Israel Or Arab Regimes: Who’s To Blame For The Mess Of The Middle East

-Analysis-

BEIRUT — Burhan Ghalioun, the Syrian intellectual and professor of political sociology at the Sorbonne University in Paris, has recently explored what has come to be known as the “Eastern Question” in a new light. Specifically he wants to revisit the question of how European powers reacted to the instability in the late Ottoman Empire as it relates to the events of Oct. 7 and subsequent wars in Gaza and Lebanon.

He argues rightly that the roots of the current situation in our region can be traced to the “transformation of Palestine into a state for the Jews, theirs alone… and the major Western countries’ decision to support this state and linking it to their Middle Eastern strategies in the face of the growing aspirations of the peoples of the region for greater independence and sovereignty over their borders, resources, and destiny.”

Yet despite the solid foundation of his argument, I believe — with all due respect — that Ghalioun’s argument falls short on several key points that he did not give their due, or deal with them appropriately.

First, Ghalioun sees the birth of the Palestinian cause — and the establishment of a Jewish State — as one of the results of the foundations upon which the modern Arab East was built. As the author of the 2003 book The Arab Ordeal: The State Versus the Nation, he prioritizes this dynamic over other factors, giving it the central position in the history of the past century of the Middle East.

The establishment of Israel through force and with the support of major Western countries came simultaneously with the birth of the “nation-state” in the Arab region, which enjoyed the characteristics of authority more than the characteristics of a state, as a state of institutions, law and citizens.

This Arab state was not established by societal forces, political and economic carriers, as was the case in Europe, for example, but rather was established on the bearers of the clan (in monarchies) and the army (in republican regimes) — and even the Middle East’s borders were formulated according to the will of the major dominant countries at that time.

The point is that Israel was established, as a colonial, settler, racist and aggressive state, thanks to the availability of two conditions — international and Arab — which enabled the Zionist movement to establish its state, and to guarantee its security, stability and development to what it has become today.

The aim was and still is to restore Israel’s role as a major player in engineering the outlines of the Middle East through the genocidal war that it has been waging against the Palestinians (especially in Gaza) and against Lebanon, and in its quest to contain the other regional pole represented by Iran.

​Israel and the domestic factors

Ghalioun gives the Palestinian cause and Israel a central place in interpreting the conditions of the Arab region. He views Israel as the most effective means of “breaking the will of its (region’s) people and subjugating them” to American influence, and as “a dagger in the heart of the Arab-Islamic region.”

Here too, the author of A Manifesto for Democracy (2006) misses the point: the authoritarian Arab regimes are the first culprit in breaking the will of their people, subjugated, weakened, and marginalized their societies, by depriving them of their political and legal status with their opposition to human rights, including freedom of opinion and expression, political participation, and democracy.

The language and religion factors are not sufficient.

There is another statement by Ghalioun about the “Arab and Islamic region,” which is rhetorical and repeated through the article. It fits “popular” political speeches, as that region is not defined by political, legal, or economic standards. And thus the common language has not been sufficient to forming an Arab region or nation, nor has the religion factor resulted in an Islamic region or nation.

External blame, internal shortcomings

It’s known that there are regimes in both regions that see themselves in a voluntary and self-interested relationship with the West, more than any other party, and without any pressure in the world of international relations, and this applies to a number of Arab and Islamic countries.

It is noteworthy that Ghalioun insists on his vision: “Israel has become […] the most powerful weapon in the hands of the West to suppress the societies and peoples of the Middle East who aspire to break the shackles of colonial dependency and control.”

He thus assigns all blame to the foreign players, and then Israel for the illness or defect inside the Arab countries!

The question is, what is Israel’s business in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Yemen, Sudan or Egypt? And even in the Levant, did the same happen in Lebanon, Iraq or Syria, where Ghalioun was the first president of the Syrian National Council opposition movement.

I do not want to downplay the harms of Israel’s aggressive, colonial actions in the Arab Levant — past, present and future. Yet, no useful and pertinent analysis should ever overlook the internal shortcomings in the Arab world.

​Palestine not a central cause

The myth of the 1948 war about the entry of several Arab armies into Palestine was promoted by Israel to affirm to the world that it was a victim on the one hand, and yet show the strength of its cause and society before the Jews of the world, on the other hand.

The point is that the Arab regimes at the time didn’t view the war against Israel as a central issue in their policies, except to cover up their defeats. And it subsequently was used to strengthen and justify the authoritarian regimes, and to confiscate rights, freedoms and resources in their countries under the pretext of the conflict against Israel.

In fact, these regimes later began to express their authoritarian nature more clearly, and no longer needed the Palestinian cause or the resistance to justify or strengthen their powers, and to invoke their own “national” interests.

​Israel and the West

There are many basic ideas that I agree with Ghalyoun on, but I would like to specify the idea related to the organic relationship that links the West to Israel. I have repeatedly said that Israel is not just a state in the Middle East, but rather an international status in the Middle East. And this explains everything, including the guarantee of the West, especially the United States, for Israel’s security and its qualitative superiority at the security, economic and technological levels in the region.

It is not possible to escape from confronting Israeli “bullying.”

Yet a key element from an Arab perspective that is too often overlooked is that Israel has not excelled only because of its military, technological and economic strength, and by virtue of the West’s guarantee of its security and superiority. Its strength is also derived from its ability to build a state of institutions, laws and citizens (in relation to its Jewish citizens). Arab countries lack this factor in society, which is ultimately their greatest weakness.

At the end of his article, Ghalioun reaches a conclusion that “even if it is possible to escape from the Palestinian cause, which has been a burden on weak and conflicting Arab countries, it is not possible to escape from confronting Israeli “bullying,” whether the Palestinians continue their struggle, surrender, or are exterminated. Israel, as it is today, will remain a detonator for the region, imposing its agenda and authority, and depriving its people of their freedoms…”

Yet ultimately, the matter does not depend on what Israel wants or does alone, but rather hinges primarily on what the regions’ regimes do. Ghalioun has failed to say what should or can be done in the face of all of this.