Why Arab Regimes Are So Weak In Defending Palestinians

-Analysis-

CAIRO — We have seen and heard the question coming countless times from the rubble of Palestine: Where are the Arabs? It’s a question repeated by Palestinians, women and men, old, and young, who are still counting on the Arabs to stop the Israeli killing and destruction machine.

But the stance towards what is happening in Gaza, whether at the level of the Arab League or individual countries, peoples or rulers, is still quite timid in the face of Israel’s unrestrained efforts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, ultimately through the transfer of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank — and if possible the transfer of those inside Israel itself, those who were known the 1948 Arabs.

In all the confrontations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Arab position has never been weaker. That has prompted a broad segment of Palestinians to feel resigned to standing alone to defend their cause. There are multiple factors that contributed to producing this weak Arab position, at the level of governments and also at the level of peoples.

​The Palestinian rift

The first factor is the negative propaganda that has swept the Arab media following the rift between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority 17 years ago. Since then, the Arab mentality has been poisoned by reports of this divide — and the resulting disagreements between Arab regimes over which Palestinian side to support in this conflict.

Arab countries have approached the rift through their position towards Hamas as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Such an approach has impacted the Arab collective position towards the ongoing war, with many concerned that any victory or steadfastness of the resistance would revive the political Islamist movements inside Arab societies.

This approach is a priority for most influential Arab governments, due to their internal conflicts with the Muslim Brotherhood that intensified in the wake of the Arab Spring. Their positions did not differentiate among the different factions resisting the Israeli occupation, as groups sought power within some Arab countries, including some that resorted to violence or terrorism in their quest.

​Iran’s project

Another angle to approach the conflict is related to the resistance groups in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, as part of the Iranian project in the region, which the Arab Gulf states see as a direct threat to their governments.

An end to the war against Israel with the victory of this party would be a great boost to this project. In this regard, we cannot ignore Hezbollah’s decision to support the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

This rift within the Arab position, which had existed before Oct. 7, was reinforced when some Arab countries normalized ties with Israel, in an even warmer way than Egypt and Jordan whose past peace deals with Israel were always described as “cold peace.”

The position of each Arab country has overshadowed the position of the already paralyzed Arab League.

This position and rift was reflected in the approach of the Arab ruling regimes to the current war. Some Arab countries said the Hamas attack aimed at destroying this peace and ending normalization with Israel.

These countries sought to cover their embarrassing positions by claiming that the war had negative impacts on “the two-state solution” to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Some went further and described Hamas’s attack as a conspiracy against the Palestinian cause itself, or at least an adventure that does more harm than good, even if the resistance groups exposed the weaknesses of the Israeli occupation army.

In this context, it is impossible to deny the usual Arab approach to the conflict with Israel from a position of weakness given the West’s comprehensive support to the Jewish state. Thus, any escalation in rhetoric or practice against it will provoke the ire of this West, which has direct interests with most Arab countries.

Here, the space for many Arab regimes to move is narrowing, especially with their lack of will to take any positive action. They may not see a role for themselves in the battle beyond delivering aid during the war and helping with reconstruction after the war ends. Then they will return once again to proposing the “two-state solution” which Israel rejects.

The position of each Arab country has overshadowed the position of the already paralyzed Arab League. This opened the door to question the presence of the organization itself in the future.

Arab Spring revisited

As for Arab people, the regimes have for years clamped down on them especially in the wake of the unrest that followed the 2011 revolutions and uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria and Sudan. Even the regimes that were not impacted became more concerned about pro-democracy protests in their countries.

So they have forcefully prevented their peoples from following in the footsteps of their European counterparts who took to the streets to express their outrage at the genocide in Gaza. They are concerned that any protests could threaten their interests, and their “stability and continuity” rule for survival.

The severity of the policy was in part driven by Arab familiarity with scenes of blood and destruction. Many Arab countries had witnessed revolutions and uprisings turned into civil wars in Syria and Yemen, armed conflicts like Libya and Sudan, or a violent transfer of power like what happened in Egypt.

Millions of Arabs have become as familiar with bloody scenes in civil wars in Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Syria, as with Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Arab inaction in the face of Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza is, thus, finally a reflection of self-preservation: the regimes of Arab countries are preoccupied by their domestic problems, including both economic challenges and democratic movements that could undermine their authority.