https://arab.news/wbytt
It is clear that last week’s Sharm El-Sheikh summit has joined the long list of contentious issues that predictably stir controversy, whether within our Middle Eastern region or in the broader regional environment and the international community. Each side interprets developments based on its own considerations. One must remember that there has never been a shared diagnosis and thus no shared cure.
Even within the Israeli camp, there are several “Israels” with varying degrees of extremism and hubris. One of them is represented by Benjamin Netanyahu, with his lack of principle, opportunism and constant evasion of genuine political solutions to the conflict.
Dealing with this man and what he represents creates both domestic and foreign challenges. The web of interests he has cultivated over a long period, as well as the collapse of the moderate Israeli alternatives and the unlimited, unconditional American support he has received, have all allowed him to maintain control.
On the Palestinian side, there is undoubtedly a real problem as well: political paralysis, a crisis of will, organizational shortcomings and declining local credibility.
We are in a complicated situation. No leader can make difficult historic gambles without popular legitimacy. Since President Mahmoud Abbas took the helm, we have seen a gradual erosion of the aura that had once allowed a Palestinian leadership to make concessions and take tactical steps, often paying a price in blood.
Palestinians are in a complicated situation. No leader can make difficult gambles without popular legitimacy
Eyad Abu Shakra
It is true that Abbas was Yasser Arafat’s comrade-in-arms. Even when Arafat was alive, however, Abbas was a “minimalist” pragmatist willing to place great faith in those whom the Palestinians find hardest to trust.
If one were to ask, “what did Arafat’s militancy get us?” the opposite question could be posed in response: “What results has pragmatism achieved; where did it succeed where Arafat failed?”
The point here, of course, is not to score points but to reach a political arrangement that can allow Palestinians to survive and, eventually, move forward.
There is also another dimension of this issue: the splits within the Palestinian leadership and the role of foreign actors in feeding and sustaining that division. On the one hand, a large segment of the Palestinian population has come to believe that the role of the US must be accepted as a fact of life. This is a logical position, even though certain factions lost all hope in ever seeing an American (or indeed, a Western) posture that is not fully aligned with Israel’s interests.
Conversely, another substantial segment believes there is no point in conducting the same failed experiment again. Thus, they see no harm in taking a gamble and betting on forces that claim to represent “rejection,” “steadfastness,” “defiance” and “resistance,” pledging both military and logistical support. Indeed, they were willing to make this bet even if it came at the expense of the fragmentation of the Palestinian arena and meant tying their cause to the considerations of those forces.
The suffering and humanitarian disaster we have witnessed since Operation Al-Aqsa Flood were the natural result of the excessive confidence both sides placed in foreign actors.
And now we come to the Arab dimension.
Here too, we must acknowledge that, despite being generally well-intentioned, the Arabs have always failed to develop a coherent strategy. This is not just for the Palestinian cause, but also on intra-Arab relations and addressing the severe regional disequilibrium in a way that reduces the weakness of the Arabs vis-a-vis the “triangle” of Israel, Turkiye and Iran.
Once again, we Arabs have convinced ourselves that we have “allies” we can rely on. In reality, the three corners of that regional triangle are central to the grand strategies of the global powers. How do we compare to Israel, which has outgrown its American shell to become a technological and digital partner in building the world of the future? It has become the most influential “insider” in defining US politics, as well as in determining its allies, enemies and values.
Israel produces popular culture and is creating the norms, conceptions and history of the future
Eyad Abu Shakra
It is time to recognize that Israel is not just home to an advanced military or an aircraft carrier anchored off our shores.
Today, Israel is the most powerful and influential “voter” in American politics. It produces popular culture and is creating the norms, conceptions and history of the future.
Turkiye, in turn, has reawakened religious, national and sectarian dynamics that allow for its return to the Eastern Mediterranean. At the same time, it has expanded its presence in its historic “hinterland” in Central Asia, where the major interests of Turkiye, Iran, Russia, China and India intersect with global trade routes, as well as the flow of technology and arms.
Once “the sick man of Europe,” it now shows no concern for an aging Europe whose nations are being hijacked by racist and fascist forces in broad daylight.
As for Iran, it was “present in its absence” in Sharm El-Sheikh. Iran remains a decisive player, whether it is present or absent and whether it is an adversary or an ally. I would thus argue that anyone who dreams of ending Iran’s role in the Middle East is gravely mistaken.
Clever (sometimes arrogant) players are the ones that can repeatedly reinvent themselves and rekindle others’ need for them, and this need will always be there because everyone needs a partner or an enemy.
Finally, a word about America.
Donald Trump’s America, which is awakening, is beginning to startle many Americans. But that is a topic for another day.
- Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @eyad1949