What struck me in their report is how unhappy the Middle East is. The only Middle Eastern country in the top twenty is Kuwait (for the first time in this cycle). Kuwait has oil wealth and is a compact country with lots of social interaction. The high score may reflect Kuwait’s lively labor movement. That sort of movement isn’t allowed in the other Gulf States. The United Arab Emirates came in at 22, and Saudi Arabia at 28.

These countries are all very wealthy and their people are very social and connected to clans and other group identities, including religious congregations.

But everyone else in the Middle East is way down the list.

As usual, Gallup found that the very happiest countries were Scandinavian lands shaped by social democratic policies. It turns out that a government safety net of the sort the Republican Party wants to get rid of actually is key to making people happy.

Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden take the top four spots. Israel, which also has a Labor socialist founding framework, is fifth. The Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg fill out the top nine.

The Gallup researchers believe that a few major considerations affect well-being or happiness. They note, “Social interactions of all kinds … add to happiness, in addition to their effects flowing through increases in social support and reductions in loneliness.” My brief experience of being in Australia suggests to me that they are indeed very social and likely not very lonely on the whole. Positive emotions also equate to well-being and are much more important in determining it than negative emotions. The positive emotions include joy, gratitude, serenity, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe, and altruism, among others.

Benevolence, doing good to others, also adds to well-being. Interestingly, the Gallup researchers find that benevolence increased in COVID and its aftermath across the board.

They also factor in GDP per capita, that is, how poor or wealthy people are.

Gallup Video: “2024 World Happiness Report; Gallup CEO Jon Clifton”

Bahrain comes in at 62, which shows that oil wealth isn’t everything. It is deeply divided between a Sunni elite and a Shiite majority population, and that sectarian tension likely explains why it isn’t as happy as Kuwait. Kuwait is between a sixth and a third Shiite and also has a Sunni elite, but the Shiites are relatively well treated and the Emir depends on them to offset the power of Sunni fundamentalists. So it isn’t just sectarian difference that affects happiness but the way in which the rulers deal with it.

Libya, which is more or less a failed state after the people rose up to overthrow dictator Moammar Gaddafi, nevertheless comes in at 66. There is some oil wealth when the militias allow its export, and despite the east-west political divide, people are able to live full lives in cities like Benghazi and Tripoli. Maybe the overhang of getting rid of a hated dictator is still a source of happiness for them.

Algeria, a dictatorship and oil state, is 85. The petroleum wealth is not as great as in the Gulf by any means, and is monopolized by the country’s elite.

Iraq, an oil state, is 92. Like Bahrain, it suffers from ethnic and sectarian divides. It is something of a failed state after the American overthrow of its government.

Iran, another oil state, is 100. Its petroleum sales are interfered with by the US except with regard to China, so its income is much more limited than other Gulf oil states. The government is dictatorial and young people seem impatient with its attempt to regiment their lives, as witnessed in the recent anti-veiling protests.

The State of Palestine is 103, which is actually not bad given that they are deeply unhappy with being occupied by Israel. This ranking certainly plummeted after the current Israeli total war on Gaza began.

Morocco is 107. It is relatively poor, in fact poorer than some countries that rank themselves much lower on the happiness scale.

Tunisia is one of the wealthier countries in Africa and much better off than Morocco, but it comes in at 115. In the past few years all the democratic gains made during and after the Arab Spring have been reversed by horrid dictator Qais Saied. People seem to be pretty unhappy at now living in a seedy police state.

Jordan is both poor and undemocratic, and is ranked 125.

Egypt is desperately poor and its government since 2014 has been a military junta in business suits that brooks not the slightest dissent. It is 127. The hopes of the Arab Spring are now ashes.

Yemen is 133. One of the poorest countries in the world, it suffered from being attacked by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from 2015 until 2021. So it is war torn and poverty-stricken.

Lebanon ranks almost at the bottom at 142. Its economy is better than Yemen’s but its government is hopelessly corrupt and its negligence caused the country’s major port to be blown up, plunging the country into economic crisis. It is wracked by sectarianism. If hope is a major positive emotion that leads to feelings of happiness, it is in short supply there.

Some countries are too much of a basket case to be included, like Syria, where I expect people are pretty miserable after the civil war. Likewise Sudan, which is now in civil strife and where hundreds of thousands may starve.

Poverty, dictatorship, disappointment in political setbacks, and sectarianism all seem to play a part in making the Middle East miserable. The role of the United States in supporting the dictatorships in Egypt and elsewhere, or in supporting wars, has been sinister and certainly has added significantly to the misery. For no group in the region is this more true than for the Palestinians.

However, contrary to the Emirati claim, Palestinians believe leverage would never come with normalization, but rather, it would only come by rejecting any engagement until the Palestinian state is concrete. Furthermore, Palestinians feared that “if [normalizations are] not conditioned on significant Israeli steps toward enabling the creation of a Palestinian state, [these kinds of normalization] debilitate the Palestinian national project.”

Guzansky and Heistein were also cautious about the Emiratis’ ability to influence the Israeli state. They warned that if it becomes clear that the UAE fails to change Israeli behavior over Palestine, this can hinder further normalization with other states. Guzansky and Heistein stated Should Israel and the UAE engage in a public spat on anything relating to the Palestinian issue, that would likely discourage those Arab or Muslim states weighing the prospect of normalization from moving ahead if it becomes apparent that these agreements are unable to influence Israeli policy in that regard.

Three years since normalization: When will leverage arrive?<  UAE, the Arab Group & China on Gaza Humanitarian Corridor Resolution | United Nations

Since the UAE and Israel have normalized relations, many symbolic and concrete steps have been taken between the two parties that are evidence of warm relations, from appointing ambassadors to direct flights. However, three years of normalization did not prove much leverage when it came to Emirati influence over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. As much as it is evidence of the October conflict in which Israel responded disproportionately by claiming over 5,000 Palestinians’ lives, the UAE could not play a significant role in influencing Israel in previous Israeli aggression either. This was the case during Israeli aggression in Sheikh Jarrah

Looking back three years after normalization, Qatar increased its leverage more than the UAE, not because it increased its relations with Israel; instead, it became almost the most significant actor in the Arab world, which has relatively warm ties with Hamas. Qatar’s engagement with Hamas and its close relations with the US gave Doha an intermediary role between Hamas, Israel, and the US. On the other hand, the UAE not only recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization but also questioned the authority of the leader of the Palestinian Authority, as it no secret< that the UAE supports Mohammad Dahlan over Mahmoud Abbas. Furthermore, despite Egypt and Jordan having normalized their relations much earlier in 1979 and 1994, respectively, they never had publicly warm relations like the UAE. Therefore, not only did Israel-UAE normalization have much influence over the Israeli side, but the Emirates also lost even further credibility with the Palestinian side. Even with the normalization, the UAE could have balanced the relations better by upgrading its relations with different stakeholders in Palestine.  

What now? Will Saudi Arabia normalize with Israel?<  
The recent event showed, one more time, that none of the Muslim/Arab majority states have much leverage over Israel when it comes to ceasing the tension and decreasing the violence against Palestinians. Not only the UAE and other Arab countries, which normalized in post-2020, but also countries such as Turkey, whose relations go back to the founding years of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, which have decades of recognition and are significant actors for Israeli security, have limited influence, especially in the last few years. Therefore, if these normalizations serve as an example, it would be naive to think that Saudi normalization will have a different fate.  

It was reported that Saudi Arabia and Israel were in the normalization process when Hamas’s surprise attack occurred on October 7. Saudi Arabia softened its condition from an independent state for Palestinians in 2002 to “a good life for the Palestinians” in 2023, an interpretation that the Israeli occupation is no longer a deal-breaker.

The Biden administration is keen to finalize the deal to kill two birds with one stone. The first bird is US domestic politics. Biden wants a diplomatic achievement that will beat the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco’s normalization with Israel, which was masterminded by Biden’s predecessor and, most likely, his rival in the upcoming presidential election, Donald Trump. The international bird is to make Chinese-brokered Riyadh-Tehran normalization less relevant as the Israel-Saudi alliance might create a stronger anti-Iranian bloc.

However, Saudi Arabia should consider what the UAE has earned and lost domestically and internationally before inking any agreement. Also, even though both states have similar authoritarianism, Saudi Arabia should be more aware of such normalization’s domestic and global reactions. Contrary to the UAE, Saudi Arabia claims leadership for the Islamic world as it hosts the two holiest sites for Muslims and also due to the state’s founding ideology. However, the latter has been eroded in recent years. Therefore, the Saudi Arabian leadership should consider these conditions before committing to any deal.

( Human Rights Watch ) – Two Bahraini Shi’a men have been executed in Saudi Arabia following what Amnesty International described as a “grossly unfair trial” on terrorism-related charges.

Jaafar Sultan and Sadeq Thamer were arrested in May 2015 and held incommunicado for more than three months, according to Amnesty International. The charges were related to allegations of smuggling explosives inside Saudi Arabia and participating in protests in Bahrain.

The two Bahrainis were tried and sentenced to death in Saudi’s notorious Specialized Criminal Court in October 2021 following protest-related charges that fall within the Saudi counterterrorism law.

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, as well as other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, continue to use overbroad provisions contained within terrorism laws to suppress dissent and target religious minorities.

Counterterrorism laws in the GCC typically include broad, vague charges and definitions of terrorism used as catch-all provisions to punish peaceful dissidents, political activists, and human rights defenders.

Saudi Arabia’s Shi’a Muslim minority has long suffered systemic discrimination and been targeted by state-funded hate speech. On March 12, 2022, Saudi Arabian authorities executed 81 men, 41 of whom are said to belong to the Shi’a Muslim minority, under its counterterrorism law, despite promises to curtail executions.

Bahrain’s Shi’a majority also suffers from discrimination. Bahraini authorities have systematically targeted Shia clerics and have violently arrested numerous human rights defenders with Shia backgrounds, including Abdulhadi al-Khawaja in April 2011, who they sentenced to life in prison in a mass trial under Bahrain’s terrorism law.

Overly broad terrorism charges have also been exploited by other Gulf states. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) sentenced Khalaf Abdul Rahman al-Romaithi to 15 years in prison on terrorism charges following a grossly unfair trial known as the “UAE94” mass trials of 94 critics of the Emirati government. Al-Romaithi was recently extradited from Jordan to the UAE.

Human Rights Watch has documented longstanding violations of due process and fair trial rights in Saudi Arabia’s criminal justice system, making it unlikely that Sultan and Thamer received a fair trial leading up to their execution. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all countries and under all circumstances as a cruel and inhumane punishment.

Via Human Rights Watch

At the end of November 2022, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak announced that the “golden era” between Great Britain and China was over. China may not have been too bothered by this news however, and has been busy making influential friends elsewhere.

In early December, Chinese president Xi Jinping met with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – a group made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – to discuss trade and investment. Also on the agenda were talks on forging closer political ties and a deeper security relationship.

This summit in Saudi Arabia was the latest step in what our research shows is an increasingly close relationship between China and the Gulf states. Economic ties have been growing consistently for several decades (largely at the expense of trade with the US and the EU) and are specifically suited to their respective needs.

Simply put, China needs oil, while the Gulf needs to import manufactured goods including household items, textiles, electrical products and cars.

China’s pronounced growth in recent decades has been especially significant for the oil rich Gulf state economies. Between 1980 and 2019, their exports to China grew at an annual rate of 17.1%. In 2021, 40% of China’s crude oil imports came from the Gulf – more than any other country or regional group, with 17% from Saudi Arabia alone.

And the oil will likely continue to flow in China’s direction. In 2009, it was predicted that China would require 14 million barrels of oil per day by 2025. In fact, China reached that figure in 2019 and is expected to need at least 17 million barrels per day by 2040. At the same time, the US became a net oil exporter in 2019 and thus achieved a longstanding foreign policy goal: to overcome its dependence on Middle Eastern fossil fuels.

China has benefited from increasing demand for its manufactured products, with exports to the Gulf growing at an annual rate of 11.7% over the last decade. It overtook the US in 2008 and then the EU in 2020 to become the Gulf’s most important source of imports.

These are good customers for China to have. The Gulf economies are expected to grow by around 5.9% in 2022 (compared with a lacklustre 2.5% predicted growth in the US and EU) and offer attractive opportunities for China’s export-orientated economy. It is likely that the fast-tracking of a free trade agreement was high on the summit’s agenda in early December.

Strong ties

The Gulf’s increased reliance on trade with China has been accompanied by a reduction in its appetite to follow the west’s political and cultural lead.

As a group, it was supportive of the west’s military action in Iraq for example, and the broader fight against Islamic State. But more recently, the Gulf notably refused to support the west in condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also threatened Netflix with legal action for “promoting homosexuality”, while Qatar has been actively banning rainbow flags supporting sexual diversity at the Fifa men’s World Cup.

So Xi’s visit to Saudi Arabia was well timed to illustrate a strengthening of this important partnership. And to the extent that anything can be forecast, a deepening of the Gulf-China trade relationship seems likely. On the political front, however, developments are less easy to predict.

China is seeking to safeguard its interests in the Middle East in light of the Belt and Road initiative, its ambitious transcontinental infrastructure and investment project.

But how much further might the Gulf states be prepared to sacrifice their longstanding security pacts with western powers (forged in the aftermath of the second world war) in order to seek new ones with the likes of Beijing? Currently, America has military bases (or stations) in all six Gulf countries, but it is well documented that the GCC is seeking ways to diversify its self-perceived over-reliance on the US as its primary guarantor of security (a sentiment within the bloc that was pronounced while Obama was president, less so with Trump, but on the rise again with Biden).

In the coming period, the GCC will need to decide which socioeconomic path to pursue in the post-oil era where AI-augmented, knowledge-based economies will set the pace. In choosing strategic ties beyond trade alone, the Gulf states must ask whether the creativity and innovative potential of their populations will be best served by allegiances to governments which are authoritarian, or accountable.

Emilie Rutledge, Lecturer in Economics, The Open University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

I was an Arab Muslim girl in an American school in Bahrain from elementary through high school. I grew up between two cultures. Of course, my Arab Muslim side dominated, but I was struck by the beauty, independence and inspiration from my American experience. I wove those threads of independence into my own professional life, taking on roles as a CEO, activist, and an advocate for change.

In researching my book, Hear Us Speak: Letter from Arab Women, I met with Gen Z Arab women in their late teens and early 20s. They’ve grown up exposed to the outside world through social media, and they’re emboldened! These women are determined to live life on their own terms and they believe that, in the foreseeable future, Arab women will be treated equally and with due respect.

These signs of revolution exhibited by young women paint a hopeful picture. Throughout all the interviews I did with these amazing women, there was an undeniable common thread of strength. Their stories ran the gamut from pain and abuse to forgiveness and moving on. They chose to forgive and help others overcome.

Gen Z Steps Up

The process of writing Hear Us Speak confirmed some theories I had been thinking about. On a global level, this post-Millennial generation is more socially conscious, ethical and rebellious. We’re talking about a group of women who demonstrate some remarkable traits:

A commitment to keep pushing for progress. Ambitions to build careers, including in fields traditionally reserved for men A willingness to break away from entrenched customs and norms Respect their own bodies, hearts, and minds. Belief in the power of education—and the need for more ubiquitous access to it. A desire for relationships based on mutual respect and understanding. No expectations that a husband will care for them financially or emotionally. Refusal to accept a husband taking on another wife. An expectation that their future husbands will treat their sons and daughters equally.

Hear Us Speak: Letters from Arab Women
by Suzan Kanoo. Click here.

A pivotal moment in my research came when my daughter, Lara, brought several friends home and we sat together in the parlor. Light was pouring in through the skylight overhead as these bright, strong girls from different backgrounds, all of them wearing the latest fashions, told me their stories. One young woman was covered and quiet, but when she talked she said incredibly smart and beautiful things. Another talked about how she no longer wears a hijab as a result of her father experiencing a change of heart a few years back.

She spoke with force and great passion, often interjecting a new idea. “So tell me about double standards,”

I said. “Do you feel like you face them?”

One young woman replied, “Oh, absolutely. We have to do more to be on the same level as a man—even if the guy puts in half of the effort.”

“I think if we want to change the double standard,” another girl chimed in, “we have to start at home. That’s always where real change begins: in the family unit.”

One thing is for sure, this generation doesn’t hold back! They know exactly what the playing field is like for them in a region with double standards, but they aren’t whining about it. They can see above it. That evening spent with strong and empowered Gen Z women left me with a sense of hope for the months and years ahead.

The experience also left me with one last letter request, one from my daughter. “Would you write a letter to me, Lara?” I asked my daughter.

She was surprised. “What am I supposed to write?” I told her it was up to her. It took a couple of days, but then one morning I opened my inbox and there it was:

“We have trudged distances and grasped mere glimpses of equality. But I also see the change destined to come. A change that will eradicate the ceaseless inequality and allow equal opportunities. But we will not stop here. You have shown me this, Mama, since I was a young girl. Because of that, I will not give up.”

I think that says it all. The kids are more than alright. They’re changing the world.

*** Suzan “Suzy” Kanoo is a Bahraini CEO, activist and advocate for change. Her book, Hear Us Speak, shares letters from Arab women about their experiences facing deeply entrenched cultural sexism and human rights abuse. A graduate of the Harvard Business School, Suzy has been named one of the most successful women business leaders in Bahrain.

( Middle East Monitor ) – Lebanon is plagued by crises, with a new one added almost daily. The people are suffering from power cuts and fuel shortages, and queue for hours at petrol stations and bakeries. Daily life has become unbearable. There is also the conflict between the Lebanese armed forces and Hezbollah to contend with. Nobody knows how it will end. Is another civil war on the way? The price for this will be paid by ordinary people with their money, blood and lives.

As if all of this wasn’t enough, we now see that Minister of Information George Kordahi has unwittingly dragged Lebanon into a new crisis following statements he made during an episode of the “People’s Parliament” on Al Jazeera, when he called the war in Yemen “futile”. The programme was recorded in August, before he became a minister in the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati. Following his appointment, Kordahi asked Al Jazeera not to air the episode because he had expressed his personal views, not the official Lebanese government position. His request was ignored, and the episode was aired. The timing is suspicious, given that it has prompted a diplomatic crisis.

The graceless Saudi Arabian Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, was not happy with Kordahi’s comment. It was Bin Salman, remember, who launched his coalition military campaign against Yemen under the name “Operation Decisive Storm” eight years ago, and has not been able to resolve it. He claimed at the time that the battle would last just a few hours during which he would eliminate the rebellious Houthis and restore the legitimate government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi to Yemen.

As we all know, it didn’t turn out that way. Houthi missiles have hit Riyadh and other Saudi cities, forcing Bin Salman to present an initiative to end the war in Yemen, which the Houthis rejected without hesitation. Now Bin Salman is asking some Western countries to mediate with Iran — which backs the Houthis — for a ceasefire and negotiations. Recent news is that there are indeed negotiations taking place between Saudi Arabia and Iran behind closed doors.

Kordahi isn’t alone in thinking that the war in Yemen is futile; politicians and government officials in the West have said the same thing, as have analysts and writers, myself included. We have urged an immediate end to the fighting because it has killed and injured tens of thousands of Yemenis, destroyed their land and country, and created a humanitarian catastrophe.

So why did Saudi Arabia react so strongly after Kordahi’s comment was aired by Al Jazeera? What was the major crime that made Saudi Arabia and its coalition ally the UAE expel the Lebanese ambassadors from both countries, recall their own ambassadors from Beirut and impose economic sanctions on struggling Lebanon? Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar have also condemned Kordahi’s statements and reiterated their support for Saudi Arabia.

I believe that there is more to this than Kordahi’s comment. This was confirmed by the Saudi foreign minister’s remarks to Reuters about the crisis. “I think it’s important that the government in Lebanon or the Lebanese establishment forges a path forward that frees Lebanon from the current political construct, which reinforces the dominance of Hezbollah,” said Prince Faisal Bin Farhan.

The way that Saudi Arabia has escalated the crisis with Lebanon illustrates the immaturity of the governments of failed Arab states. Lebanon’s misfortune is that it is plagued by Saudi Arabia and Iran, each of which backs their Lebanese followers along sectarian lines.

Although Prime Minister Mikati praised Saudi Arabia’s regional role and its support for Lebanon in particular, his country’s support for Riyadh and condemnation of the Houthi attacks on the Kingdom did not satisfy Bin Salman. I wonder, though, why the prince did not take such a strong stand against those in the West who have condemned his “futile” war in Yemen.

Why didn’t he feel that the Kingdom was being insulted when Donald Trump insulted it in his speeches and said that he would milk the country, which needed to pay for US protection. He also said if it wasn’t for the US, Bin Salman and his ilk would not still be in their positions. Why have they stayed silent in the face of constant insults by Western leaders and officials? They look in their mirrors and see lions; they are anything but.

George Kordahi is under pressure to resign, but he insists that Lebanon is a sovereign country and cannot give in to blackmail, so he will not submit his resignation. However, the fate of the Mikati government will depend on him doing so. According to Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib, Kordahi is considering the resignation proposal, but he is consulting with others before making his decision. This is a reference to his allies in Syria and Hezbollah.

Mikati’s government could well fall if Kordahi insists on staying on as minister of information. On the face of it, this is a storm in a teacup which wouldn’t have such serious repercussions under normal circumstances. But this is not a normal set of circumstances. We could well be looking at Lebanon as the latest battlefield in the war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Amira Abo el-Fetouh is a writer on politics and literature and a physician, living in Cairo.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

—–

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

TRT World: “Saudi Arabia expels Lebanese Ambassador, bans all imports from Lebanon”

It’s generally reckoned to be one of Donald Trump’s few major foreign policy achievements. On August 13 2020, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel signed a historic agreement normalising relations between the two states, and in the weeks that followed, other Arab states followed Abu Dhabi’s lead in what became known as the Abraham Accords.

The accords, which have now been ratified by UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, were hailed by many as a major diplomatic breakthrough in Arab-Israeli relations, recognising – as they did – “each state’s right to sovereignty and to live in peace and security”. Yet, although the accords expressed the need to continue “efforts to achieve a just, comprehensive, and enduring resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict”, most observers recognised the agreements as another step in the broader abandonment of the cause of Palestinian statehood, simply through normalising relations without a resolution of the Palestinian question.

As one analyst put it:

In the absence of progress or any realistic hope of achieving [Palestinian statehood], standing by the Palestinians has ceased to be a priority for the Gulf monarchies in the face of clear and present threats from Iran, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood, combined with the emergence of common economic and security interests. Relations with Israel have simply become more urgent than the Palestinian question.

This calculation was made against the backdrop of uncertainty ahead of the November US presidential election. Now, less than nine months later, as Israelis and Palestinians enter a new round of violence, questions about the abandonment of the Palestinian cause by signatories of the accords have begun to emerge.

Bad optics

The latest violence and airstrikes against Gaza have been afforded blanket coverage on international news outlets and have provoked serious criticism at signatories for their lack of support for Palestinians. As you would expect, there has been condemnation of Israel’s actions in Jerusalem and Gaza from all Arab states. But it has typically been “very weak” among signatories to the accords.

As the violence has increased, official responses from states who normalised relations with Israel have largely been absent. Meanwhile, in the UEA – which has very strict regulations on social media activity – prominent influencers in the UAE have praised Israeli behaviour, even during the storming of the al-Aqsa mosque – the third holiest site in Islam.

Wassem Yousef, a prominent Emirati cleric, posted a number of tweets blaming Hamas for the escalation, referring to the increasing violence as an “epidemic”. The cleric has previously declared that Palestinians do not “really deserve Jerusalem”, expressing support for Emirati normalisation with Israel.

A strong concern for the UAE – and other signatories to the accords – is the fear about the proliferation of Islamist groups across the region, with a particular focus on the Muslim Brotherhood. This was clear after the Arab Spring uprisings and the counterrevolutionary measures taken to bottle up fundamentalism. So curtailing the actions of Hamas – which possesses intellectual and theological ties with the Brotherhood – is an important feature of Abu Dhabi’s broader world view.

But the absence of serious criticism of the Israeli response may also open up unrest among their populations. According to a recent survey on the normalisation of ties with Israel, ordinary citizens have low levels of support for such developments. In Lebanon, where far the highest level of support for normalisation is found, only 20% favoured peace. Elsewhere, support was under 10%, with only 3% of Jordanians supporting normalisation.

This doesn’t mean any of the states concerned will fully withdraw, given the benefits to be gleaned from maintaining relations. But the optics of providing visible support to Israel at a time when Gaza is under bombardment are potentially damaging. What this suggests is a possible return to the days prior to the accords when relations between Israel and the Arab states conducted their relations behind closed doors.

Turkey and Iran

Meanwhile Iran and Turkey, which strongly criticised the accords as “dagger in the back” of all Muslims and a “betrayal” of the Muslim world, have reacted strongly, with both Ankara and Tehran roundly condemning the violence.

In doing so, the countries – which have strong economic and trade ties – are speaking the words many across the Middle East wished their own leaders would use to condemn Israeli violence. Once again, the Palestinian cause has become a tool through which regional powers can derive legitimacy.

Conspicuous by his absence is the US president, Joe Biden. Less than six months into his presidency, the Biden administration has embarked on a bold foreign policy, engaging in dialogue with Iran over the nuclear deal, and working to resolve the Yemen crisis.

Yet the failure to engage with the Israel-Palestine question lays bare the deep schisms in US politics – where the Israel Lobby continues to exert huge influence – and the legacy of the Trump regime. Undoing Trump’s empowerment of the right-wing of Israeli politics is far trickier than undoing his other policies.
All the while, ordinary Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem continue to pay the heaviest price.

Simon Mabon, Professor of International Relations, Lancaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

—–

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

CNBC International: “Gulf countries should use the leverage they have over Israel, expert says”

( Middle East Monitor ) – Giving up its decades-old position against Israel’s occupation of Palestine, Sudan has agreed to normalise relations with the Zionist state. Tellingly, this was announced by US President Donald Trump on Friday at the White House. He is, of course, seeking a second term in office in next week’s presidential election.

“HUGE win today for the United States and for peace in the world,” Trump tweeted. “Sudan has agreed to a peace and normalisation agreement with Israel!” He celebrated the deal as a personal achievement to add to the previous agreements. “With the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, that’s THREE Arab countries to have done so in only a matter of weeks,” he wrote. “More will follow!” The tweet was clearly part of his election campaign.

The deal was sealed during a phone call between Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, as well as Transitional Council Head Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan. “The leaders agreed to the normalisation of relations between Sudan and Israel and to end the state of belligerence between their nations,” they said in a joint statement.

At the same time, Trump removed Sudan from his country’s list of states which sponsor terrorism, lifting around three decades of tight restrictions imposed on the country and unblocking economic aid and investment. This measure followed the payment, on Sudan’s behalf — apparently by the UAE through Saudi Arabia — of $335 million in compensation for US “terror victims”. Not the victims of US state terrorism, as you might first think, but the American citizens affected by terrorists in East Africa.

Netanyahu described the agreement as a “dramatic breakthrough for peace” and the start of a “new era”. Hamdok, meanwhile, thanked Trump for removing his country from the “state terror” list and said that the Sudanese government is working “towards international relations that best serve our people.” In other words, the Palestinians can go away and rot.

Because they were not aimed at reaching a real reconciliation between the nations in the Middle East, it is hard to know what lies behind these deals, the fake “peace breakthroughs” as Netanyahu and Trump called them. However, slips of the metaphorical tongue by parties involved in the issue are revealing about what went on behind closed doors.

Globes is an Israeli economic newspaper. On Friday it reported that Israel’s Defence Minister Benny Gantz said that the Sudan-Israeli agreement means that “Israel’s security achieved a massive jump forward.” He was in Washington at the time. For the retired general, the “massive jump” has two dimensions: the renewed US “strategic commitment” to Israel’s security, as reported by Walla news website and Israeli TV Channel 13; and probably US arms deals worth billions of dollars with the Arab countries which are now Israel’s allies. A glut of advanced weapons plus support from the US and Israel will reinforce hostility among Arab states and destroy whatever bonds they have between each other at the moment, weakening rather than strengthening them. A weak Arab world is, of course, what Israel has been working towards for decades.

Israeli defence minister and alternate prime minister Benny Gantz in Jerusalem on 5 July 2020 [GALI TIBBON/POOL/AFP via Getty Images]

Moreover, if only the “normalised” states will be allowed such advanced weapons, those Arab states can be relied upon to stand with Israel in any confrontation with Iran. Again, something that Israel will have dreamed of for many years.

The Times of Israel reported that Netanyahu and Gantz announced earlier on Friday that Israel would not oppose the US sale of “certain weapon systems” to the UAE. This was an apparent reference to the advanced F-35 stealth fighter jets, about which Washington has given Israel assurances that it would “significantly upgrade” its own military capabilities in exchange. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were also given the green light to buy advanced US weapons.

This is one aspect of the arms race, pitching Arab countries against Arab countries. The other is the competition between the Arabs and Israel. Given that Washington will always ensure that Israel has the qualitative and quantitative edge in the region, this is one race that the normalising Arabs must know they will not win. Nevertheless, Israel wants to make absolutely certain, just in case the current dictators in the region are overthrown and regimes less open to normalisation bribery and blackmail take over.

The race has already started. When Gantz travelled to the US, Ynet News reported that he was expected to order a third squadron of Lockheed Martin 5th Generation F-35 aircraft and Boeing F-15 EX jets, which will include a series of upgraded capabilities. He was also expected to discuss long-range munitions during his visit.

According to Responsible Statecraft, “On this trip, he [Gantz] wanted to make sure that Israel got the best deal it could to ensure that any weapons sales to the UAE, or to other states that agree to normalise their relations with Israel, would not diminish Israel’s military dominance in the region.”

Israeli journalist Alon Ben-David, who specialises in defence and military issues, said that the Americans refused to make such a pledge to Gantz. Speaking to Al Jazeera, the director of the Arms and Security Programme at the DC-based Centre for International Policy, William Hartung, said that arms sales were an “important factor” in the normalisation deals. Bahrain, he affirmed, may have agreed to normalisation in order to have access to advanced weaponry, and the Saudis could follow suit. Indeed, Israel’s Channel 12 has reported that the government believes that Saudi Arabia will normalise relations soon, and the decision will be accompanied by a significant arms deal with Washington.

Arming the Arab states in this way demonstrates that these are far from the “peace agreements” that the various governments claim; they are intended to equip them to wage war and suppress the human rights of their own citizens. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, remember, are still fighting a war against the Houthis in Yemen. Reports claim that they are guilty of war crimes there and want to split the country in two. In Libya, the UAE, along with Egypt, is supporting the renegade Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, whose militias have been fighting the legitimate government and are said to be responsible for numerous war crimes.

All the evidence suggests, therefore, that these “peace” deals are, in fact, little more than a fig leaf for arms deals which will make the region more dangerous for everyone. We Palestinians are not surprised, because Israel and its lackeys in Washington have been trying to pull the wool over our eyes for decades with fake “peace” deals which allow the colonisation of our country to continue unabated. The so-called “deal of the century” is but the latest of these. The Arab leaders normalising with the occupation state should be ashamed that they have sold their countries and their self-respect so cheaply.

Motasem A. Dalloul is a journalist based in Gaza and a specialist on Middle East affairs. He holds an MA in international journalism from the University of Westminster in London. He is is MEMO’s correspondent in the Gaza Strip.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Middle East Monitor

—

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

Israel: Will not oppose US weapon sales to UAE | News Bulletin | Indus News

Embed from Getty Images(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images).

The state-owned Dubai Ports company admitted as far back as 2006 that it dealt with Israeli firms.

The accords are in fact a war agreement among three heavily armed Middle East states characterized by a version of Jim Crow society.

The Israeli government is militarily Occupying five million stateless and rights-less Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The government of PM Binyamin Netanyahu is determined forever to keep them stateless, and every day encroaches further on their land, property and human rights.

The Emirates is a tiny country of about a million citizens and 8 million guest workers with no political rights. It is run as seven absolute monarchies with oil-rich Abu Dhabi primus inter pares, with its crown prince Mohammed Bin Zayed al-Nahayan in charge. Bin Zayed has developed ambitions of regional hegemony. He has pursued a brutal and ruinous war in Yemen, where his campaigns and those of his Saudi and other allies have displaced millions of poor Yemenis and driven much of the country to food insecurity and the brink of starvation. The United Nations has accused the UAE of war crimes in Yemen. The UAE also has wider ambitions throughout the Arabian Sea and Red Sea regions, in Eritrea even as far away as Libya.

I wrote last month,

“Matthew Lee of AP reports, Trump broached the sale of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Stealth fighter jets to the UAE. Trump said, “They have the money and they would like to order quite a few F-35s. It’s the greatest fighter jet in the world, as you know, by stealth, totally stealth. … They’d like to buy F-35s, we’ll see what happens. It’s under review, but they made a great advance in peace in the Middle East . . . One F-35 retails for roughly $100 million. BBC Monitoring translates a report in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that alleges a high UAE official told its correspondent that “The aircraft are part of the deal.” That is, an arms deal was part of the agreement between the two countries, and that the US would sell Abu Dhabi F-35s was openly specified.’ So the United Arab Emirates made the treaty with Israel not to bring peace to the Middle East but to ensure that it is armed to the teeth.

Despite all the talk about allying against Iran, the ambitions of the UAE are for military expansionism to the west and south. It already has a US security umbrella against Iran.

Mohammed Bin Zayed, by the way, did not come for the signing, possibly because the FBI wants to question him about his suspected role in campaign interference on behalf of Trump in 2016 and his secret visit to Trump Tower in December of that year when Obama was still president.

Bahrain is also a small country, a set of islands, with a population of about 1.5 million. Roughly two-thirds are Shiites. The Sunni monarchy of Bahrain thusly rules over a Shiite majority that is systematically discriminated against and deprived of basic human rights. The government crushed the democracy movement of 2011 ruthlessly, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sent in small troop contingents to help. The major vehicle of majority Shiite political aspiration, the Wefaq Party, has been dissolved and its leader sentenced to life imprisonment for thought crimes.

Embed from Getty Images
Anti-government protesters wave flags and demonstrate at the Pearl roundabout on February 20, 2011 in Manama, Bahrain. Protesters filled the square for another day, as the government and oppostion leaders engaged in talks to resolve the weeklong uprising. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

Bahrain practices torture of political prisoners, something its secret police were trained in by the notorious British colonial official Ian Henderson, the “Butcher of Bahrain,” who had cut his teeth repressing the Mau Mau movement in Kenya, and then was posted to Bahrain, where stayed on after independence to impart the Empire’s specialized and exquisite knowledge of vulnerable anatomy.

Human Rights Watch wrote of its record last year,

“Bahrain’s human rights record worsened in 2019, as the government carried out executions, convicted critics for peaceful expression, and threatened social media activists, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2020.

The government executed three people in July, including two prisoners convicted in a mass trial marred by serious due process violations and allegations of torture. On December 31, 2018, the Court of Cassation upheld a five-year sentence for the human rights defender Nabeel Rajab, arising from his social media activity. The courts subsequently rejected motions filed by Rajab’s lawyer requesting that he serve a non-custodial sentence. The Court of Cassation upheld the life sentence against Shaikh Ali Salman, leader of Al-Wifaq, Bahrain’s largest but now-dissolved opposition political society, on January 28 on dubious “espionage” charges. Bahraini authorities have silenced, exiled, or imprisoned anyone who criticizes the government,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “To make matters worse, Bahrain’s allies are burying their heads in the sand and conducting business as usual instead of pressing Bahrain to release Nabeel Rajab and others jailed for speaking out.”

Ordinarily in diplomatic affairs some countries are afraid to get too close to Israel for fear of being tainted by its Jim Crow policies toward Palestinians. But in this case it is surely Israel that has taken the hit in its reputation for cozying up to these ruthless regimes.