initiative calling for “full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and ‘Israel’s’ acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.”
Had “Israel” been sincere about peace it would have jumped at the Saudi initiative, but it seems that “Israel” cannot survive in times of peace. However, peace with the Gulf countries was offered to “Israel” on a silver platter. Those countries who signed the “Abrahamic Accords” had no war with “Israel”, nor did they share borders with “Israel”. Once again a colonial power, the USA, during the Trump presidency, was able to drive a wedge among the Arab countries, and seduce those Gulf countries into a peace agreement with Israel claiming to have common security interests.
Ever since the partition plan of Palestine on November 29, 1947, and the immediate recognition of “Israel” by the United States of America, “Israel” has had the unwavering support of the USA. This has been a major factor in Israel’s flouting of all UN resolutions regarding Palestine without any sanctions. The most we have heard from the USA and the European countries is “concern” about the clashes and the demolishing of Palestinian homes, and that “the settlements are not conducive to peace.”
Unfortunately, during these times, the vested interests of the powerful forces, and their hegemony over-rules the principle of the common good and the welfare of all people, whereby they coerce the weaker people by blackmailing them, supposedly to guarantee their survival. And of course whoever dared to defy those powers had no chance to survive.
The brutality of the Israeli police while storming the Al-Aqsa mosque and limiting and violently blocking Palestinian Christians in particular from worshiping in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the old city of al-Quds (Jerusalem), the holiest of Christian sites is beyond imagination. “Israel” wants to turn the Palestinian struggle into a religious war whereas it is not, and it has never been so. Nonetheless, with the support of the colonial powers, they have turned the whole region into a fertile ground for religious extremism.
However desperate the situation is, we cannot afford to lose hope, and we will not lose hope because justice is on our side. Furthermore, we hope our Palestinian struggle will become an example of steadfastness, “Sumud” and a guiding force in the struggle of all oppressed people.
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
“Israel” has, for long, not had to worry about the Arab and Islamic nations attacking it to liberate their own lands, as well as those of the Palestinians, today we are growing closer to a new equation.
At this point, a multi-front war with “Israel” will completely change the equation in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine.
Violent Israeli incursions into the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, during the Holy Month of Ramadan, threaten a renewed round of violence in the Palestinian occupied territories and perhaps beyond. Why is the regional dimension to the Palestinian question being left out of Western analyses and what difference will another ‘Arab-Israeli’ war make?
Last May, the ‘Joint Room’ of armed resistance factions in the Gaza Strip launched Seif al-Quds (Sword of Jerusalem), a military operation to defend the al-Aqsa Mosque, after it had been repeatedly desecrated and its worshippers attacked, leading to an embarrassing set back to the Israeli regime. The 11-day war, as it is now called, spelled massive death and destruction in the Gaza Strip. Roughly 270 Palestinians were killed and at least 14 Israelis (the number of soldiers killed is still unconfirmed), clearly showing the suffering on the Palestinian side to have been much greater. However, the symbolic victories won during the battle with “Israel”, not only launched from Gaza but everywhere inside occupied Palestine, left the Israeli regime begging for a ceasefire.
The battle of Seif al-Quds represents an important marker in the history of modern Palestinian armed struggle, emerging as a symbolic driver of the armed struggle much like the battle of Karameh. The battle of Karameh, which took place in 1968, when PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] aligned forces and the Jordanian military fought the Israeli regime, was not a conventional military victory over “Israel” for the PLO, but instead proved “Israel” to be beatable. Prior to this battle, in which Jordanian and Palestinian forces still suffered heavy losses, the Fidayeen operations did not carry as much symbolic weight and provided a light at the end of the tunnel for Palestinians. The battle of Karameh however, proved that Israeli military vehicles could be destroyed and their military could be fought for over 15 hours and not achieve a decisive military victory over a dedicated Arab fighting force.
Up until May of 2021, it was generally thought that the armed factions in Gaza could not outwit their Israeli opponents and any war would produce the same results as previous battles. That being, massive death, and destruction in Gaza, combined with the besieged territory’s isolation from all other fronts. The battle of Seif al-Quds flipped this way of thinking on its head and sent a strong message regionally. There then emerged a full unified militarized force inside the Gaza Strip that could unite the Palestinian people, outwit its Israeli opposition and provide an alternative path for the Palestinian movement.
What made the victory, led by Hamas, so important, was its ability to transform the way the Arab and Islamic nations view the Palestinian cause and the battle having signified the re-birth of the armed struggle as the principal means through which liberation is to be achieved. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had abandoned the armed struggle altogether by the end of the second Intifada, instead of pursuing fruitless dialogue with “Israel”, whilst committing itself to “security coordination”, which benefitted “Tel Aviv” solely. The Palestinian Authority (PA), as of earlier this year, officially absorbed the PLO into itself. This means that instead of the PA being an offshoot of the PLO, the roles are now reversed.
The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, was for long the consensus position of the Arab Regimes; that normalization comes only as the result of a withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and the formation of a Palestinian State, with “East Jerusalem” as its Capital. The Trump-era “Abraham Accords”, which saw Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco, join Jordan and Egypt in normalizing ties with “Israel” and spelled the death of the Arab Peace Initiative. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has no regional powers behind it, meaning no leverage over “Israel” that it can use to force through a so-called two-State solution. The PA does not even possess any symbolic power through mass support from the Arab and Islamic world, on top of this it continues to prevent democratic elections.
Although the Palestinian cause had for long been the central issue of the Arab and Islamic world, the wars of aggression against Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other countries in the region took much of the attention that had been placed on the Palestinian issue in the past. Now, despite the suffering throughout the region, Palestine is again at the top of the agenda, however, there is still work that must be done in order to push towards the protection of Holy sites, revolution, and eventual liberation.
The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is the primary hindrance to a new Intifada, this PA is slowly weakening and is displaying its inability to control many areas, the most obvious case being in Jenin camp. The Israeli occupation forces receive the bulk of their intelligence on the activities of Palestinians, deriving their control, from the PA. Right now there seems to be an ongoing battle inside the ruling Fatah Party – which runs the PA – for the very soul of the organization and there are two possible conclusions to this phase of PA rule in the West Bank; the complete collapse of the PA, or a new Fatah leadership which will pursue a more hostile stance against “Israel”. In either case, “Israel” will be put in an extremely difficult position in the West Bank.
A Regional Front Against ‘Israel’
Following the battle of Sayf al-Quds last year, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, announced that he sought to form a multinational force which would transform any battle over al-Quds into a regional war with “Israel”. Later, groups from within the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), Yemen’s Ansarallah, as well as the Palestinian factions, all signed on to this mission.
In Western media, the reporting on the repeated attacks on worshippers at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound has not only been littered with lies to protect the image of the Israeli forces but has also left out the possible regional response that such attacks could trigger. It seems that this piece of the puzzle has not yet been factored into the Western analysis, which will only go as far as looking into the possible reaction of Hamas and Islamic Jihad from Gaza.
In a multinational ‘Quds Day’ conference, broadcast on Tuesday, we saw the emergence again of the regional axis that pledges to take on “Israel” and defeat its aggression against al-Quds. Key to this conference were leaders of resistance factions from Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Palestine, which all spoke of a regional coalition that will use armed struggle to liberate al-Quds. The Palestinian issue “cannot be resolved at the negotiation table,” said Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, whilst Hezbollah’s Sayed Hassan Nasrallah announced that his patry would be on the front lines of the fight for al-Quds. The issue of Arab normalization was also a central issue addressed during the conference, indicating that the coalition of resistance Parties is seeking to send the region a message through armed struggle.
At this point, a multi-front war with “Israel” will completely change the equation in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine. If Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq become involved in a battle, alongside the Palestinians, this will completely transform the issue and force the international community to take the Palestinian struggle seriously. Most importantly, however, the Arab and Islamic leaderships – which operate outside the resistance coalition – will have to reconsider their roles in the conflict if such a war breaks out. The only missing piece in this picture is Syria, if Damascus takes advantage of the situation and launches an offensive in the Golan Heights, this will force countries regionally to re-engage with the Syrian government and will give Syria a central role in seeking a solution for Palestine, tying the fate of its occupied territory to those of the Palestinians.
“Israel” has, for long, not had to worry about the Arab and Islamic nations attacking it to liberate their own lands, as well as those of the Palestinians, today we are growing closer to a new equation. The obstacles ahead are; who will be the accepted Palestinian representatives internationally? How to bring the region into a multi-faceted confrontation with “Israel”? And how to strive for the full initiation of a Third Intifada? If these questions can be answered, the Palestinian cause will not only be the central issue regionally, it will possess much greater power for liberating Palestine than ever before.
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
The recent wave of normalization in the Middle East has resulted in gruesome shifts in regional dynamics and balances most notably regarding Palestine and the Palestinian cause.
Most Arab and Muslim countries are apparently considering normalization, but at what cost?
The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco are among the Arab countries that signed normalization deals with the Israeli occupation, echoing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s recognition of “Israel” in 1977.
Here’s the ugly truth: More Arab and Muslim countries are apparently considering doing the same with the US midwifing the move, not to mention that those who adopted the UAE’s prototype for normalization with “Israel” considered the issue of Palestine as non-existent.
Arab peace initiative?
Despite all claims of an Arab peace initiative, Palestine seems to be an afterthought in normalization deals with “Israel”. The so-called “Abraham Accords” were more about Arab transactions with the US than with “Israel”. In short, normalization with “Israel’” was the charge paid in exchange for the US’ recognition of territorial claims (in the case of Morocco), removal from blacklists (in the case of Sudan), preservation of a totalitarian regime (in the case of Bahrain), or sale of weaponry (in the case of the UAE).
اختارت دول الخليج في الورقة التي قدمتها للحكومة اللبنانية ثلاثة قرارات أمميّة طالبت الدولة اللبنانية بتنفيذها وهي القرارات 1559 و1701 و1680، وهي تتناول شؤون لبنان في الصراع مع “إسرائيل”، أو تنظيم علاقة لبنان وسورية والعلاقة اللبنانية الفلسطينية، ففيها المطالبة بالانسحاب السوري وحل الميليشيات المسلحة، كما يقول القرار 1559، ودعم ترسيم الحدود اللبنانية السورية وتأكيد دعم سحب السلاح الفلسطيني خارج المخيمات كما يقول القرار 1680، الذي نبش عليه الوزراء العرب في الأرشيف الأمميّ، لأن قلة قد سمعوا بهذا القرار، وتنظيم الوضع في جنوب لبنان بعد الحرب الإسرائيلية في تموز 2006، وما يفهم منه من تقييد لسلاح المقاومة عادة.
–
الشؤون التي تناولتها القرارات تتضمن بنوداً متداخلة رغم أن نسبة السوء في هذه القرارات ليست واحدة، رغم أن أسوأها وهو القرار 1559 ليس كله سيئاً، ولكن يبدو أن الجانب الخليجي لم ينتبه لدعوتها جميعاً للانطلاق من قرار نسيه وزراء الخارجية الخليجيون هو القرار 425، الذي لم تطوَ ورقته بعد في الأمم المتحدة بعدما فشلت الضغوط الأميركية عام 2000 في انتزاع الموافقة اللبنانية على اعتباره منفذاً، مع بقاء مزارع شبعا وتلال كفرشوبا محتلة. وهذا من باب إنعاش الذاكرة، يوم وقف رئيس الجمهورية العماد اميل لحود بوجه وزيرة الخارجية الأميركية مادلين أولبرايت، رافضا تحذيراتها وإملاءاتها لاعتبار الانسحاب الإسرائيلي تاماً والقرار 425 منفذاً، وتم ابتكار الخط الأزرق القائم حتى الآن، لأن القرار 425 لم يُعتبر منفذاً بنصه على الانسحاب الإسرائيلي حتى الحدود الدولية، ولذلك جاء نص القرار 1559 بالدعوة لانسحاب جميع القوات الأجنبية، وبعد الانسحاب السوري لم يبق الا الاحتلال الإسرائيلي لمزارع شبعا وتلال كفرشوبا، وهو بالحد الأدنى يتقابل ويتوازن ويتعادل مع الدعوة لما يقصده الوزراء العرب بحل الميليشيات وسحب السلاح وهو سلاح المقاومة، لكن السؤال الأهم لماذا تجاهل الوزراء الخليجيّون من ورقتهم القرار 425 الذي تورده كل القرارات الأمميّة حول لبنان في مقدّمتها وتنطلق منه؟
–
الأمر ليس سهواً بالتأكيد، لكن الدعوة لتطبيق القرارات تريد التصرف خليجياً بمظهر الدعوة لتطبيق القانون، وهي تتبنى المقاربة الإسرائيلية للقرارات الأممية، ولذلك فإن لبنان مضطر للرد بالقانون، فطالما أن الخيار الخليجي تناول ما يتصل بعلاقات لبنان بالاحتلال الإسرائيلي وبكل من سورية والوجود الفلسطيني، فمن واجب لبنان ومن حقه استعادة القرارات المتصلة بهذه العناوين، وهي على الأقل بما يعني لبنان، تبدأ بالقرار 194 الخاص بعودة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين والمتضمن في أصل نص المبادرة العربية الصادرة عن قمة بيروت، مطالباً العرب بتطبيقه، لأنه الجواب على أصل المشكلة بضمان حق العودة للاجئين، ومثله القرارات 242 و338 و181 التي تتناول حلّ قضية الاحتلال الإسرائيلي وفقاً لمفهوم القانون الدولي. والأهم يبقى القرار 425، وتقارير الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة حول مزارع شبعا وربط “إسرائيل” للانسحاب منها بمصير الجولان المحتل المرتبط بالقرارين 242 و338، كحد أدنى. وعلى الوزراء العرب أن يجيبوا هل تراجعوا عن الدعوة لتطبيق هذه القرارات، أم لا يزالون يتمسكون بها؟ فإن تراجعوا فليتخذوا قراراً بإلغاء المبادرة العربية للسلام الصادرة عن قمة بيروت عام 2002 بصورة رسمية وعلنية.
–
لعل أبسط جواب لبناني هو يا أصحاب المعالي طبقوا ما عليكم لنطبق ما علينا، ويا دار ما دخلك شر، وإن تخلّيتم عما عليكم تخلّينا عما علينا، وقد تضمّنت قراراتكم التزاماً باعتبار القرارات الدولية، اساس أي تعامل عربي مع كل ما يتصل بالاحتلال الاسرائيلي وتداعياته، وإن نجحتم نجحنا وان فشلتم وتراجعتم فشلنا وتراجعنا، أفيدونا يرعاكم الله!
BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:00 P.M.) – The head of the Lebanese Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil, said on Sunday that “the blockade imposed on Lebanon is the result of the choices the country took to confront Israel, and that is why Israel declared itself a Jewish state.”
According to Bassil, Israel “wants to see sectarian states around it, and wants Christians to leave the region.”
He continued: “What is being asked of us is surrender, not peace. What is presented is a recipe for an internal war and the fragmentation of the surrounding countries, especially Lebanon, because of its Islamic-Christian coexistence.”
Regarding his view of peace, Bassil explained, “Who says that we do not want peace? We are children of the peace doctrine, and peace without justice is a dedication to injustice, and we are with a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, in accordance with the initiative of King Abdullah.”
Bassil previously served as the Lebanese Foreign Minister, but has since come under fire over accusations of corruption and nepotism, as his father in-law is President Michel Aoun.
بعد زمن قصير من توقيع دولة الإمارات العربيّة والبحرين على اتفاقيات التطبيع مع (إسرائيل)، أجرت إحدى الفضائيّات المحسوبة على السعوديّة، مقابلة من ثلاث حلقات مع بندر بن سلطان، سفير بلاده الأسبق في واشنطن، وأمين سابق لمجلس الأمن الوطني السعودي، استعرض خلالها الأدوار التي قام بها والتي لعبتها بلاده في الجزيرة العربية والإقليم والعالم، واستفاض في حديثه عن الشأن الفلسطيني بشكل مسموم طال القيادة ولم يترك الشعب، فقد اعتبر الفلسطيني محامياً فاشلاً عن قضية عادلة، وأنّ القيادات الفلسطينية تتاجر بالقضية لحساباتها الخاصة، ثم أنها قيادات قاصرة عن فهم السياسة ومتخصّصة في إضاعة الفرص، وفوق ذلك أنها ناكرة للجميل ومتطاولة على مَن يُحسن إليها، وهي عادة فلسطينية حسب المقالة البندريّة. وقد تطايرت سهام هجومه في اتجاهات عديدة لتطال إيران والحوثيين في اليمن، والأتراك والقطريين والمقاومة اللبنانية، وكذلك فضائيتي «المنار» و»الجزيرة»، لكن سهامَه طاشت عن دولة الاحتلال أو أنّ أقواله قد سقطت سهواً أو عمداً… لا يهمّ، إذ إنّ بندر بن سلطان لا يرى فيها دولة عنصرية ولا يعرف عن وحشيتها ودمويّتها، وأنها عنصر من عناصر القلق في الإقليم، التي حدّدها ابن عمه تركي الفيصل منذ أيام، فالشرّ كله حسب بندر هو في مَن أصابته سهامه.
هذه التوجهات لم تكن مستغربة عند مَن يتابع الأداء السعودي، وعند مَن تابع مسيرة بندر بن سلطان، وما يجيش في أعماقه من عقد نفسيّة، وما مارسه من أدوار في التحريض على الأمن القوميّ من العراق إلى سورية والمقاومة اللبنانية، ثم اليمن وإيران وأفغانستان، ومن عرف علاقاته المشبوهة مع المحافظين الجدد في واشنطن إبان رئاسة بوش الابن، وما يستتبع ذلك من علاقة مع دولة الاحتلال، يُضاف إلى ذلك ما عرف عنه من فساد في صفقة اليمامة، والتي قيل إنّ حجم الرشى والعمولات التي دفعت في تلك الصفقة هي الأضخم في تاريخ الفساد.
لما كانت قناة (العربية) السعودية شبه الرسمية، هي من أجرى المقابلة، ولما كان توقيتها قد أعقب توقيع اتفاقات التطبيع الخليجية، فقد افترض العقل السليم أن المقابلة تمثل تدشيناً لخطاب إعلامي سعودي جديد، يعبّر ويتواءم مع الانهيارات الخليجية ويمثل مقدمة لسياسة سعودية جديدة تتمثل باللحاق بركب التطبيع عندما يحين الوقت المناسب.
بما أنّ مربط خيول البترودولار قد انتقل منذ زمن من لندن إلى واشنطن، وأتت نتائج الانتخابات الأميركية على غير ما يرغبون وبالضدّ من استثماراتهم في دعم المرشح الخاسر، الأمر الذي جعل من ضرورات السعودية أن تتمايز عن شركائها الذين استعجلوا التطبيع ـ وإنْ كانت قد دعمت تلك الخطوة ـ وأصبح من أولوياتها نسج علاقة مع الإدارة الأميركية الجديدة التي سبق أن أبدت عدم إعجابها بالأداء السعودي وبشكل خاص بولي العهد، وربما ستبقى قصة اغتيال الصحافي الخاشقجي السعودي الجنسية والديمقراطي الانتماء والهوى، مخرزاً في عنق ولي العهد لمعاقبته وابتزازه.
في مقلب آخر، يعاني نتنياهو من مصاعب داخلية، خاصة بعد رحيل حاميه ترامب، الأمر الذي دعاه للإلحاح على ولي العهد السعودي لزيارته في مدينة «نيوم» على أن تبقى الزيارة سراً، حتى عن الحكومة (الإسرائيلية) والجيش، ثم قام بتسريب الخبر للصحافة، نتنياهو لا يهمّه إلا مكاسبه حتى لو أخلّ بوعوده وأحرج مضيفه السعودي، الذي وقع في ارتباك وحرج. مثّل ذلك إزعاجاً بالغاً للسعودية، خاصة أنّ الزيارة لم تكن لها أية قيمة أو معانٍ سياسية أو أمنية أو اقتصادية، وإنما كانت بمنظور ولي العهد علاقات عامة لأيام مقبلة، قد يُبنى على مقتضاها التطبيع السعودي عندما تنضج الظروف ويتولى ولي العهد العرش، ولكنها بمنظور نتنياهو، هدف في ملعب خصومه في الحكومة، ونجاح يدعمه في الانتخابات القريبة وأمام جمهوره الذي قد يُسهم في خلق حالة رأي عام تدعمه أمام القضاء الذي سيمثل أمامه لا محالة.
لطالما مثلت السياسة السعودية مظهراً رزيناً وحذراً في العلن، ورسمت لنفسها صورة من الوقار والجدّية، والالتزام بثوابت الدين والسياسة، ولكن نتنياهو قد فضح المستور وبخس تلك الصورة النمطيّة الزائفة. سرعان ما جاء الردّ السعوديّ من قبل الدولة العميقة أو للدقة للعائلة السعودية العميقة، وعلى لسان تركي الفيصل رجل الاستخبارات السعودية العتيق والمحنّك، والذي يُعتبر صندوق بلاده الأسود، في خطابه في المنامة وعلى مسمع ومرأى وزير الخارجية الإسرائيلي والعالم أجمع، أراد تركي الفيصل استرجاع هيبة الدولة والعائلة ومشروعيتهما سواء الإسلامية بسدانة الحرمين وقيادة العالم الإسلامي، والسياسة بقيادة (الاعتدال العربي)، ومجلس التعاون الخليجي، وتركي الفيصل لا يريد لابن عمه ولي العهد بموقعه الرسمي أن يقع فريسة لنتنياهو وحساباته السياسية، أو لأعداء السعودية المتربّصين، الذين سبق لبندر بن سلطان أن عدّدهم بالاسم.
مَن يستمع لخطاب تركي الفيصل قد يلتبس عليه الأمر ويظنّ لوهلة، أنّ الخطيب أحد قادة معسكر المقاومة، أو أنه رجل من الزمن الجميل الذي مضى والذي كان فيه قيمة لنبرة التحدّي، اتهم تركي الفيصل (إسرائيل) بأنها دولة عنصريّة تخالف الشرائع الدولية والإنسانية، فهي تعتقل وتقتل وتهدم البيوت من دون رادع، وأنها وإنْ ادّعت أنها دولة مستهدفة وصغيرة إلا أنها دولة بغي وعدوان، وأنها لا تحمل أية قيم أخلاقيّة سامية تدعيها، ثم أنها امتداد للاستعمار الغربي، وقال غير ذلك كثيراً وللقارئ أن يعود إلى نص الخطاب.
لكن القراءة السياسية للخطاب، تلاحظ أنّ رسائل قد تسرّبت بين فقرات الحماسة والغضب، وقد تكون هي أهمّ ما في الخطاب، تركي الفيصل لا يرى في اتفاق أبراهام كتاباً منزلاً من عند الله، وإنما هو مرتفع من لدن الإدارة الأميركيّة الراحلة، وبالتالي فإنّ تعديلات يجب أن تجري عليه بحيث يقترب من مبادرة الملك فهد بن عبد العزيز 2002 في بيروت والتي عُرفت باسم المبادرة العربية للسلام، والتي يمكن اختصارها: تطبيع شامل مقابل دولة فلسطينية وسلام شامل، هذا الأمر يرى تركي الفيصل أنّ من شأنه إعادة تجميل صورة بلاده، وفي موقع آخر قال إنّ (الإسرائيلي) يصرّح برغبته بأن يكون صديقاً للسعودية، فيما يطلق كلابه من سياسيين وإعلاميين لتنهش في اللحم السعودي، وتشيطن وتشوّه صورة السعودية. وفي هذا إشارة للحملات الإعلامية (الإسرائيلية) والغربية التي تجد في ملف حقوق الإنسان في السعودية ما يُقال، كما أنه يشير بطرف خفي لتسريب الإعلام (الإسرائيلي) لخبر زيارة نتنياهو للسعودية، كما أنه بذلك يضع شرطاً مسبقاً لأيّ لقاء أو علاقة مستقبلية مع (إسرائيل)، بأنّ عليها أن تلتزم باحترام بلاده وعدم التدخل في شؤونها الداخلية وملفات حقوق الإنسان التي طالما وجدها الإعلام الغربي و(الإسرائيلي) مادة دسمة.
معروف عن تركي الفيصل قديماً أنه رائد من رواد التطبيع والعلاقة مع (إسرائيل)، سواء في ملفات الأمن أو السياسة، وقد كان من أدواته وأزلامه في هذا المجال أنور عشقي السيّئ الصيت والسمعة، وبالتأكيد أنّ تركي الفيصل لم يغادر ـ ولن يغادر اصطفافه القديم ـ ولكنه يريد ترشيد العلاقة مع (إسرائيل) وإنضاج التطبيع مع المحافظة على مكانة ودور بلاده، وإبطاء أية اندفاعة متعجلة وغير محسوبة بدقة يقوم بها ولي العهد، ولا يريد وهو من رجال العائلة العميقة أن تكون بلاده وعائلته أداة من أدوات نتنياهو في صراعه مع أشكنازي وغانتس وغيرهم من الساسة (الإسرائيليين). تركي الفيصل لم يغادر موقعه، تماماً مثل ابن عمه بندر بن سلطان، وكلاهما لم ينطق عن هوى أو عن وحي يوحى، وإنما نطق كلّ منهما حسب مستجدات السياسة، والسعودية تستجيب للمتغيّرات، كلاهما مثل العقلية السعودية التقليدية، ولكن من دون أن تتغيّر هذه السياسة او تغادر اصطفافاتها، أو تستقيل من وظيفتها.
مشاريع “السلام” الاقتصادية لا يمكن أن تخرج إلى حيّز التنفيذ من دون علاقات رسمية بين السعودية و”إسرائيل”، حتى لو طبَّعت الأخيرة مع السودان والإمارات والبحرين.
لقاء نتنياهو وابن سلمان.. لماذا إخراج السري إلى العلن؟
انشغل العالم مؤخراً باللقاء “السري” بين رئيس الحكومة الإسرائيلية بنيامين نتنياهو وولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان في مدينة “نيوم” السعودية، بمشاركة رئيس “الموساد” الإسرائيلي يوسي كوهين، وبرعاية وزير الخارجية الأميركي مارك بومبيو.
قبل انتهاء اللقاء، كان أحد المقربين من نتنياهو قد سرَّب خبراً عنه، يقول فيه إنّ “سيّده” يقوم في هذا الوقت “بصنع السلام”، ما أثار حماس وسائل الإعلام لمعرفة سبب إلغاء نتنياهو اجتماعاً كان مقرراً في ساعات المساء.
في الليلة ذاتها، وقبل إغلاق الصّحف اليومية، سُرّب الخبر أيضاً، وبشكل أوضح بكثير، إلى وسائل إعلام أميركية وإسرائيلية سمحت لها الرقابة بنشره، ويفترض أنه سري للغاية! يقول الخبر إنَّ الطّرفين بحثا مواضيع مهمّة، ولكنّهما لم يتوصّلا إلى اتفاق جوهري.
فجأة، أنكر وزير الخارجية السعودي مشاركة نتنياهو في الاجتماع، ولكنَّ مسؤولين كباراً في المملكة أكَّدوا لوسائل الإعلام الأميركية والإسرائيلية، موقع “واي نت” وصحيفة “هآرتس” و”إسرائيل اليوم”، المقربة جداً إلى نتنياهو، مشاركة نتنياهو في الاجتماع. ليس ذلك جديداً، فالعشق بين الإنكار والاعتراف هو قصة يعيشها الطرفان زمناً طويلاً تعدى مائة عام من الزمن، وانتقل من الأجداد إلى الأبناء، وابتُلي به الأحفاد أيضاً.
هنا، يُسأل السؤال: ما المواضيع التي تهم الطرفين، الإسرائيلي والسعودي، في هذه الأيام، وخصوصاً أن إدارة ترامب الجمهورية تقضي أسابيعها الأخيرة، لتأتي بدلاً منها إدارة جديدة برئاسة جو بايدن الديموقراطي؟ هل ترعى الإدارة الجديدة هذا العشق، كما رعته الإدارة المنتهية ولايتها وأرادت تحويله إلى زواج رسمي أم أنها ستبقيه عشقاً يحلم به الطرفان ويختلفان على المهر المقدم والمؤخر؟
لا يختلف مراقبان على أن المواضيع التي ناقشها الطرفان أو التي تهمهما كالتالي:
أولاً، يتفق الطرفان على موقفهما المعادي لإيران، الصامدة في وجه الإمبريالية الأميركية وطموحات الغطرسة الإسرائيلية في منطقة الشرق الأوسط، وعلى ضرورة قيام إدارة ترامب بعملية عسكرية ضدها أو إبقائها تحت العقوبات الاقتصادية المشددة حتى تخضع من دون قيد أو شرط.
لا شكّ في أنّ هذا الموضوع مرتبط بالموقف من سوريا التي تقاوم الإرهاب، ومن حزب الله الذي تتعاظم قوته في وجه “إسرائيل”. وعليه، يتفقان أيضاً على أن ما يخيفهما أو يقلقهما هو أن الإدارة الجديدة قد تنتهج نهجاً آخر لا يحقّق لهما رغبتهما في المواجهة العسكرية مع إيران. من هنا، يتفقان على ضرورة إشهار هذا التحالف غير الرسمي، في رسالة إلى الإدارة الأميركية الجديدة، خشية أن تعود إلى الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، من دون الأخذ بعين الاعتبار رغبة السعودية و”إسرائيل”.
ثانياً، يتفق الطرفان أيضاً، وفق ما جاء في وسائل الإعلام التي اعتمدت على مصادر إسرائيلية وسعودية كبرى، على أن هذه العلاقة ستشهد تطبيعاً في المستقبل، ولكنّ السعودية تشترطه بشروطها، في حين تريده “إسرائيل” مجانياً. تشترط السعودية أن يكون التطبيع بعد الاتفاق الإسرائيلي مع الفلسطينيين وفق المبادرة السعودية منذ العام 2002، وهو ما صرّح به علناً وزير الخارجية السعودي، فيصل بن فرحان، قبل حصول اللقاء أيضاً. هذا هو شرط الملك سلمان بن عبد العزيز، تقول المصادر، على الأقل لحفظ ماء الوجه، لكن من يضمن استمرار هذا الشرط في حال توفي الملك سلمان وورثه ابنه محمد المتحمس للتحالف مع “إسرائيل”؟
ثالثاً، إن الشرط الثاني للسعودية، والذي تحدَّث عنه ابن سلمان في اللقاء المذكور، هو السماح لها بأن تقيم جمعيات في القدس الشرقية وأن تموّلها، لصد التغلغل التركي في القدس كذلك في الحرم القدسي بشكل خاص. كما طلب ابن سلمان من نتنياهو بأن يسمح بإدخال ممثلين عن السعودية في دائرة الأوقاف الإسلامية في القدس، لتحجيم دور الجهات الأخرى، من مثل الأردن وتركيا.
تفيد مصادر سعوديّة مطّلعة أيضاً بأنّ ابن سلمان يخشى عقوبات أميركية ضده شخصياً في ظل إدارة بايدن. وعليه، فهو يرى في “إسرائيل” حليفاً قادراً على مساعدته لتخفيف اليد الأميركية عنه. من هنا، لا يريد أن يتنازل عن كلّ أوراقه مسبقاً، فقد حصل أأن تنازل لترامب عما يقارب نصف ترليون دولار، ولم يحصل على ما يريد لغاية الآن.
في المقابل، ووفقاً للتقديرات الإسرائيلية، فإنَّ السعودية هي “مركز المحور العربي لمناهضة إيران”، فهل تتنازل “إسرائيل” عن هذا الدور بسهولة؟ وهل هي مستعدة لأن تدفع الثمن للسعودية بالعملة الفلسطينية؟ سؤال يبقى على الطاولة، وينبئ بلقاءات مستقبلية إضافية، وربما تعقيدات أيضاً.
رابعاً: ماذا عن اليمن والضغوط الأميركية المتوقعة على السعودية لوقف الحرب الوحشية عليها، والتي لم تحقق أي إنجاز للسعودية، وكانت نتائجها كارثية لغاية الآن على الشعب اليمني وأطفاله وبنيته التحتية، وعلى الاقتصاد السعودي أيضاً؟ وهل تقدم “إسرائيل” أي مساعدة إضافية في ملف اليمن في ظلّ إدارة بايدن؟ ألم يتعلَّم السعوديون وغيرهم أنّ “إسرائيل” لا ترى فيهم إلا سوقاً لبضاعتها وأداة لتنفيذ مخططاتها الاستراتيجية، وإن قدمت لهم سلاحاً على شكل قواعد مضادة للصواريخ أو خبراء أو طيارين، فذلك لمصالح مادية، ولتوريط العرب بمجازر ضد بعضهم البعض، وهو ما يفيد “إسرائيل” ويزيد من نفوذها في الشرق الأوسط على المدى القريب والبعيد.
ماذا يخفي التطبيع الرسمي من مشاريع؟
من يراجع تاريخ ما نشر عن المشاريع الاستراتيجية للحركة الصهيونية، المتمثلة بـ”إسرائيل”، في الشرق الأوسط، يدرك أنَّ تلك المشاريع لن تخرج إلى حيز التنفيذ إلا بعد إقامة علاقات سياسية بين “إسرائيل” وبلدان الخليج العربية، أهمّها مشاريع مد أنابيب النفط والغاز من الخليج المنتِج إلى أوروبا عبر الأراضي السعودية، ومنها إلى الشواطئ والموانئ الإسرائيلية، إضافةً إلى سكة حديد تشقّ دول الخليج والأردن والعراق، وشوارع وطرقات سريعة مخطّطة وجاهزة للتنفيذ تربط بين هذه الدول والبحر المتوسط عبر “إسرائيل”، ومشاريع أمنية كبرى تحول البحر الأحمر إلى محور أمني للتعاون السعودي الإسرائيلي بالأساس ضد إيران وتركيا وغيرهما.
كل هذه المشاريع لا يمكن أن تخرج إلى حيّز التنفيذ من دون علاقات رسمية بين السعودية و”إسرائيل”، حتى لو طبَّعت الأخيرة مع السودان والإمارات والبحرين. تبقى السعودية هي “المحور الأساس”، كما يراها الإسرائيليون.
لماذا إخراج السري إلى العلن؟
انتقد بيني غانتس، رئيس الحكومة البديل، نتنياهو، لتسريب هذه اللقاءات السرية إلى العلن، معتبراً ذلك إهمالاً للمسؤولية وإضراراً بمصلحة “إسرائيل”. وأضاف: “لقد قمت بنشاطات سرية كثيرة في حياتي، ومنها ما كان بتوجيه من نتنياهو، ولكنني لم أصرح عنها”، متهماً نتنياهو بتفضيل المصلحة الشخصية على مصلحة “إسرائيل”.
أما نتنياهو، فإضافة إلى المكسب الشخصي من تسريب هذه اللقاءات، فهو ليس أول رئيس حكومة يسرب لقاءات سرية مع زعماء عرب، فقد اعتادت الصحافة الإسرائيلية أن تنشر عن لقاءات سرية بموافقة الرقابة العسكرية، وغالباً ما يكون ذلك “نقلاً عن وسائل إعلام أجنبية”، والهدف منه يكون دقّ أكبر ما يمكن من أسافين الشكّ والريبة بين الزعماء العرب، ونزع ثقة المواطن العربي بقيادات نظامه، فيضعف النظام والزعامات المتعاونة، وتصبح أكثر عرضة للابتزاز.
وحين ينزع المواطن العربي ثقته بزعامته، ويرى أنها تتعاون مع العدو، فهل سيحارب عدوه من أجل نظام خائن لشعبه؟ وهل سيمتنع رجل الأعمال عن التعاون مع “إسرائيل”، وهو يعلم أنَّ نظامه رئيسه أو ملكه أو أميره غارق في علاقاته معها؟ إنَّ الهدف الأساس من الإعلان عن هذه اللقاءات هو كيّ العصب الوطني أو ما يُسمى “كيّ الوعي” لدى جماهير الشعب، ليسهل عليها ابتلاع التطبيع والخيانة.
هذا اللقاء الأخير ليس الأخير في مسلسل العشق الممنوع بين الحركة الصهيونية والحركة الوهابية، المتمثلة بمملكة آل سعود، فقد سبق ذلك لقاءات علنية وأخرى سرية في “إسرائيل” والسعودية وأوروبا وأميركا، ورسائل غرام منها ما بقي في السر ومنها ما خرج إلى العلن، ومبادرات استرضاء منسقة مسبقاً برعاية بريطانية أو أميركية منذ مائة سنة تقريباً وحتى اليوم. ولم تكن مبادرة الأمير فهد في العام 1981 إلا واحدة منها، مروراً بمبادرة الملك عبد الله في العام 2002 وحتى اتفاقيات إبراهام بين “إسرائيل” والبحرين والإمارات التي أجريت بمباركة سعودية.
كلّ هذا المبادرات تأتي ضمن علاقات تاريخية تهدف إلى استرضاء “إسرائيل”، لتضمن الأخيرة في المقابل هيمنها على الشرق الأوسط، إلا أنها لم ترضَ ولن ترضى حتى يصبح الجميع عبيداً مستسلمين لها، كما هي عقيدتها التلمودية.
أما نتيجة هذا كله، فهو ليس إلا مزيداً من الضغط العربي على الفلسطينيين للتنازل عن حقوقهم. ورغم كل التنازلات التي قدَّمها الفلسطينيون على مدى عقود، وغداة كل مبادرة سعودية، فإنَّ ذلك لم يحفّز “إسرائيل” المتغطرسة إلا على طلب المزيد من التنازلات والمزيد من الهيمنة، فهل يفهم العرب عامة، والفلسطينيون خاصة، أن سياسة الاسترضاء، استرضاء المتغطرس، هي التي أوصلتهم إلى هذا الحضيض، وأن نهج المقاومة هو وحده الذي أجبر “إسرائيل” على التراجع في محطات مختلفة من هذا الصراع؟
David Hearst
17 November 2020 14:19 UTC | Last update: 17 hours 25 mins ago
David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.
The president-elect’s actions in the Middle East will be dictated by events. But the loss of Trump represents a body check for the ambitions and aspirations of Gulf hegemons
Then Vice President Joe Biden during a visit to Saudi Arabia in 2011 (Reuters)
You can detect the shadow of Donald Trump fading from the Middle East in the nervous twitches of his closest allies.
Sisi’s television anchors are, from one day to the next, given different scripts to read out. Take the sad case of Nashaat al-Deehy. When Biden was a candidate, al-Deehy trashed him: “Joseph Biden will become the oldest US president in the history of the United States of America. On 20 November he will be 78 years old. This will impact his mental situation and he suffers from Alzheimer’s and therefore is not fit to be president of the United States of America.”
But once the US media had called Biden president-elect, al-Deehy became respectful. “We have just learned that President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi sent a congratulations cable to US President-elect Joe Biden. This man has great respect for Egypt and is known to be wise and he listens well. He does not take decisions frantically. He does not take decisions when he’s angry. All of this was missing in the case of Donald Trump, who was violent and stubborn and arrogant. All of this we’re seeing it.”
Small gestures
The Saudi ambassador in London is in an equal turmoil. One day he hints to the Guardian that jailed women activists could be freed during the G20 summit next week.
“The G20, does it offer an opportunity for clemency? Possibly. That is a judgment for someone other than me,” said Khalid bin Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. “People ask: is it worth the damage it is causing you, whatever they did? That is a fair argument to make and it is a discussion we have back at home within our political system and within our ministry.”
The next day he calls in the BBC to deny what he has just said.
Poor ambassador.
The king himself is by no means immune from wild policy swings. He has started being nice to Turkey.
A week after the earthquake in Izmir, Salman ordered the dispatch of “urgent aid” to the city. Then we learn that the king of Bahrain Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan were in talks. The occasion was to present condolences for the death of the Bahraini Prime Minister Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa. But direct contact with a satellite of Riyadh would have been impossible without a green light from the diwan, the Saudi royal court.
Ever since Erdogan refused to let the murder of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul drop, he has become a hate figure in Riyadh. Turkey has been declared – repeatedly – a regional threat by Saudi social media and Turkish goods subject to a growing boycott. Now it has all changed.
These are small gestures, but telling ones, as Trump leaves office.
CIA bites back
Top of the list of nervous allies is the man who used Trump to fashion his rise to power.
Biden has every incentive to encourage MBS’ many enemies in the Royal family to step forward to prevent the over ambitious prince from becoming King
To become crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) had to get rid of, and trash the reputation of his elder cousin Mohammed bin Nayef, who was at the time the CIA’s prime asset in the country and the Gulf region. Before he did this, bin Salman phoned Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law and Middle East adviser, to ask permission. It was given, sources with knowledge of the call told Middle East Eye.
Biden knows bin Nayef personally. Bin Nayef’s chief of staff and former interior minister Saad al-Jabri has fled to Toronto. A few days after Khashoggi’s assassination in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018, MBS despatched another crew from the Tiger Squad to kill al-Jabri, according to a lawsuit filed under the Torture Victim Protection Act in the US District of Columbia.
Al-Jabri was lucky. Border agents at Toronto International Airport detected the operation and sent it back home. All this is active evidence. None of this has been dealt with. The CIA’s own assessment that MBS ordered Khashoggi’s killing has never been published.
It is not just Biden himself the crown prince has to fear – although the presidential candidate reserved his sharpest words for the killing of Khashoggi – but the return of the CIA to the top table of decision making in the White House.
Overnight MBS goes from having a president in the White House who “saved his ass”, as Trump put it, to a successor who is not remotely interested in doing the same. Biden has every incentive to encourage MBS’s many enemies in the royal family to step forward to prevent the over-ambitious prince from becoming king. There are enough of them, by now.
Get out of jail card
An Oval Office under new management leaves MBS with relatively few options.
He could use Israel as his get-out-of-jail card, by pushing for recognition and normalisation. There is bipartisan support in Congress for the Abraham Accords signed between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Israel.
How Mohammed bin Salman is quietly enabling an Israeli axis in the Arab world
Although the incoming Biden administration will put more emphasis on restarting direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, it would not stop another major Arab state like Saudi Arabia from joining the party.
The opposition to Saudi normalisation with Israel would be at home, not abroad. Recognising Israel would be perilous domestically. However much Saud al–Qahtani’s social media trolls bully Saudi public opinion, it is ferociously pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist.
Never more so than today, Palestine remains the key source of instability in the Middle East, the conflict that defines it, the conflict that endures as a symbol of European colonisation and Arab humiliation.
The custodian of the Two Holy Mosques recognising Israel? Not over many Muslims’ dead bodies.
Each time MBS has had to walk back on his wish to recognise Israel (and he was very near to flying to Washington and playing the role of smiling sponsor at the signing ceremony in the White House, before cancelling at the last minute) he has turned to his father, the king, to say that nothing has changed and reaffirm official state policy.
This is the Arab Peace Initiative published by his predecessor King Abdullah in 2002 and it only allows recognition of Israel after a negotiated solution has been found based on 1967 borders.
US President Donald Trump waves to supporters on 15 November (Reuters)
The loss of Trump’s “крыша” – or protective roof – and the arrival of a hostile president in Biden will mean that MBS will need his father in the post as king even more than he has done in the past. We know from Saudi sources that at one point MBS was toying with the idea of forcing his father’s premature abdication on health grounds and seizing the crown himself.
The loss of Trump’s protective roof and the arrival of a hostile president in Biden will mean that MBS will need his father in the post as king even more than he has done in the past
In his latest round of purges, MBS targeted leading members of Hay’at al-Bayaa (the Allegiance Council) whose role is to approve a royal succession and the appointment of a new crown prince.
The latest arrests to purge the Allegiance Council of his critics would only have made sense if MBS himself was intending to becoming king. But that was in good times, when bin Salman’s star was rising and he could still visit London and Washington without creating flashmobs of human rights protesters.
In bad times, the king remains the tribal chief, who commands the loyalty of the royal family and the kingdom. Regardless of Salman’s actual mental condition, he is still the head of the family and there will be no rebellion against him. The same would not apply to his son if he pushed his father aside and seized the crown. He would be fair game for a palace coup. This is probably the main reason why the father is still king.
Regional alliance
The fate of the regional alliance that a future King Mohammed was attempting to build around himself also hangs in the balance. The real fight going on in the Sunni Arab world is about who would take over as leader and Western proxy.
Biden must end Trump’s alliance with Mohammed bin Salman
The purpose of the alliance with Israel – in Emirati eyes – is not to increase wealth but power, power to become, with Saudi Arabia under King Mohammed, the regional hegemon.
That ambition still exists.
But the role that an “Arab Nato” alliance was intended to play to combat and curb Iran will now be diminished by Biden’s attempt to restore the nuclear agreement with Tehran. Iran’s rulers stared Trump in the eyes and did not blink first. They outlasted this US president as they have done to Jimmy Carter and every president who followed him.
The nuclear agreement (known as JCPOA) was Barack Obama’s crowning foreign policy achievement – although it was the fruition of years of negotiation involving many countries and past foreign ministers – the so-called P5 plus one, the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, and Turkey and Brazil before them.
However, each side’s moves are sequenced and whatever difficulties that lie on that path, Biden will pivot once more to restoring this nuclear agreement. Even if some sanctions continue, the policy of using them to exert “maximum pressure” will be over.
Detente will inevitably create a new reality in the Gulf region.
It will also create a new reality for members of the opposing alliance, Turkey and Qatar. Biden is no admirer of Erdogan, with whom he has spent many hours talking. He has apologised to Erdogan once for remarks suggesting that Turkey helped facilitate the rise of the Islamic State group. He is not about to do that again soon.
In a meeting with the New York Times’ editorial board filmed in December, Biden described Erdogan as an autocrat. Asked about how comfortable he felt with the US still basing 50 nuclear weapons in Turkey, Biden said his comfort level had “diminished a great deal” and that he would be making it clear to the Turkish leader that the US supports the opposition.
A volatile world
Once in power, Biden may find it more difficult to express this personal hostility. Whether he likes it or not, Turkey is a more confident regional military power than it was in Obama’s time.
Its military has proved itself as a counterweight to Russian military power in Syria and Libya, and it has just achieved a major breakthrough in Nagorno Karabakh, establishing for the first time access by road from the Turkish border to the Caspian Sea.
This is a strategic win for the Turkish state.
If he is going to partially lift sanctions on Iran, Biden will find that he needs Turkey as a regional counterbalance. There are today too many arenas, from Syria and Iraq to Libya, where Turkey has become a player. Biden has to deal with these “facts on the ground” whether he likes it or not.
Similarly, pressure will also now grow on Saudi Arabia to end its siege on Qatar. Their immediate neighbour, the UAE, will always regard Qatar’s pro-Islamist foreign policy as an existential threat. But the same does not apply to Riyadh, and quiet negotiations in Oman and Kuwait have already taken place.
Biden’s actions in the Middle East will be dictated by events. But the loss of Trump represents a body check for the ambitions and aspirations of Gulf hegemons.
It’s a more uncertain, volatile world.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
The father and son relationship between Saudi King Salman and his son the Crown Prince – Mohammed bin Salman [MBS] – is at crossroads regarding the methods in which normalization with the apartheid “Israeli” entity would occur; though the sand kingdom is over its head regarding the consequences of the brutal war it waged on Yemen.
MBS is interested in a normalization with the entity, while King Salman likes the so-called “Arab Peace Initiative”, but the war in Yemen and threats to the Crown Prince at home are keeping them busy.
In a rare speech this week, Salman said Saudi Arabia still adheres to the so-called “Arab Peace Initiative”, which conditions normalization on an “Israeli” withdrawal to the 1967 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state. But MBS wants to speed up normalization as part of his strategic and, above all, economic vision.
In his speech, King Salman focused on regional affairs: Iran and the “Israeli”-Palestinian so-called “peace” process – though he never mentioned the “Israeli’ entity’s normalization with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
Was he trying to prove that he’s still in control of his kingdom and that he still sets foreign policy? Is this an intergenerational dispute, pitting the son’s project against the father’s traditional attitudes?
Saudi Arabia’s decision-making processes are enigmatic, as are relationships among members of the royal family and the kingdom’s domestic and foreign-policy considerations.
Yet, Saudi-“Israeli” normalization – which Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser announced will be happening very soon – seemed to be delayed.
Moreover, it’s not clear whether the delay is a matter of principle – that is, until a Palestinian state arises, or at least until “Israeli”-Palestinian negotiations resume – as King Salman said, or only a temporary one, until MBS manages to persuade him.
The difference in the two royals’ positions also raises another question. Saudi Arabia has provided an umbrella for the latest “peace” deals. Not only did it not condemn them, it praised the UAE and Bahrain for taking this step, which was coordinated with MBS, and opened its airspace to flights to and from the “Israeli” entity.
Not to mention, the public opinion in Saudi Arabia for a historic turnabout in the sand kingdom’s relationship with the “Israeli” entity is being paved.
Though, one issue stays unresolved.
It’s clear that Riyadh need to make peace with Washington, either before or as part of a deal with the “Israeli” entity. The main dispute between them is the war in Yemen, which began after King Salman was crowned in 2015.
In this war, the Saudi and UAE armies have treated Yemen’s civilian population brutally and used American weapons to do so. More than 125,000 people have been martyred, including 14,000 who were killed in deliberate attacks on civilian targets.
Hence, the Saudis’ aggression on Yemen has reappeared on the Washington agenda due to a partially classified report on US involvement in the conflict written by the State Department’s inspector general. The document’s unclassified sections, which were reported in the American media, reveal the magnitude of war crimes by Saudi and Emirati forces and their mercenaries, to the point that the US faces a risk of prosecution at the International Criminal Court.
Oona Hathaway, a former Department of Defense lawyer and now a Yale professor, told The New York Times: “If I were in the State Department, I would be freaking out about my potential for liability. I think anyone who’s involved in this program should get themselves a lawyer.”
Public and international pressure led Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, to freeze an arms deal with Riyadh in 2016 as a way of pressuring the Saudis to change their tactics in Yemen. One year later, Trump reversed that decision and opened the floodgates of US arms sales to the Saudis.
To Trump, Saudi Arabia, he said, has “nothing but cash,” which it uses to buy American services, protection and other goods. Regarding the slaughter of civilians in Yemen, he said the Saudis “don’t know how to use” American weapons.
Congress didn’t believe Trump’s explanations, and in April 2019, it passed a bipartisan resolution calling for an end to US military involvement in Yemen. Trump vetoed the resolution and circumvented the ban on arms sales to Riyadh by declaring a state of emergency over Iran, which allowed him to continue complying with Saudi requests.
The US government did budget $750 million to train Saudi soldiers and pilots on fighting in populated areas, with the goal of reducing harm to civilians. It also gave the Saudis a list of 33,000 targets they shouldn’t strike. But the Saudis don’t seem to have been overly impressed, and violations continue to this day.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, the UAE understood the dangers of its involvement in the war in Yemen and withdrew its forces, overcoming the ban on selling it F-35 fighter jets and other arms. It then overcame the “Israeli” obstacle by signing this month’s so-called “peace” deal.
MBS, who started the war in Yemen along with his father, is still wallowing in the Yemeni swamp that has complicated his relationship with the US. And that’s on top of his resounding failures in managing the Kingdom’s foreign policy, like forcing then-Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to resign, imposing a blockade on Qatar, waging an unsuccessful oil war with Russia that sent prices plummeting and abandoning the Palestinian issue.
Domestic issues haven’t gone that well for MBS either. His Vision 2030 is stumbling. The Kingdom’s treasury has had problems funding megalomaniac projects like his city of the future, which is supposed to involve three countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan), diversify Saudi Arabia’s sources of income and reduce its dependence on oil. So far, it remains on paper.
He did boast an impressive achievement in the war on corruption when he detained dozens of billionaires at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and shook them down, but this was more about squeezing his political rivals’ windpipes than fighting corruption.
Accordingly, MBS can only envy his friend, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed [MBZ], the UAE’s de facto ruler who extricated his country from the war in Yemen and became Washington’s darling – not only because he normalized ties with the “Israeli” entity. And above all, he isn’t surrounded by hostile relatives.
So the question arises: Did all this happen in defiance of Salman’s wishes?
MBS who according to US intelligence didn’t hesitate to put his own mother under house arrest and keep her away from his father for fear she would work against him – may also prove to be someone who doesn’t see obeying his parents as a cardinal virtue. King Salman may be able to give speeches in support of the Palestinians, but his son, as defense minister, has the power to stage a coup against his father if he thinks this will serve him or his agenda, which might yet include normalizing ties with “Israeli” entity.
Although Saudi Arabia has made its official position on the region’s longest-running conflict clear, claiming that full ties between the kingdom and the Zionist entity can only happen when ‘peace’ is reached with the Palestinians, state-backed Saudi media and clerics are signaling change is already underway with ‘Israel.’
It is a matter that can only happen under the directives of the country’s heir, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman [MBS].
“It’s no secret there’s a generational conflict,” said New York-based Rabbi Marc Schneier, who serves as an advisor to Bahrain’s king and has held talks in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to promote stronger ties with the ‘Israeli’ entity.
Gulf capitals have been increasingly looking to the Palestine-occupier entity as an ally to defend against common rival Iran amid quiet concerns about the direction of US foreign policy and the uncertainty around the upcoming presidential election. But it’s not only countering Iran that’s brought ‘Israel’ and Arab states closer in recent years.
The rabbi said the former Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Khalid bin Salman, told him that the top priority of his brother, MBS, is reforming the Saudi economy.
“He said these exact words: ‘We will not be able to succeed without ‘Israel’.’ So for the Saudis, it’s not a question of ‘if,’ it’s a question of ‘when.’ And there’s no doubt that they will establish relations with ‘Israel’,” Schneier said.
Prominent Saudi royal, Prince Turki al-Faisal, insisted that “any talk of a rift between the king and the crown prince is mere speculation.”
“We’ve seen none of that,” said the prince, who served for years as head of intelligence and briefly as ambassador to the US.
In a phone call with US President Donald Trump on September 6, King Salman repeated his commitment to the Arab ‘Peace’ Initiative, according to the state-run Saudi Press Agency. The initiative offers ‘Israel’ normal ties with Arab states in return for Palestinian statehood on territory the Zionist entity occupied in 1967 — a deal that starkly contradicts the Trump administration’s Middle East so-called ‘Deal of the Century’.
When the White House announced last month the United Arab Emirates and ‘Israel’ agreed to establish full diplomatic ties — a move matched by Bahrain weeks later — Saudi Arabia refrained from criticizing the deal or hosting summits condemning the decision, despite Palestinian requests to do so.
It also approved the use of Saudi airspace for ‘Israeli’ flights to the UAE, a decision announced the day after Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, met with Prince Mohammed in Riyadh. Kushner has been pushing Arab states to normalize ties with the Zionist entity.
Prince Turki said Arab states should demand a high price for normalizing ties with ‘Israel.’ He said ‘Israel’ remains “the stumbling block in all of these efforts.”
Relatively, Raghida Dergham, a longtime Arab columnist and co-chair with Prince Turki of the Beirut Institute Summit in Abu Dhabi, said younger generations in the Middle East want normality rather than a confiscation of ambitions and dreams.
“They want solutions not a perpetuation of rejection,” said Dergham, whose Beirut Institute e-policy circles have tackled questions about the future of the region and its youth.
When the UAE-‘Israel’ deal was announced in August, the top trending hashtag on Twitter in Saudi Arabia was against normalization with ‘Israel.’ Still, public criticism in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain has largely been muted, in part because these governments suppress free speech.
“It is very hard to get accurate data, even when polling people,” said Yasmine Farouk, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Farouk said public opinion on ‘Israel’ in Saudi Arabia is diverse and complex, with opinions varying among different age groups and among liberals and conservatives. She said there is an effort to prepare the Saudi public for change and to shape public debate around ‘Israel.’
As Saudi Arabia prepares to mark its 90th National Day on Wednesday, clerics across the country were directed to deliver sermons about the importance of obeying the ruler to preserve unity and peace.
Earlier this month, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, delivered another state-backed sermon on the importance of dialogue in international relations and kindness to non-Muslims, specifically mentioning Jews.
He concluded by saying the Palestinian cause must not be forgotten, but his words caused a stir on social media, with many seeing the remarks as further evidence of the groundwork being laid for Saudi-‘Israeli’ ties.
The English-language Saudi daily, Arab News, which has been featuring op-eds by rabbis, changed its social media banner on Twitter this past Friday to say “Shana Tova,” the Jewish New Year greeting.
تأسست جامعة الدول العربية أعقاب اندلاع الحرب العالمية الثانية، وبغضّ النظر عن كونها صنيعة بريطانية وفقاً لتصريحات أنتوني ايدن وزير خارجية بريطانيا عام 1943 بأن بريطانيا لا تمانع في قيام أي اتحاد عربي بين الدول العربية، أو وفقاً لما قدمه وحيد الدالي (مدير مكتب أمين عام جامعة الدول العربية عبد الرحمن عزام) في كتابه «أسرار الجامعة العربية» بأن ذلك غير صحيح، وحقيقة الأمر أنه أصدر هذا التصريح ليطمئن العرب على مستقبلهم بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، وفي الوقت نفسه كان عبارة عن مزايدة سياسية اقتضتها ظروف الحرب بين ألمانيا وبريطانيا، وقد أعلنت الحكومة الألمانية على لسان هتلر، أنه في حالة كسب المانيا الحرب، فإنها تضمن سلامة الدول العربية، وتؤكد وتؤيد استقلالها، وتعمل على إيجاد اتحاد في ما بينها، فقد أدرك العرب بعد انتهاء الحرب العالمية الثانية، أنّ الاستمرار بتكريس التجزئة، وفرض سياسة الأمر الواقع، سيجعل الشعوب العربية ترزح تحت الاحتلال الأجنبي، ويصبح الحصول على الاستقلال صعباً، لذلك بدأ التحرك والمشاورات للبحث عن صيغة مناسبة لتوحيد الجهود العربية، وقد تمّ الاتفاق على توجيه مصر الدعوة إلى العراق وشرق الأردن والسعودية وسورية ولبنان واليمن، وهي الدول التي كانت قد حصلت على استقلالها، ولو أنّ ذلك الاستقلال لم يكن كاملا، وكانت الدعوة بقصد عقد اجتماع لممثلي تلك الدول، لتبادل الرأي في موضوع الوحدة.
صادقت على هذا البروتوكول خمس دول عربية في 7 تشرين الأول عام 1944، ويعد هذا البروتوكول الأرضية التي بني عليها ميثاق إنشاء الجامعة، وفي 22 آذار عام 1945 تمّ التوقيع على الصيغة النهائية لنص الميثاق.
ولكن هل التزمت جامعة الدول العربية بقضايا العرب؟
بقيت القضية الفلسطينية حاضرة دوما على جدول أعمال معظم القمم العربية، منذ القمة العربية الأولى عام 1946 التي أكدت عروبة فلسطين، بوضعها «القلب في المجموعة العربية»، وأنّ مصيرها مرتبط بمصير دول الجامعة العربية كافةً، معتبرة أنّ الوقوف أمام خطر الصهيونية واجب على الدول العربية والشعوب الإسلامية جميعا، وظلت مؤتمرات القمة العربية تؤكد خلال العقود الفائتة مركزية هذه القضية بوصفها قضية العرب جميعا، معتبرة أن النضال من أجل استعادة الحقوق العربية في فلسطين مسؤولية قومية عامة، وعلى جميع العرب المشاركة فيها.
إلا أنه في حقيقة الأمر وبتنفيذ الأنظمة الرجعية العربية دورها في الأجندة الصهيوأميركية، لم تعد فلسطين قضية العرب المركزية، ومسؤولية قومية عامة، بل طغت عليها وخصوصاً في السنوات الأخيرة قضايا أخرى راحت تحتل موقع الأولوية، ولم يعد الخطر الصهيوني يمثل تهديداً للأمن القومي العربي بل تم حرف البوصلة نحو مزاعم (الخطر الإيراني)… وبدأت بوادر ذلك في قمة فاس العربية في المغرب عام 1982، بمبادرة الأمير فهد بن عبد العزيز التي تضمّنت اعترافاً ضمنياً بالكيان الصهيوني كدولة، ومن بعدها قمة بيروت عام 2002 التي تبنّت «مبادرة السلام العربية» التي طرحها الملك عبد الله بن عبد العزيز التي اعتبرت أنّ انسحاب «إسرائيل» الكامل من الأراضي العربية المحتلة عام 1967، والتوصل إلى حلّ عادل لمشكلة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين يتفق عليها وفقاً لقرار الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة رقم 194، وقبول قيام دولة فلسطينية مستقلة ذات سيادة على الأراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة منذ الرابع من حزيران عام 1967 تكون عاصمتها القدس الشرقية، هو شرط ومدخل اعتبار الصراع العربي الصهيوني منتهياً، ودخول الدول العربية في اتفاقية سلام بينها وبين الكيان الصهيوني، وإنشاء علاقات طبيعية معه في إطار هذا السلام الشامل.
وبالإمعان ببقية التفاصيل التي سنأتي على ذكرها لاحقاً عن كتاب شمعون بيريز «الشرق الأوسط الجديد» الذي صدر عام 1993، أو المؤتمرات الاقتصادية التي تلت ذلك في الدار البيضاء في المغرب عام 1994، وفي عمان 1995، وفي مصر 1996، إلى ورشة المنامة الاقتصادية، ومشروع نيوم، إلى محاولات تطويع الدراما ووسائل التواصل الاجتماعي وتفاصيل أخرى في تطبيع مشيخات الخليج مع الكيان الصهيوني بمجال الرياضة والسياحة والثقافة لتكون عوناً في غسل أدمغة الجماهير نحو تصفية القضية الفلسطينية، نجد أنها ليست إلا خطوات وتكتيكات مدروسة وممنهجة في إطار مشروع بيريز الذي دعا إلى قيام نظام إقليمي شرق أوسطي يقوم على أساس التعاون والتكامل بين العرب والكيان الصهيوني في شتى المجالات السياسية والاقتصادية والعلمية، وفي ما يلي التفاصيل:
1
ـ اعتمد بيريز في مشروعه على تحليل واقعي مفاده سقوط مضمون نظريات العمق الاستراتيجي، والاستراتيجية التقليدية القائمة على «الوقت والفراغ والكم» مع التطور التكنولوجي وتطور الصواريخ الباليستية للانتقال بأن الاقتصاد هو العقيدة البديلة، وبناء على ذلك كتب بيريز في كتابه: «يمكن لنا أن نبدأ في نقطة البحر الأحمر، فقد تغيرت شطآن البحر الأحمر مع الزمن، وأصبحت مصر والسودان واريتريا تقع على أحد الجوانب فيما تقع (إسرائيل) والأردن والسعودية على الجانب الآخر، وهذه البلدان تجمعها مصلحة مشتركة، ويمكن القول أنه لم يعد هناك أسباب للنزاع، فاثيوبيا من بعد نظام منجستو واريتريا المستقلة حديثاً تريدان إقامة علاقات سليمة مع جاراتها بما في ذلك (إسرائيل)، في حين أن مصر وقعت بالفعل اتفاقية سلام مع (إسرائيل)، أما الأردن والسعودية واليمن فتريد تأمين حرية الملاحة والصيد وحقوق الطيران»، كما كشف في كتابه كيف سيبدأ التطبيع الكبير عندما قال» ويمكننا كخطوة أولى التركيز على القضايا الإنسانية مثل التعاون في عمليات الإنقاذ البحري والجوي وإقامة شبكة اتصالات للإنذار المبكر من المناورات البرية والبحرية، كما ويمكن الحفاظ على النظام الإقليمي من خلال المشاريع والأبحاث المشتركة، تطوير مصادر الغذاء من البحر، وكذلك السياحة، أما إقامة حلف استراتيجي فستكون خطوة ممكنة في مرحلة متقدمة»، وحدّد ملامح الشرق الاوسط الجديد بقوله» بالنسبة للشرق الأوسط فإنّ الانتقال من اقتصاد صراع إلى اقتصاد السلام سوف يعني حصر المصادر لتطوير بنية تحتية تلائم هذا العصر الجديد من السلام، وإنّ بناء الطرق وتمديد خطوط السكك الحديدية وتحديد المسارات الجوية وربط شركات النقل وتحديث وسائل الاتصالات، وتوفير النفط والماء في كل مكان، وانتاج البضائع والخدمات عن طريق الكمبيوتر، سوف يفتح حياة جديدة في الشرق الأوسط».
2
ـ إذا ما دققنا النظر في سطور كتاب بيريز سنجد أن ما ذكره وضع تصوّراً دقيقاً لما يدور في منطقتنا في وقتنا الحالي، بإعلان ولي العهد السعودي عن إقامته (مدينة نيوم) التي ستقع في الشمال الغربي للمملكة، وستضم اراضي مصرية وأراضي اردنية على مساحة 26 ألف كلم2، يخدم فقط مشروع شمعون بيريز وكل أحلامه الواردة في كتابه آنف الذكر، حيث ووفق ما تم إعلانه فإن مدينة نيوم ستعمل على مستقبل الطاقة والمياه ومستقبل التقنيات الجوية، ومستقبل العلوم التقنية، ومستقبل الترفيه، وهذه القطاعات ذكرها كلها بيريز في كتابه، ولاننسى أنه في عام 2015 فازت مجموعة شنغهاي للموانئ بمناقصة دولية لتطوير ميناء حيفا لينتهي العمل به في عام 2021، ليكون جاهزا لمد خطوط السكك الحديدية من الكويت والرياض، و جدير بالذكر أن 90٪ من مشروع السكك الحديدية موجود مسبقاً منذ أيام الدولة العثمانية، واستكماله لن يحتاج كثيرا من الجهود.
3
ـ إنّ عقد مؤتمرات القمم الاقتصادية التي ضمت وفوداً من الكيان الصهيوني والولايات المتحدة الأميركية والدول الأوروبية والآسيوية والدول العربية على مستوى رؤساء دول وحكومات باستثناء سورية ولبنان في الدار البيضاء عام 1994، وفي عمان 1995، وفي القاهرة 1996، وفي الدوحة 1997 تحت عنوان عريض «التعاون الإقليمي والتنمية الاقتصادية»، وكذلك ورشة المنامة في البحرين عام 2019 التي دعا إليها جاريد كوشنر كجزء من مبادرة ترامب للسلام في الشرق الأوسط والمعروفة باسم «صفقة القرن»، ليست إلا تكريسا لمشروع بيريز الذي قال في كتابه «يجب إجبار العرب على سلام مقابل المساهمة في تطوير القطاعات الاقتصادية والتكنولوجية كمحفزات لقبول (إسرائيل)، هدفها النهائي هو خلق أسرة إقليمية من الأمم ذات سوق مشتركة وهيئات مركزية مختارة على غرار الجماعة الأوروبية.
4
ـ خطوات التطبيع العلنية الأخيرة التي بدأت بالإمارات والبحرين إلى أنظمة أخرى تقف في الطابور ليست إلا تنفيذا لرؤية بيريز الصهيونية الممتدة عبر الزمن على مراحل، والتي ترى بالنتيجة عدم جدوى المفهوم العسكري لضمان أمن الكيان الصهيوني ويجب اعتماد طريق التكامل والاندماج في محيطها تحقيقا لأهدافها وبقائها كقوة عظمى تسيطر وتتسيّد أمنياً واقتصادياً.
5
ـ في إطار هذه الرؤية تندرج استدامة الصراع الداخلي في ليبيا بين قوى مدعومة من أطراف دولية وفقاً لضابط الإيقاع الأميركي، وحرب اليمن، واستمرار استنزاف سورية، ومزيداً من تعقيد الوضع الداخلي اللبناني بعد حادثتي تفجير وحريق مرفأ بيروت، وسد النهضة الإثيوبي، وقلاقل العديد من الدول العربية… لتهيئة البيئة اللازمة لإتمام مشروع بيريز بانصياع ملوك وامراء ورؤساء الأنظمة الرجعية للأوامر الأميركية التي يصدرها ترامب على الإعلام أولا فيهرولون منفذين.
6
ـ في المقلب الآخر وأمام حلف الحرب الأميركي (الإسرائيلي) الخليجي هناك حلف إقليمي نواته إيران وسورية وقوى المقاومة في العراق ولبنان واليمن وفلسطين المحتلة بات أكثر قوة وتماسكاً بإمكانيات تقنية، عسكرية، استخبارية وعقيدة وإرادة قتالية يهدد وجود الكيان الصهيوني الذي لا زال يقف على اجر ونص منذ قرابة شهرين، وعروش الأنظمة الرجعية التي أصبحت ضمن بنك أهداف حلف المقاومة إذا وقعت الواقعة وكانت الحرب الكبرى.
وأخيراً تتحدث الوقائع عن انهيار منظومة القطب الواحد، وبداية تبلور عالم جديد بتحالفات إقليمية ودولية سياسية اقتصادية عسكرية من نوع جديد لن يكون جيش واشنطن الجديد المتقدّم عثرة في إرساء روائزها.
As the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on with no end in sight, Israel and the US have launched an all-out push to resolve the conflict once and for all, on Israel’s terms. If the manoeuvre is successful, Israel will end up with all of the territories it conquered during the 1967 war, including all of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem and most of the Palestinian Territories, including the best sources of water and agricultural land. The West Bank will find itself in the same situation as the Gaza strip, cut off from the outside world and surrounded by hostile Israeli military forces and Israeli settlements.
Palestine in the regional and international geopolitical context
The current economic, political and social situation in Palestine must be considered in the regional context. Two aspects are of most immediate relevance in this sense: the first is the long running confrontation between the US, Israel, the Saudis and the UAE (along with their other allies and associates) and the ‘Axis of Resistance’.
The second geopolitical development that is of fundamental significance for the Palestinian people is the attempt by Israel (with the emphatic support of the Trump administration and most of the US Congress) to resolve the ‘Palestinian question’ by normalizing relations with as many Arab and Muslim countries as possible while at the same time proceeding with the plan to annex large chunks of Palestinian territory and keeping the Palestinian inhabitants in conditions of severe deprivation and isolation.
In each instance there are broad similarities but also some significant differences in the postures of different countries and international organizations to these two key topics. There are also the superimposed bilateral and multilateral confrontations and rivalries, of which the mutual antagonism between Iran and the US, Israel and the Saudis is one of the most important. There is also the rivalry between Turkey, the Saudis and Iran to be considered the ‘leader’ of the Muslim world, and a deepening enmity and confrontation between Turkey and Egypt. All of these elements and opposing forces are also deeply involved in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.
The ‘Axis of Resistance’ comprises the countries and groups determined to confront the efforts by the US and Israel to impose their hegemony over the course developments take, the core of which consists of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. Other Muslim and Arab countries are not willing to directly confront the US and Israel, or are allied to greater or lesser degree with them against Iran and the other members of the resistance (the Saudis in particular).
The topic of the normalization of relations with Israel prior to a conclusive peace agreement with the Palestinians has also polarized the region since the deal concluded between the UAE and Israel. Most Arab and Muslim countries have stated that they will not be normalizing relations with Israel as yet, and that they remain committed to the Arab Peace Initiative, notwithstanding that many already have significant unofficial and semi-covert relations with Israel.
While Russia and to a lesser extent China are cooperating with the members of the Axis of Resistance in Syria to defeat the foreign-backed terrorist groups that continue to occupy and ravage some parts of the country, most now concentrated in Idlib province, they are understandably reluctant to become directly involved in the military confrontation with the US and Israel that is taking place there. While the European Union generally goes along with the US and Israel on many issues, most of its member countries have clearly stated that they do not and will not support Israel’s annexation of occupied Palestinian territories.
A broader consideration of each country’s reactions to these parallel developments – the emergence and consolidation of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ and the normalization of relations with Israel – also provides important insights into the current political trajectory and objectives of the dominant political factions in each country in the region, though the nature and configuration of the opposing social and political forces and the internal dynamics that have produced that trajectory must be considered separately in each instance.
This is just and true and revealing in the case of the internal politics of the predominantly Judaeo-Christian denominated Western countries – United States, Israel and Europe (as well as Australia and New Zealand) – as it is in the predominantly Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
In the United States, the Israel-Palestine conflict and associated disputes in the Middle East is one of the most polarizing political issues in terms of international events, and each side can find support among a wide range of social sectors, political organizations and social movements. While most of the Congress and the White House invariably support Israel, the Palestinian cause can count on the support of a small number of members of Congress and numerous civil society organizations and social movements.
Two first-term Congresswoman in particular, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, have drawn the ire of the corporate press and many of their political opponents (including from their supposed allies in the Democratic Party). In 2019 Israel barred them from entering Israel or the Palestinian territories, a decision that was encouraged and applauded by the Trump administration and by Donald Trump personally.
US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said the US “supports and respects” Israel’s decision to deny entry to Tlaib and Omar.
“This trip, pure and simple, is nothing more than an effort to fuel the (boycott movement) engine that Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar so vigorously support,” Friedman said in a statement released Thursday evening.
Slamming the boycott movement as “economic warfare designed to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the Jewish State,” Friedman defended Israel’s right to deny entry to those who support a boycott of the country. LINK
The criticism and condemnation of their strong statements in support of the rights of the Palestinian people in ‘the corridors of power’ in Washington and the US corporate media is probably matched only by their popularity on ‘the Arab street’.
The two main contenders for the presidency in November’s elections, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, are both ardent supporters and promoters of Israel, and the Palestinians can only expect vocal opposition to recognition of their rights from that quarter unless a surprise candidate emerges in the meantime.
Many people are trying to persuade ex-Navy SEAL and former governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura to run for the presidency; if that were to occur, it might be possible that he could garner sufficient popular support to challenge what appears set to be a one horse race between the Republicans and Democrats at this stage.
The Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement has been an attempt by civil society groups to contest and counteract the clear favouritism for Israel against Palestine that exists within the upper echelons of the two main political parties, and therefore the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon, and high-level State officials.
The BDS movement is present worldwide, and faces basically similar conditions in all Western countries (in Europe, Australia and New Zealand) – that is, very pro-Israel ruling political parties which determine all government policies on the matter, which do not reflect a much more non-partisan, evenly split (between ‘pro-Israel’ and ‘pro-Palestine’ sentiments) or even pro-Palestinian rights attitude within society more generally. The BDS movement has been strongly condemned by most members of the Congress and the corporate media, as well as by many state legislatures in the US.
The entrenched bipartisan pro-Israel attitude in the US includes commitments to provide at least $3billion of financial and military support annually for consecutive 10-year periods, close military and technological cooperation and support in all fields, and the promise to ensure that Israel maintains a ‘qualitative edge’ over any and all possible opponents in the Middle East, irrespective of Israel’s foreign policies and objectives and what Israel does with the weapons the US provides. Nothing at all is offered to the Palestinians.
The US also provides strong diplomatic support for Israel, taken to new levels during the Trump administration which has moved the US embassy to Jerusalem after recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and endorsed the Israeli occupation of and assertion of sovereignty over the Golan Heights, both decisions in contravention of all international laws and over forty years of almost unanimous UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on the matter (usually, the only votes against being the US, Israel and a small number of tiny US-dependent countries). The US has vetoed all resolutions in the Security Council critical of Israel regardless of the circumstances, with one exception towards the end of Obama’s presidency which called on Israel to withdraw from all occupied Palestinian territories and emphasized that all Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories are illegal.
Closer to the location in Europe, civil society groups and some politicians – rarely from the ruling parties – have formed alliances and campaigns to support the rights of the Palestinians, including the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement. The Freedom Flotilla, which has attempted to breach Israel and Egypt’s strict economic and physical blockade of Gaza and deliver food and medicines on several occasions, is one significant example. The flotilla that attempted to breach the blockade in 2010 was intercepted, the crew and passengers accompanying them in an act of solidarity were arrested and imprisoned, and the ships and cargos confiscated.
The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation conducted by Israeli commandos against six civilian ships of the ‘Gaza Freedom Flotilla’ on 31 May 2010 in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea. Ten activists were killed during the raid and many more wounded. Ten Israeli soldiers were wounded, one seriously.
Numerous other attempts have been made to deliver food and medicine, however none have succeeded in breaching the blockade. Plans to send another Freedom Flotilla to Gaza in May of this year were interrupted by the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic, however the organizers still intend to set sail for Gaza when global health and travel restrictions permit. LINK
The situation in Gaza
The Palestinian territories have been rocked by extremely asymmetrical clashes and fighting since the 1980s, in which Israel has not hesitated to deploy the full weight of its vastly superior firepower against the occupants of the Gaza strip in particular. The first round of sustained open conflict broke out in 1987:
Intifada, also spelled intifadah, Arabic intifāḍah (“shaking off”), refers to two popular uprisings of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip aimed at ending Israel’s occupation of those territories and creating an independent Palestinian state. The first intifada began in December 1987 and ended in September 1993 with the signing of the first Oslo Accords, which provided a framework for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The second intifada, sometimes called the Al-Aqṣā intifada, began in September 2000. Although no single event signalled its end, most analysts agree that it had run its course by late 2005. The two uprisings resulted in the death of more than 5,000 Palestinians and some 1,400 Israelis. LINK
Israel imposed a strict physical and economic blockade on Gaza in 2007 after HAMAS won the legislative elections in the Gaza strip. The PLO won the elections in the West Bank, and Mahmoud Abbas was declared president. For almost the entire period since then Egypt has also closed its border with Gaza and prevented the movement of all people and goods.
The Palestinian economy had already been devastated during the second Intifada, and the strict blockade and isolation imposed by Israel and Egypt has ensured that there has been no significant economic recovery. With a population of just under 5 million in the Palestinian territories (with well over a million more Palestinians living in impoverished refugee camps in neighbouring countries), average annual GDP per capita has hovered around $2000 per capita in the West Bank and closer to $800-900 per capita in Gaza.
Agriculture accounts for approximately 10% of GDP, light industry 23% and services around 65% of total GDP and broadly similar proportions of employment. Palestine’s main exports are olives, citrus fruit, vegetables, limestone, flowers and textiles. The main imports are food, consumer goods and construction materials. Unemployment has been estimated at around 20-30% of the workforce since the start of the second Intifada, and youth unemployment has usually been significantly above 40%. The Palestine economy and society have been pushed into a condition of stasis and dependency on foreign ‘aid’.
Palestine GDP 1995-2020
Palestine GSP per capita 2010-2018
Unemployment rate in Palestine 1995-2020
Youth unemployment in Palestine
Top 10 Trading Partners (2018)
Palestine exports:
Palestine Exports By Country
Value
Year
Israel
$967.46M
2018
Jordan
$73.95M
2018
United Arab Emirates
$26.41M
2018
Saudi Arabia
$21.01M
2018
United States
$14.53M
2018
Kuwait
$9.12M
2018
Turkey
$7.76M
2018
Qatar
$7.26M
2018
United Kingdom
$6.47M
2018
Germany
$2.09M
2018
Palestine imports:
Palestine Imports By Country
Value
Year
Israel
$3.62B
2018
Turkey
$657.81M
2018
China
$424.92M
2018
Germany
$209.32M
2018
Jordan
$188.61M
2018
Italy
$110.31M
2018
France
$110.25M
2018
Egypt
$93.79M
2018
Ukraine
$88.59M
2018
Saudi Arabia
$87.65M
2018
Source: Trading Economics
The already crippled Palestinian economy received another devastating blow in 2008-2009 when the Israeli leadership launched ‘Operation Cast Lead’, a period of massive air and artillery strikes against the entire Gaza enclave. The Institute for Middle East Understanding summarized the impact of the prolonged military operation on Gaza’s infrastructure, population and economy:
According to investigations by independent Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations, between 1,385 and 1,419 Palestinians were killed during Cast Lead, a majority of them civilians, including at least 308 minors under the age of 18. More than 5000 more were wounded. Thirteen Israelis were also killed, including 3 civilians.
According to the UN, 3,540 housing units were completely destroyed, with another 2,870 sustaining severe damage.
More than 20,000 people – many of them already refugees, some two or three times over – were made homeless.
Attacks on Gaza’s electricity infrastructure caused an estimated $10 million in damage, according to the Israeli advocacy group Gisha.
268 private businesses were destroyed, and another 432 damaged, at an estimated cost of more than $139 million, according to an assessment by the Private Sector Coordination Council, a Palestinian economic group. A separate report found that 324 factories and workshops were damaged during the war.
According to the UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides services to Palestinian refugees, the offensive damaged almost 20,000 meters (approx. 12 miles) of water pipes, four water reservoirs, 11 wells, and sewage networks and pumping stations. Israeli shelling also damaged 107 UNRWA installations.
Eighteen schools, including 8 kindergartens, were destroyed, and at least 262 others damaged. Numerous Palestinian government buildings, including police stations, the headquarters of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and part of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ compound, were also destroyed.
Ten years later, a report in The Guardian reviewing the context of the military operation surmised:
On 27 December 2008, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, pounding the densely populated strip from the air, sea and land for 22 days. It was not a war or even “asymmetric warfare” but a one-sided massacre. Israel had 13 dead; the Gazans had 1,417 dead, including 313 children, and more than 5,500 wounded. According to one estimate 83% of the casualties were civilians. Israel claimed to be acting in self-defence, protecting its civilians against Hamas rocket attacks. The evidence, however, points to a deliberate and punitive war of aggression. Israel had a diplomatic alternative, but it chose to ignore it and to resort to brute military force.
For its part, the Jewish Virtual Library states of developments leading up to the military operation:
Hamas seized power from the Palestinian Authority (PA) in what amounted to a coup in June 2007. This allowed them to confiscate armored vehicles and weapons given to the PA by Israel, the United States and other countries. In addition, the group manufactured its own mortars and rockets while smuggling in from Egypt more sophisticated rockets provided by Iran.
Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza fired about 2,000 rockets into Israel, killing four Israeli civilians and injuring 75 others. The bombardment continued in the first half of 2008.
On June 19, 2008, Egypt brokered a six-month pause in hostilities that required Hamas to end rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. Hamas was also expected to halt its military buildup in Gaza and release an Israeli soldier it was holding hostage. In exchange, Israel agreed to ease the blockade of Gaza and to halt military raids into Gaza. As part of the deal Egypt promised to stop the smuggling of arms and weapons from its territory into Gaza.
Throughout the fall, Israel and Hamas accused each other of violating the Egyptian-mediated truce. Rocket fire from Gaza never stopped entirely and weapons smuggling continued. Hamas insisted Israel never allowed the expected amount of goods to flow into Gaza and of conducting raids that killed Hamas fighters.
Despite discussions by both sides aimed at extending the cease-fire, violence continued. On December 24, an Israeli airstrike targeted terrorists who had fired mortars at Israel. Hamas subsequently fired a barrage of rockets and mortars into Israel and warned it would put thousands of Israelis “under fire.”
The next day, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned Hamas to stop attacking Israel, but the terrorists responded with another salvo of rockets.
At 11:30 a.m. on December 27, 2008, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead. It began with a wave of airstrikes in which F-16 fighter jets and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters simultaneously struck 100 targets within a span of 220 seconds. Thirty minutes later, a second wave of 64 jets and helicopters struck an additional 60 targets. The air strikes hit Hamas headquarters, government offices and 24 police stations.
Israeli Air and Naval Forces struck Hamas terrorist cell headquarters throughout the Gaza Strip including a Hamas training base and outposts as well as Hamas government complexes. They also attacked rocket launchers and Grad missile stockpiles. Houses of senior Hamas and Jihad terrorists were targeted along with dozens of tunnels that have been used to pass weaponry into Gaza.
Hamas was caught by surprise. The Israeli government had leaked information to the Israeli press suggesting an attack was not imminent. Many Hamas terrorists had come out of hiding; consequently, approximately 140 members of the group were killed the first day, including Tawfik Jaber, head of Hamas’ police force. The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, a day that was called the “Massacre of Black Saturday” by Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas responded with a rocket barrage on southern Israel.
The Palestinian economy is still languishing under the Israeli/ Egyptian blockade and the Palestinian territories continue to be rocked by intermittent intensification of the permanent condition of ‘low-intensity’ conflict, the most recent escalation in military attacks against the enclave lasting for about two weeks in August during which hundreds of explosives-laden and incendiary balloons were released toward Israel and Israel conducted nightly bombing raids on the besieged Palestinian enclave.
A ceasefire was announced at the end of the month pursuant to which Hamas promised to attempt to prevent any more fire kites or incendiary balloons from being released and Israel promised to let some essential goods into Gaza including fuel for Gaza’s sole power plant which has often only been operating for a few hours a day due to chronic fuel shortages.
Whether coincidental or not, the announcement of the ceasefire coincided with the first official Israel/ US delegation to the UAE to discuss details of the ‘normalization’ of relations. On the same day, Israel sent military bulldozers into Gazan territory to clear land and build earthen barricades along the border.
Normalization for the people of Gaza: less Israeli airstrikes, more Israeli bulldozers?
CAPTION Normalization for the people of Gaza: less Israeli airstrikes, more Israeli bulldozers?
A recent analysis of the fishing sector by Palestine Chronicle provides a Palestinian perspective on the impact the Israeli blockade and military attacks have had on the Palestinian economy and people.
Gaza’s fishermen are true heroes. Against numerous odds, they brave the sea every day to ensure the survival of their families.
In this scenario, the Israeli navy represents modern-day pirates opening fire at these Palestinian men – and, in some cases, women – sinking their boats sometimes and driving them back to the shore. In Gaza, this has been the routine for almost 13 years.
As soon as Israel declared the complete closure of Gaza’s fishing zone it prevented thousands of fishermen from providing for their families, thus destroying yet another sector in Gaza’s decimated economy.
The Israeli military justified its action as a retaliatory measure against Palestinian protesters who have reportedly launched incendiary balloons into Israel in recent days. The Israeli decision, therefore, may seem rational according to the poor standards of mainstream journalism. A slight probe into the subject, however, reveals another dimension to the story.
Palestinian protesters have, in fact, released incendiary balloons into Israel which, reportedly, cause fires in some agricultural areas adjacent to occupied Gaza. However, the act itself has been a desperate cry for attention.
Gaza is almost completely out of fuel. The Strip’s only power generator was officially shut down on August 18. The Karem Abu Salem Crossing, which allows barely limited supplies to reach Gaza through Israel, has also been closed by an Israeli military order. The sea, Gaza’s last resort, has, recently, turned into a one-sided war between the Israeli navy and Gaza’s shrinking population of fishermen. All of this has inflicted severe damage to a region that has already endured tremendous suffering.
Gaza’s once healthy fishing sector has been almost obliterated as a result of the Israeli siege. In 2000, for example, the Gaza fishing industry had over 10,000 registered fishermen. Gradually, the number has dwindled to 3,700, although many of them are fishermen by name only – as they can no longer access the sea, repair their damaged boats or afford new ones.
Those who remain committed to the profession do so because it is, literally, their last means of survival – if they do not fish, their families do not eat…
When the Oslo Accord was signed between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993, Palestinians were told that one of the many fruits of peace would be the expansion of Gaza’s fishing zone – up to 20 nautical miles (approximately 37 km), precisely.
Like the rest of Oslo’s broken promises, the fishing agreement was never honoured, either. Instead, up to 2006, the Israeli military allowed Gazans to fish within a zone that never exceeded 12 nautical miles. In 2007, when Israel imposed its ongoing siege on Gaza, the fishing zone was reduced even further, first to six nautical miles and, eventually, to three.
Following each Israeli war or violent conflagration in Gaza, the fishing zone is shut down completely. It is reopened after each truce, accompanied by more empty promises that the fishing zone will be expanded several nautical miles in order to improve the livelihood of the fishermen.
Israel’s annexation plan and the push for normalization of diplomatic relations
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing for the formal of annexation of all Palestinian territories occupied by illegal Israeli settlements, as well as the Golan Heights captured from Syria in the 1967 war. Illegal Israeli settlements have expanded rapidly over the years, occupying some of the most fertile areas that remained to the Palestinians and cutting off their access to most water sources.
In addition, Netanyahu intends to annex most of the Jordan Valley as well, which would cut off the Palestinians in the West Bank from Jordan completely and leave them as isolated and vulnerable to Israeli punitive attacks as the Gaza strip has been since Egypt sealed off its border. While the Trump administration seems willing to recognize all of the blatant land grabs carried out by Israel over time irrespective of the circumstances and the rights of the Palestinians, the latter being recognized emphatically by a unanimous UN Security Council resolution just before Trump assumed the presidency which also condemned all illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories, the Trump administration has hesitated to give an official endorsement of the plan to annex the Jordan Valley.
The agreement between the UAE and Israel to normalize relations takes on immense significance in this context. It is an attempt by the Israeli government to nullify and extinguish the rights of the Palestinians once and for all, and get as much international recognition as possible of the status quo.
US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien said on Sunday 30 August that more Arab and Muslim countries were likely to follow Abu Dhabi’s move.
“We believe that other Arab and Muslim countries will soon follow the United Arab Emirates’ lead and normalise relations with Israel,” he told reporters after talks at Netanyahu’s residence.
He did not name the states, but Israeli officials have publicly mentioned Oman, Bahrain and Sudan. Recent news reports have suggested Morocco may also be considering a similar agreement with Israel in exchange for military and economic aid, citing a long history of semi-covert relations and joint activities.
However, Moroccan Prime Minister Saad Eddine el-Othmani said last week, “We refuse any normalisation with the Zionist entity because this emboldens it to go further in breaching the rights of the Palestinian people”. LINK
In the aftermath of the announcement of the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, the leaders of Iraq, Jordan and Egypt met in Jordan and made a belated attempt to restore the Arab Peace Initiative on the international geopolitical agenda. At a trilateral meeting in mid-August, the leaders of the three countries reiterated their determination to forge a new regional Arab strategic partnership and become a proactive participant in geopolitical developments in the region.
Meeting for the third time in a year, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al Kadhimi agreed to deepen cooperation on a wide range of topics and sectors including regional security, health, education, trade and food security.
The three leaders, whose countries account for about a third of the total Arab population, called for the Arab Peace Initiative for the Palestine-Israel conflict to be reactivated, stating that the only viable resolution would be in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and “in a manner that fulfils all the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”
The three countries also emphasized the need to “stop Israeli steps to annex Palestinian lands and any measures to undermine prospects to achieve a just peace or seek to alter the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem”. LINK
However, given the notorious inability of the Arab countries and political factions to maintain a united front and remain committed to the pursuit of strategic objectives in the long term in recent times, the onus is clearly on the leadership of the respective countries to demonstrate that the meeting was not just a ‘photo op’ and opportunity to posture on the international stage.
Late last month, the Saudis also denied media speculation that they were inclining towards normalizing relations with Israel. Prince Faisal bin Farhan said the Kingdom remains committed to peace with Israel “as a strategic option basis on the Arab Peace Initiative”, in the Saudis’ first official comment since the United Arab Emirates agreed to normalize relations with Israel.
“The Kingdom considers any Israeli unilateral measures to annex Palestinian land as undermining the two-state solution,” the Saudi Minister said in an event in Berlin, in comments reported on Saudi’s foreign affairs ministry Twitter page…
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal Bin Farhan affirmed his country’s commitment to the Arab Peace Plan in comments following a meeting with his German counterpart Heiko Maas in Berlin.
Prince Faisal added that Israel’s unilateral actions concerning colonies are thwarting chances for peace.
“Saudi Arabia considers Israel’s unilateral policies of annexation and building of settlements as an illegitimate (way forward) and (as) detrimental to the two-state solution,” the Saudi foreign ministry quoted Prince Faisal as saying.
Presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said that “abiding by the Arab Peace Initiative (API) is the real test for Arab states’ positions on Jerusalem and a test for the seriousness of the Arab joint action.”
Azzam el-Ahmad, a member of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah central committee, welcomed on Thursday the Saudi position on peace with Israel on the basis of the longstanding Arab Peace Initiative.
“The Saudi position is important because it adheres to Arab consensus, the Arab Peace Initiative, and plays a central role in the region,” Ahmad said.
First adopted by the Arab League in 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative calls for full diplomatic ties between Israel and the entire Arab and Muslim world in exchange for a “full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967,” the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the right of return of Palestinian refugees based on UN Resolution 194. LINK
The Arab Peace Initiative: a complete copy of the text is available here.
After the Arab Peace Initiative (API) was first adopted by the 22 member states of the Arab League in 2002, it was subsequently endorsed by the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
At a meeting in April 2013 hosted by Secretary of State John Kerry, a delegation representing the Arab League further displayed Arab states’ interest in peace when they scaled back the API’s demands upon Israel by accepting a two-state solution with mutually agreed upon land swaps.
Endorsing land swaps was a meaningful step taken by the Arab League as it is a concept that allows a two-state outcome to remain realistic.
While the API has been unable to gain traction or support among the world’s ‘major’ powers, until the UAE-Israel ‘normalization’ deal most proposals on how to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process took the API as a framework or key reference in negotiating a solution.
The significance of the API is that it was the first collective Arab effort that was unanimously agreed to by all Arab states.
Acknowledging the magnitude of such a proposal, former President Shimon Peres summarized it best in late 2008 when he described the API as the reversal of the “3 No’s” at the Arab League’s Khartoum summit in 1967.
API Obligations Towards Israel:
Withdraw from all disputed territories to return Israel’s borders to the June 4, 1967 lines including the Golan Heights and addition of southern Lebanon.
Reach a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem as prescribed by UN Resolution 194.
Accept the establishment of a Palestinian state composed of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
API Obligations Towards Arab States:
Deem the Arab-Israeli conflict finalized and commit to peaceful relations with Israel guaranteeing security to all regional states.
Establish normal diplomatic relations with Israel. LINK
Former IDF Intelligence Director Amos Yadlin has reaffirmed the Israeli intention to neutralize the Arab Peace Initiative, asserting in late August that it is no longer relevant now that Israel and the United Arab Emirates are set to normalize ties.
“The Arab Peace Initiative principle of having the veto on normalization between Israel and the Arabs, this is gone,” Yadlin told The Jerusalem Press Club during a virtual meeting on the US-brokered deal.
He spoke of what he claimed was the demise of the Arab Peace Initiative, which for 18 years has been one of the cornerstones of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The initiative was an attempt by the Arab states to reach a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines. It is referenced in most international documents.
The announcement of the deal between the UAE and Israel marks the first break from the Arab Peace Initiative since its inception, upending almost entirely the principles of peace making between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel’s 1979 agreement with Egypt and its 1994 accord with Jordan, were signed prior to that 2002 Initiative.
Yadlin, who is currently the Executive Director of Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, speculated that Bahrain could be the next Arab country to make a deal with Israel, because its ‘covert’ relations with Israel were similar to those of the UAE.
He also noted that last summer Bahrain hosted a summit that related to the economic portion of the US President Donald Trump’s plan.
“But they [Bahrain] will look over their shoulder to see what the Saudis are saying,” Yadlin said. He imagined that the Saudis had given the UAE its silent consent to a deal with Israel, but that didn’t mean it would immediately. The “Saudis will not hurry to join [a deal with Israel]… They will be very cautious,” Yadlin said.
The other countries who might join are Sudan and Morocco, Yadlin said. These countries will look to see what price the UAE might have to pay for a deal with Israel, he added. LINK
The United Arab Emirates appears somewhat disconcerted by the regional reactions to its normalization deal with Israel, claiming that it remains committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and to the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative. The claim was made by a senior official who spoke with The Times of Israel, in rare on-the-record remarks to Israeli media.
Hend al-Otaiba, the director of strategic communications at the UAE’s Foreign Ministry, was commenting hours after the UAE’s agreement to normalize relations with Israel was announced, and shortly after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he still intended to extend Israeli sovereignty to parts of the West Bank.
Asked for clarification of the UAE’s position on the Arab Peace Initiative, a spokesperson subsequently replied: “A two-state solution is at the heart of the Arab Peace Initiative. In the absence of a freeze on annexation, a two-state solution will quickly cease to be a possibility.”
Mohammad Issa Abu Shehab, UAE ambassador to the EU, told Emirates TV the step was most important for its success in “freezing all Israeli plans for Palestinian land.”
However, a senior Israeli official said Netanyahu’s annexation plan was only “temporarily suspended” to allow for the signing of the agreement with the Emirates.
Netanyahu himself later insisted during a press conference that annexation remained on the table, though he acknowledged that Trump had asked that the move be put on “temporary hold” for now.
“I said I would extend sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. There is no change in my plan to extend our sovereignty in Judea and Samaria with full coordination with the United States,” he said. “I am committed to that, and it hasn’t changed… I will never compromise on our rights in our land.” LINK
The US representatives accompanying the first Israeli delegation to the UAE made clear that Israeli annexation of Palestinian land is an intrinsic part of the normalization deal. Speaking with the embedded journalists on the flight to the UAE, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner addressed the Trump peace plan and its allowing for Israel to extend its sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria.
Annexation was included in the plan because it was clear that “in the context of any agreement, Israel wasn’t going to give up that territory,” and the US “had to make sure Israel’s security was protected.”
He claimed that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and potentially recognizing Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank would “take those provocative issues off the table.” LINK
The statements confirm that all affirmations claiming otherwise are merely spin, made as part of the campaign to promote the bilateral deal and convince other Arab and Muslim leaders to normalize relations with Israel.
In spite of earlier comments by the UAE and a joint statement by the three countries that indicated the annexation plan would be ‘suspended’, senior UAE official Omar Ghobash has admitted his government did not “have any guarantees as such” that Israel would not annex occupied Palestinian territory in the future.
Palestinian reactions to the normalization deal
In comments about the ‘deal of the century’ being pushed by the Trump administration The Guardian noted that many younger Palestinians are disenchanted with the legacy of Oslo and angry that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, still serves in effect as a ‘security subcontractor’ for Israel in the West Bank. Abbas did respond to the plan by threatening to suspend security coordination with Israel, but he has threatened that countless times before. LINK
Palestinian reactions to the Israel-UAE were emphatic.
Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh slammed the flight as “very painful” and “a clear and a blatant violation of the Arab position towards the Arab-Israeli conflict”.
“We had hoped to see an Emirati plane landing in a liberated Jerusalem, but we live in a difficult Arab era,” he said.
Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassen said the UAE-Israel deal went against the position of the Emirati people, and was “in Zionist interests only … fuelling disagreements in the region”.
In the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, said Kushner and his team were “scrambling to convince as many Arab and Muslim leaders as possible” to give Trump an election boost.
“They will be a prop at the backdrop of a meaningless spectacle for a ridiculous agreement that will not bring peace to the region,” she said.
Conclusion
As the Israel-Palestine conflict moves into a new phase, some of the battle lines are clearly drawn, others remain obscured by the fast pace of developments after so many years of stalemate and stagnation.
While the Axis of Resistance has grown and strengthened considerably over the last decade, the same could be said of the forces of annexation and normalization, albeit that most of the normalization has occurred in covert and semi-covert meetings and joint activities that cannot be officially acknowledged as yet.
The brutal fact remains that the Palestinians are isolated and living in conditions of extreme deprivation, and none of the latest geopolitical developments gives them cause to think that there will be any change in the foreseeable future.
Bahrain is expected to become the next Gulf kingdom to formally and shamelessly normalize ties with the ‘Israeli’ entity, a Zionist official told Kan public broadcaster Wednesday.
According to the report, the kingdom is expected to announce its bold move after an accord between the Zionist regime and the United Arab Emirates has been signed.
The official was cited as saying that Washington seeks to host the ceremony where the Tel Aviv regime and Abu Dhabi will sign a treaty formalizing their diplomatic ties in mid-September.
The US is said to be pushing for the accord to be signed before the Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year holidays, which begin on September 18.
Unashamed with all ‘Israeli’ war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied Palestinian lands, Bahrain is pushing for the process to speed up as well after long-running talks on the prospect.
Bahrain was one of the countries that US State Secretary Mike Pompeo visited during his recent Middle East tour centered on the ‘Israeli’-UAE normalization.
At the time, it claimed that it rejects normalizing ties with the Zionist entity as it informed Pompeo that it remained committed to a so-called two-state solution and backed the Arab ‘Peace’ Initiative — a plan that, among other items, vows normalization between ‘Israel’ and Muslim nations once a Palestinian state with a capital in East al-Quds has been established.
The U.S. has intensified its diplomatic activities in the Middle-East. After the Secretary of State Pompeo’s tour to six nations in the Middle-East, the Power-Pillar in White House, Jared Kushner, who is Senior advisor and son-in-law of President Donal Trump, along with Senior officials, is on his Middle-East trip currently.
The enhanced focus of the U.S. diplomatic and political engagement in the Middle-east has several objectives as:
On the surface, all efforts are for Israel, as the US is the only supporter of Israel blindly. The U.S. has been exercising its veto powers for Israel on several occasions and extends extraordinary political and diplomatic support, matched with non. It should be understood that, among the three prominent divine religions, Judaism is the oldest one, Christianity is the most populous in the Western World. However, Islam is the third one in its series and the last one of divine religion. A majority of Muslims inhabit the Middle East. The creation of a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim World was not logical in the first step. The Jewish population in Palestine was only 11 % at the time of planning for the creation of Isreal. Later on, Jewish were shifted to Palestine from various parts of the World; and mostly, the wealthy Jews were motivated and encouraged to purchase land and property from the Arabs.
The Zionist struggle of the late 19th century had led by 1917 to the Balfour Declaration, by which Britain assured an ultimate separate state only for Jews in Palestine. When that former Ottoman province became a British mandate under the League of Nations in 1922, it contained about 700,000 people, of whom only 58,000 were Jews, approximately 11 % only.
Bulk relocation happened during the period of 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. The well-off Jews were buying the property in Palestine. If some patriotic Arabs refuse to sell their property, they face severe consequences like murder, injuries, detention, arrest, hostage, or expelled to exile. The Zionist militias of the Haganah and Irgun killed 5,032 Arabs and wounded 14,760, consequential in over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned, or exiled. At the end of World War II, the Jewish community in Palestine had increased to 33% of the total population.
The U.N. General assembly, backed by the U.S. and U.K., approved the creation of the state of Israel only limited to 5,500 Square Kilometers in 1947. But The Jews militant grabbed more land from local Arabs in 1948. It created an adversary between Arabs and Israelis. It led to an Arab-Israel War in 1967, and Israel seized even more land from Arabs.
The core reason for unrest in the Middle-East is the irrational creation of the state of Israel. The illogical creation of a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim World was the root cause of all problems. There are an estimated 8 million Jews all over the World, and out of which 6 million settled in the state of Israel, mostly migrated from Eastern Europe, Africa, Russia, and also from other parts of the World. The settlers were aliens, and not the son of the soil and not the local indigenous people, and furthermore, the expansionist approach of the State of Israel has been pushing Arabs out of their homeland. Millions of Palestinians have lost their home.
The World has a moral stance on the state of Israel that it should be limited to original approved state with an area of 5,500 Square Kilometers, and return the all illegal occupied Arab Land occupied in 1948 and 1967. Furthermore, the State of Israel promises and ensure that it will not hold any Arab land in the future. This principle-stance is in line with the UN Charter, OIC, and Arab-League decision. Most of the nations, including Russia and China, share similar views. But it is only the U.S. who support all irrational acts of Israel blindly. The Secretary of state will lobby for Israel during this trip and may gain more recognition from the Arab World.
Egypt was kicked out from the Arab league in 1979, as displeasure on its recognition of the State of Israel. It is worth citing that six nations founded the Arab League: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria in 1945 in Cairo, the Capital of Egypt. Later on, the other Arab countries kept on joining the Arab League, and currently, there are 22 members of the Arab League. The prime objective of the Creation of the Arab League was to promote the Palestinian Arab cause. The Arab League opposed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 and implementing a boycott of Jewish State. Especially imposed an oil embargo, which lasted until the Khartoum Resolution in September 1967. The Arab League, in 2002, endorsed a Saudi Arabian Arab Peace Initiative, which called for a full withdrawal by Israel “to the 1967 borders” in return for fully normalized relations.
Egypt signed the Peace Treaty with the State of Israel in 1979, following the 1978 Camp David Accords. The treaty was received with vast controversy across the Arab World, where it was condemned and considered a stab in the back. The sense of outrage was principally strong amongst Palestinians. However, as a result of the treaty, Egypt was expelled out from its own created Arab League in 1979–1989. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad disconnected all relations with Egypt after the signing of the peace deal, and diplomatic relations were not restored until 2005, under the rule of Bashar al-Assad.
Jordan also recognized the State of Israel in 1984, which was also not welcomed by the Arab World, mainly the Palestinian.
Keeping solidarity with the Arab World, the 57-members OIC (The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), the second-largest organization after the United Nations, spread over four continents, takes a strong stance on Israel and demands the return of Arab Lands which Israel occupied in the 1967 war.
Israel has not been welcomed by the international community, even, in E.U., Russia, and China, in addition to the Arab & Muslim World. However, it enjoys extraordinary support from the U.S. and favors from its creator UK.
UAE (United Arab Emirates) becoming the third Arab state, besides Egypt and Jordan, to fully recognize Israel, after signing a peace deal on August 13, 2020. The U.S. mediated the peace agreement. However, the unofficial interaction began as early as 2010, and cooperation was based on their joint opposition to Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence. Israel opened an official diplomatic mission in Abu Dhabi in 2015, under cover of the International Renewable Energy Agency.
UAE’s decision has shocked the Muslim World, and there was a reaction. The most severe reaction came from Turkey, who is thinking to cut its diplomatic ties with the UAE. Iran is the most affected country, as rival Israel may sit next door in UAE. The growing defense cooperation between Israel and UAE is an alarming and significant threat to Iran. UAE and Israel were not at good terms with Iran historically.
Some of the other Arab countries also shown displeasures. In fact, the Arab World might lose unity and may divide pro and anti-this decisions. It may weaken the unity of the Arab World further. This agreement will have a far-reaching impact, and over time, the outcomes will be visible.
Secondly, the U.S. has lodged a media war against Russia and China. Their controlled media is building a narrative against Russia and China and projecting Russia and China as a severe threat. The Secretary of State also tried to convince the Arab World against Russia and China, building alliances in case of any confrontation in the region. The U.S. is in the habit of forming partnerships and alliances against their adversaries, and in the past, their such approach was successful. Secretary of State also traveled to four countries in Europe to convince them to join the U.S. against Russia and China but failed, and Europe seems more divided on the U.S. stance on Russia and China. It is believed that The U.S. efforts may also divide the Arab-Word into groups pro-America and Anti-America. This may create a space for Russia and China to lead the Anti-American block in the Arab World as well as in Europe.
The third objective is a part of the election campaign for the presidential election. President Trump has determined to re-elect again and can go to any extent. One can expect any abnormal decision from him to win the election. He wanted to prove that his foreign policy is in the best interest of American people “America First.” He is also using anti-Russia and Anti-China card to gain sympathy from the American voters.
Most of the Arab World, especially the oil-rich Gulf countries, is ruled by Kings and dictators, who depend on U.S. support to sustain their rule. But anti-American sentiments are growing immensely. As a matter of fact, the U.S. has widened its objectives in such tours, which makes it more difficult to achieve any significant results. Secretary of State trip failed to convince any other Arab country to recognize Israel. Contrary, the adversary has been enhanced. Either he was unable to persuade the State of Israel to suspend its expansion plans. In contrast, Prime Minister Netanyahu categorically announced that the expansion plans are postponed or delayed only but not canceled or dropped out. He was also not able to convince most of the Arab countries to be part of the Anti-China-Russia alliance. Neither any direct impact on the Presidential Elections to be held in November later this year. His tour was counterproductive. Jared Kushner’s mission may also meet the same fate and no net gain at all.
Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist (ex-Diplomat), Editor, Analyst, Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lands in Bahrain to push normalization with Israel. (Photo: via Social Media)
Bahrain said Wednesday it was committed to the creation of a Palestinian state in talks with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, implicitly rejecting his push for Arab countries to swiftly normalize ties with Israel.
Pompeo was in Manama as part of a Middle East trip aimed at building more ties between the Jewish state and the Arab world after a landmark US-brokered deal with the United Arab Emirates.
Looking forward to speaking with leaders in Israel, Sudan, Bahrain, and the UAE to discuss Iran’s malign influence and to celebrate the historic Abraham Accords agreement between Israel and the UAE. https://t.co/TJSwZNzn5S
However, Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa said he told Pompeo that his country remains committed to the Arab Peace Initiative – which calls for Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied after 1967, in exchange for peace and the full normalisation of relations.
“The king stressed the importance of intensifying efforts to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict according to the two-state solution… to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital,” the official Bahrain News Agency (BNA) reported.
The US chief diplomat has said he is hopeful other nations will follow the UAE, which earlier this month became only the third Arab country to agree to normalize relations with the Jewish state.
Manama, whose contacts with Israel date back to the 1990s, was the first Gulf country to welcome the UAE move and was considered a front-runner to follow in its footsteps.
On August 13, Israel and the UAE have reached a deal that is expected to lead to “full normalization of relations” between the Arab nation and Israel in an agreement that US President Donald Trump reportedly helped broker.
The agreement is considered a severe blow to Palestinian efforts aimed at isolating Israel regionally and internationally until it ends its military occupation and apartheid-like system in occupied Palestine.
(Palestine Chronicle, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, Social Media)
– تتعرّض حكومة الرئيس حسان دياب، التي لا تتبنّى انحيازاً مسبقاً لأي رأي أو محور إقليمي، للابتزاز تحت عنوان، إياكم وأن تُغضِبوا حكام الخليج، فلبنان في مأزق ويحتاج إلى عطف ورحمة هؤلاء الحكام، عساهم يمنّون عليه ببعض مما لديهم من المال. وينطلق أصحاب التحذير من معطىً معلوم وهو حاجات لبنان المالية ومعطيين خاطئين، الأول أن قرار دفع المال للبنان من العرب ليس عربياً، بل هو قرار تتخذه واشنطن، بمعزل عن كيفية تعامل لبنان مع الحكومات الخليجيّة، والثاني هو أن الحكومات العربية والخليجية خصوصاً مرتاحة لوضعها، وآخر همها ما يفعله وما يقوله لبنان واللبنانيون؛ بينما واقع الحال وما يجري في المنطقة يعبر عن ارتباك خليجي خصوصاً وعربي عموماً، سواء تجاه التجاذب الأميركي الإيراني ومخاوف دفع فواتيره، أو تجاه صفقة القرن وكيفيّة التعامل مع الإحراج الذي تسبّبت به لهم، وهم في السرّ شركاء وفي العلن خصوم.
– لبنان عموماً وحكومة الرئيس دياب خصوصاً، رغم ضغط الوضع المالي الصعب في وضع وصفه السفير الأميركي الأسبق جيفري فيلتمان، إن أفرج العرب والخليجيون خصوصاً عن بعض المال اللازم، ليس لديهم سبب ليكونوا في موقع سياسي مناوئ ولا يبحثون عن خصام. وإن لم يفعلوا، وقد ذكر فيلتمان السعودية بأن ديون لبنان بالعملات الصعبة تبلغ 35 مليار دولار أي أقلّ مما تنفقه السعودية على حرب اليمن في عام واحد، فعندها سيسلك لبنان بدائل لا تُفرح واشنطن وربما دول الخليج، ويفتح أبواب التفاوض مع روسيا والصين، سيتغيّر الوضع إلى غير رجعة، وللذين يقولون إن المال عند العرب والغرب ويختصرون الحديث عن المقارنة بروسيا فيتذاكون بالسؤال، وهل روسيا لديها مال لتعطيه؟ لا بد من إجابتهم أننا في النفط والغاز والخيارات الاستراتيجية نتحدث عن روسيا، أما في المال والشركات الناجحة في مجالات الاتصالات والموانئ والسكك الحديدة والمطارات والكهرباء، وهي تنفذ أهم المشاريع في الغرب نفسه، فالحديث هو عن الصين وليس عن روسيا، ويجب أن يقترن بالتذكير أن أكبر حامل لسندات الخزينة الأميركية هي الصين، بما يزيد عن 3,6 تريليون دولار. ومعلوم أن لا الصين ولا روسيا ستُبديان الاهتمام بلبنان إذا لم يكن لهما فيه نصيب سياسي، ولهما عنده مكانة مميزة. وهذا إن حدث يعرف العرب أن لبنان ليس في مأزق، على ذمة فيلتمان، الذي نصح حكومة بلاده والحكام العرب بتمويل لبنان وعدم الدفع بالأزمة أكثر، كي لا تذهب الأمور إلى خيارات يصعب التراجع عنها.
– في السياسة جاء اجتماع وزراء الخارجية العرب وما بعده الإسلامي، ليقولا إن الخطاب اللبناني كان الأكثر انسجاماً مع نفسه. فلبنان مناهض لصفقة القرن تمسكاً منه بالقضية الفلسطينية وإدراكاً منه أنها قلب قضايا المنطقة وأزماتها، وكل حل لها على حساب حقوق الشعب الفلسطيني سيزيد من التأزم والتوتر. وفوق ذلك لإجماع اللبنانيين على أن الصفقة تنهي حق العودة للاجئين الفلسطينيين وتستبدله بتوطينهم في بلدان اللجوء، وهو ما يرفضه اللبنانيون ويعرفون مدى تأثيره السلبي على توازناتهم وسلمهم الأهلي. بينما أغلب الحكام العرب الواقفين في خندق واشنطن فقلوبهم مع الصفقة، لكنهم يدركون بعقولهم أن ما سبق وقالوه لشعوبهم تبريراً للتهرّب من مسؤولياتهم نحو فلسطين قد صار اليوم قيداً عليهم، فهم أصحاب شعار، نكون وراء الفلسطينيين في ما يختارون وما يقبلون وما يرفضون. وها هم الفلسطينيون يقولون لا مدوية لصفقة ترامب. فوجد العرب أنفسهم في الجامعة وفي المؤتمر الإسلامي ملزمون بقول ما لا ينسجم مع ما فعلوا لتصير الصفقة مشروعاً على الطاولة. وحكام العرب يحتاجون لبنان المناوئ للصفقة والذي يملك مقدرات ودور بقوة مقاومته يحسب له الإسرائيليون ألف حساب، ويشكل إلى جانب الفلسطينيين عقبة كبيرة بوجه مرور الصفقة. ولبنان الذي سيذهب إلى سورية من باب مصلحته الوطنية والاقتصادية منسجم مع نفسه، بينما أغلب الحكام العرب في مأزق فهم يدركون حاجتهم أمس قبل اليوم واليوم قبل الغد لإعادة أفضل العلاقات مع سورية، لكنهم ممنوعون بقوة القرار الأميركي من فعل ذلك، فيستطيعون تحميل المسؤولين اللبنانيين الذاهبون إلى دمشق التحيات والاعتذارات، ويراهنون على القول لاحقاً، نحن شجّعنا اللبنانيين للذهاب إلى دمشق، أو إلى بغداد.
– المواجهة الدائرة في المنطقة بين إيران ومعها محور المقاومة من جهة، وأميركا من جهة مقابلة، ليست معركة قابلة للتحوّل إلى حرب كبرى، وإن حدث ذلك فستكون دول الخليج مسرحها أكثر من لبنان، لكن كما يبدو فنهايتها تسوية تضمن خروج الأميركيين، وحفظ ماء وجههم، وترتيبات جديدة في المنطقة. وهذه الترتيبات تؤكدها الخطوات الأميركية نحو إعلان صفقة القرن وهي تدرك استحالة تحولها مشروعاً عملياً لتكون إبراء ذمة تجاه كيان الاحتلال، لأن واشنطن تدرك أنها كي تذهب إلى التسوية مع إيران ومحور المقاومة يجب أن لا تحمل “إسرائيل” معها ولا تحمل مطالبها، ولذلك فعليها أن تمنح لـ”إسرائيل” ما تستطيع كي تتمكّن من الذهاب للتسوية ولا تتّهم بخيانة “إسرائيل” والتخلّي عنها، لكن في النهاية سيربح دوراً من يملك رصيداً في المحور الذي ستكون له الكلمة العليا في المنطقة، ومن حظ العرب أن يمنحوا لبنان اليوم بعضاً من مال، أملاً بأن يمنحهم لاحقاً بعضاً من نتائج الدور.
Hasan Illaik
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 