Israeli foreign policy towards Gulf normalization after 2020: a case study of the UAE and Bahrain

Supervision: Prof. Dr. Mohamed Nour Al-Basrati - Head of the Department of Political Science - Beni Suef University - Faculty of Politics and Economics - Department of Political Science.

Study summary

For many decades, the Arab countries viewed Israel as an enemy and a primary threat to their national security, and committed themselves to rejecting all forms of normalization before reaching a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue. . The Arab position remained somewhat coherent regarding the normalization of relations with Israel, despite the existence of a historical background to the secret relations of many Arab countries with Israel. Recently, the normalization steps took an accelerated and public turn that included various fields. These steps culminated in the official normalization of the UAE, Bahrain and others with Israel in late 2020. The main question of the study is what is Israel's vision towards Gulf normalization after 2020? The importance and objectives of the study are to shed light on the recent developments that took place in the Middle East region, such as the normalization of some Gulf countries with Israel, and what are the motives of these countries. We monitor regional and international reactions to the normalization agreements. The study relied on two approaches; Systems analysis, which is based on a set of inputs and outputs, and the national interest approach to explain the interest of Israeli foreign policy in engaging in this normalization. The political leadership in the Gulf is on the path of normalization. The third axis deals with studies related to Arab-Israeli normalization. The fourth axis deals with studies related to Gulf-Israeli normalization. The fifth axis deals with studies related to Israel and Arab national security. The sixth axis deals with studies related to relations between the Arab Gulf states. The seventh and final axis deals with Studies related to indirect relations between some Gulf countries and Israel.

The study was divided into three chapters, where the first chapter entitled “Dimensions of Arab-Israeli Normalization” deals with the emergence of Israel and the factors that prepared for its establishment and Britain’s role in it, then the introductions to normalization and the treaties that were signed between them between Egypt and Jordan.

Related Articles

The second chapter, entitled “The justifications for the political shift of some Gulf countries towards Israel,” explained the reasons for the Gulf countries’ aspiration for normalization with Israel and the importance of normalization for both parties, then the regional reactions from the new political alliances. The third chapter was entitled “Repercussions of Normalization On Arab National Security” sheds light on the dangers of normalization on Arab national security in several aspects, including political, economic and military…., and then follows the impact of normalization on the Palestinian cause and its repercussions, beginning with the 1979 peace agreement and ending with the UAE-Bahraini normalization with Israel in 2020.

The study concludes by presenting some results, recommendations and possible scenarios for the consequences of normalization in the Middle East and the changes in Israeli foreign policy in accordance with the new policies and current geopolitical alliances.

Introduction

When examining the nature of Israeli-Arab relations, we will find that the predominant character of them since the establishment of the State of Israel on the land of Palestine in 1948 is conflictual, whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, we find that the Israelis are aware that their entity constitutes a foreign body planted in a hostile environment, even if Lifting the blockade imposed on their state by the Arabs, and imposing the existence of their state and ensuring its survival requires obtaining international legitimacy through its recognition and acceptance. Thus, Israel tries to win the recognition of the Arab states and the official Arab regime by creating normal relations between them and the states, and gradually we noticed that there is a transformation Conflict relations between Israel and the Arab countries turn into normal relations, and into normalization, and this is the dangerous nature that undermines the national goals of the Arab peoples.

It is agreed that Arab-Israeli normalization is a dream of the leaders of successive Israeli governments, and they tirelessly strive to achieve this dream, on the basis that normalization is a necessary step for Arab governments and peoples in order for peace to be achieved, and we find that despite the signing of peace agreements by the Zionist entity With Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the existence of secret relations with which the Zionist entity is associated with the Arab state, but the Zionist entity is not satisfied that its relations with some Arab countries are represented in political normalization, as it grants itself direct and clear relations at all levels that go beyond the Palestinian cause It is based solely on the foundations of relations and interests between countries.

In view of the great importance that the Gulf countries represent in the Arab world, they are the eastern gateway to the Arab world and have a strategic location, in addition to representing the point of wealth in the Arab countries because of the enormous oil wealth they possess. In this study, we will try to shed light on the Gulf countries, especially my country The UAE and Bahrain, after they normalized their relations with Israel recently.

Within the context of a series of events in the Arab world or on the international arena that accelerated the pace of normalization with Israel, including the Arab Spring revolutions, and the difference in the view of the danger of most Arab countries, they began to see that Iran's threats are more important than the Arab-Israeli conflict. a strategic ally to keep their regimes from collapsing, and the presidency of Donald Trump for the United States of America; As his administration moved from siding with Israel to full partnership and support for the Zionist project through direct pressure from the United States of America on its Arab countries to move forward with the project of full normalization with Israel, coinciding with a state of great disregard for the Palestinian cause.

Hence, we can say that the Zionist entity seeks perseverance and based on the fact that its main issue is security, to take normalization steps to prove that the Zionist entity and its citizens are accepted in the region as part of the regional system, and through our study we will try to shed light on the history of relations between Israel and the Arab countries , and also the objectives and interests of Israel in its normalization with the UAE and Bahrain, and the positions of external powers in the international community regarding Arab-Israeli-Arab normalization, and we will seek through our study to try to trace the issue of Gulf-Israeli normalization and what will lead to the Palestinian issue after normalization, and the aim of all this is to try to identify the issue Normalization flowing to the core of the Arab national position.

The research problem

The Arab countries are witnessing manifestations of normalization with Israel, declared or semi-declared by some Arab regimes, such as the case of the two countries, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Israeli where; The Gulf countries participated as parties that provide financial and military financing to other Arab countries, but with the occurrence of geopolitical changes in the region, it showed that the steady change in relations would be the prominent feature between the Arab Gulf countries and Israel.

The research problem revolves around answering the main question:

What is Israel's vision towards Gulf normalization after 2020? A number of sub-questions emerge from the main question:

The importance of the study

We do not need to differentiate between the scientific and practical importance in our study, as the serious research problem is the one that has clear importance, aiming through our study for the Gulf-Israeli normalization, which is the most raised issue on the global scene, which had great reactions at the regional and international levels In the world, we found several reasons why the Gulf states are coordinating behind normalization with Israel, after Israel has a role in the region through which it seeks to achieve its goals and exploit the disintegration and weakness of the Arabs and their inability to resist, struggle and defend the Palestinian cause and the rights of the Palestinians.

The study is concerned with monitoring the recent developments that took place in the last countries that normalized relations with Israel, namely Bahrain and the Emirates, as these countries viewed Israel as bringing the national interest to it without thinking about the basic right, which is ridding Palestine of the occupation, and we will try to clarify the reactions of the Arab peoples Regarding the recent Gulf normalization, even if Sudan was the last country to normalize with Israel, our conversation will be very detailed and focused on Gulf normalization and the policy of the Zionist entity in the region that prompted the UAE and Bahrain to normalize with it.

We will also explain the major role of the United States of America and its former president, Donald Trump, in this normalization. The study will also explain how Israeli foreign policy deals with the changes and crises that the Arab countries were exposed to after the Arab Spring revolutions, in addition to the foreign policy that Israel pursued in the Gulf region until The UAE and Bahrain were subjected to normalization.

The objectives of the study

1. Knowing the role of influential political actors in the international system in the process of normalization and what are their interests.
2. Showing how the official Arab system interacted with normalization.
3. Knowing the impact of Gulf-Israeli normalization on The Palestinian issue
4. Highlighting the Iranian role in the Arab region and whether it has led to accelerating the pace of normalization with Israel.
5. Tracking the American role as a main driver and beneficiary of normalization.
6. Highlighting the motives of both Israel and the two countries of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain towards normalization.
7. Scenarios of the Israeli normalization project with the Gulf countries.

Methodology of the study

The nature of the studied subject is what imposes on us the quality of the curricula. The method is the method used by the researcher in his study in order to reach the discovery of the truth by following a set of steps to answer the problematic of the study. This study relies on two approaches;

David Aston presented a framework for analyzing the political system as an integrated circuit, with a dynamic nature that begins with inputs and ends with outputs, with the feedback process linking inputs and outputs. The study will attempt to employ the assumptions of the systems analysis approach in analyzing and interpreting the dynamics of Israeli foreign policy towards normalization Gulf (UAE and Bahrain) through the main concepts on which the system is based, the environment, inputs, outputs, conversion and feedback processes.

Inputs

The inputs to our study, according to this approach, are the motives of Israeli foreign policy for signing normalization agreements with the UAE and Bahrain, in addition to the motives of the UAE and Bahrain.

Transformation process

The transformation process is represented in the preliminary meetings between the political system in each of the three countries (Israel _ UAE _ Bahrain) and the mediation of the United States that paved the way for rapprochement between them.

Output

It is represented in the announcement of agreements of submission and rapprochement between the UAE and Bahrain, which covered all fields; political, economic, cultural, and military…,.

Refeed

It is represented in the Arab reactions to the normalization agreements.

The national interest approach is considered one of the main research approaches in the field of international relations and foreign policy, and it is a clear translation of the realistic school that has dominated the analysis and study of international relations since the end of World War II, and is based on three basic concepts: power, balance of power, and interest national.

Definition of the concept of national interest[1]:

The concept of the national interest is one of the concepts that has sparked intense controversy, as this concept takes on different contents, in addition to the lack of agreement in many cases about what the national interest means in terms of goals and priorities, not only between politicians and decision-makers within the same country, but also between International relations literature as well.

Joseph Nye defined the national interest as: “a group of interests that represent a common denominator for the citizens of a country in its relations with the rest of the world.” Joseph Frankel distinguished between the concept of national interest, which is linked to foreign policy and expresses the interests of the state on the external level and in Confronting other countries, and the public interest that expresses the interests of the masses of citizens at the domestic level. In light of this, the national interest can be defined as: “the general framework governing the foreign policy of states and the main guide to it.” .

This approach considers that the primary goal of the state is to achieve the national interest, and on this basis, the proponents of this approach focus in the study of international relations on everything related to the national interest and consider that the national interest includes continuity in international relations in the sense of interests.

How does the curriculum reflect the research:

Based on the study’s quest to identify Israeli foreign policy in the light of Gulf normalization after 2020, and to identify the position of Israeli foreign policy on these new regional changes that drive the normalization of relations with Israel, and therefore the national interest approach will be used to identify the national interest that Israel seeks from The foreign policy that it adopts in response to normalization policies, and also this approach will be used to identify the priorities of the national interest of Israeli foreign policy in its relations with the Gulf states (UAE and Bahrain) and who benefits most in terms of logic? Is it not mutual interests?

Limitations of the study

Thematic framework

Arab countries have entered a new phase of normalization, where the Palestinian issue and the improvement of its conditions in the peace process are no longer a condition for improving relations with Israel, and the latter has reversed its strategy so that the solution to the Palestinian issue is to achieve a comprehensive regional peace first as a prelude to resolving the Palestinian issue, and then the study deals with Israeli foreign policy towards Gulf normalization after 2020 AD. We coincided with the Emirati and Bahraini normalization with Israel.

time frame

Israel has enjoyed direct relations with some member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council for more than two decades, as the security rapprochement between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain began to become evident since the beginning of 2010, after the wave of instability in the Middle East escalated in favor of Iran at the expense of the GCC countries. Gulf cooperation, but relations between them began to take another turn characterized by formality and direct relations between the UAE, Bahrain and Israel. These steps culminated in the “Abraham” agreement, which was signed under American auspices on September 15, 2020. Therefore, our study begins since 2020. Our coincidence with the Israeli normalization with both the UAE and Bahrain and its motives and effects on the region As for the end of the period, the results of these agreements are still ongoing for a moment.

Spatial framework

This study includes three countries located in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Israel.

conceptual framework

Basic concepts:

International politics:

Many thinkers differed in defining an accurate concept of foreign policy, due to the different starting points of each of them in defining foreign policy:

There are those who define foreign policy as a set of programmes. One of the most important pioneers of this trend is Dr. Muhammad al-Sayyid Selim, who defined foreign policy as “a public action program chosen by the official representatives of the international unit from among a group of programmatic alternatives available in order to achieve specific goals in external Ocean"

There are those who define foreign policy as the behavior of the decision-maker, and one of the most important pioneers of this trend is Charles Herrmann, “who defined foreign policy as consisting of those distinct official behaviors followed by the official decision-makers in the government or those who represent it, which are intended to influence the behavior of the external international ”

The third trend defines foreign policy as activity, and based on limiting the second trend of foreign policy to the behavior of the decision-maker, the third trend thinks that foreign policy cannot only apply to the behavior of the decision-maker in the state, but rather deviates from external activity and the external movement of states. Hamed defines The spring of foreign policy defines it as “all forms of external activity, even if it does not emanate from the state as a regular fact, i.e. the activity of the group as an urban existence.”[2]

Procedural concept

1. Programs
2. Behaviors
3. External Activities

The Lobby:

The concept of the lobby or lobbies is related to the pressure groups that influence the policies of institutions and companies, and even the policies of entire countries, due to its spread, strength, and close relations with influential people in every society and senior statesmen.

In defining the term, the word “LOBBY” is originally from an English word that means the hallway or front lobby in a hotel, and this word is used in politics to denote groups or organizations whose members try to influence decision-making in a particular body or entity. This term crystallized in the United States of America during the 1830's.

The lobby is an organized legal body or group that defends certain issues, positions, or interests specified by the public authorities in the state, so it plays a pivotal and important role in political life, until it is known that decisions are prepared or made by the lobby, and the role of the state authorities is limited to providing The official status of these decisions, and in this sense it does not seek, like the parties, to receive power, but rather seeks to influence the government and its leadership indirectly through various means, on top of which is the establishment of a network of relations.[3]

The procedural concept of the lobby

1. Lobbyists
2. Influence
3. Legal Body

Normalization:

The debate about normalization has become urgent recently, in light of the signs of rapprochement between the Gulf regimes and Israel, and the rush of more Arab countries to consolidate their public and secret relations with the Israeli colonial entity. This momentum around normalization was not limited to the level of Arab regimes with Israel, but rather to the individual level as well. It is worth noting that normalization is not an event but rather a continuous process or process, as we indicated before, in a planned and conscious manner in order to reach a normal relationship. The normalization of relations does not necessarily mean the success of the process in reaching a high level of coordination and cooperation, but merely the abstention of the boycott. Through the beginning of contacts between the two countries, the so-called normalization process that aims to reach a normal state begins. The end of the estrangement phase is practically the beginning of the normalization phase. And if the boycott bears evidence of one regime or state rejecting another state or regime at all, then normalization carries a minimum level of acceptance of the existence of the other regime or state, its role, ideology, mentality, and political and diplomatic behavior.

From the foregoing, we conclude that normalization is efforts to communicate, communicate, build, and develop relations between one state and another, which were consciously and intentionally estranged, in order to reach a normal relationship that is not marred by tension or excessive tension. This process of normalization most likely results from all parties reaching a state of acceptance of the other regime in its current form, ideology, form, and behavior[4].

The procedural concept of normalization

1. Continuity
2. Planning
3. Communication
4. Development

Regional systems:

There are many names that describe the concept of the regional system. Some call it the system name as a metaphor for the international System subordinate International, the relations between the related and affiliated countries of the international system. The regional system is a sub-domain within the framework of the external environment from which the international system is formed, that is, the international system is disintegrated into several sub-systems, and this is because many regions enjoy a clear degree of disconnection and differentiation from the international system, as was previously indicated within the Uran model.

What is meant by the regional system is a group of countries that belong to one region, and are linked by common factors of interest and loyalty, so that they establish the basis of their international dealings on a self-feeling of distinction and cooperation, and perhaps regional integration at a later stage in the areas of security, economy, society and all fields, Here, the difference between naming the regional system becomes clear, which is based on the idea of ​​grouping countries into regional systems. The regional system also refers to a kind of relations and interactions between a group of countries that fall within one geographical region. It also refers to that geographical area that includes neighboring countries that overlap with each other. Some in the complex activity of interactions and dealings achieve goals and common interests.[5]

Procedural concept of regional systems

1. Relationships
2. Interactions
3. Interdependence
4. Interests

National Security:

The concept of security refers in one of its definitions to “the ability by which the state is able to secure the release of its internal and external sources of strength, economic and military, in various fields in the face of the sources that threaten it internally and externally, in peace and war, while continuing the secure release of those forces in present and future in order to achieve the planned goals.

The concept of national security went through two important phases as a result of global developments: In the first phase, it was viewed in a narrow strategic view, namely repelling a hostile military attack, protecting borders from foreign invasions, and preserving national independence. In the second phase, the state became obligated to secure its citizens politically, economically, and socially. And culturally, against multiple dangers imposed by the nature of wide openness to the modern era, where the term national security was used to express a set of policies taken to ensure the integrity of the state’s territory and to defend its gains in the face of enemies, whether at home or abroad, and the concept of security has expanded in recent decades to include issues that are not necessarily Of a military or security nature, to include a set of economic, cultural and social measures, after it has been proven that there are threats to national security other than aggression and external threats, such as the struggle of class differences, poor distribution of income, and the absence of social justice.[6]

The procedural concept of national security

1. Security
2. Defense
3. Threats

International Relations:

Like many other concepts, there is no comprehensive and inclusive definition of international relations. By examining the concept of international relations, we will find many concepts, which confirms that international relations is a wide phenomenon of overlapping exchanges that take place across the national borders of countries. In this study, we will We use some definitions of international relations:

John Burton defined it as: “a science concerned with observation, analysis, and theorizing for interpretation and prediction.” McClelland defined it as: “the study of interactions between certain types of social entities, including the study of favorable conditions surrounding interactions.”

And Reynolds defined it: “It is concerned with studying the nature, management, and influence of relations between individuals and groups operating in a field of special competition within a framework of chaos. It is concerned with the nature of interactions between them and the variable factors influencing this interaction.”[7]

The procedural concept of international relations

1. Observation
2. Analysis
3. Theorizing
4. Interactions
5. Effect

The International Politics:

Dr. Hamid Rabie defines international politics as “the interaction that inevitably causes the expected and necessary clash and entanglement as a result of the different goals and decisions issued by more than one political unit.

International politics is a group of interactions emanating from more than one country and it can be called the interaction of the foreign policy of those countries, but this definition gave these interactions the character of collision and entanglement because these interactions and decisions are issued by more than one political unit, but this definition is flawed in international politics What distinguishes it most is because international politics can include cooperative and harmonious relations.

There is a difference between international politics and foreign policy, as the elements of international politics are states, international organizations, and active groups, but the elements of foreign policy are individuals, institutions, and parties.[8]

The procedural concept of international politics

1. Interaction
2. Goals
3. Decisions
4. Clash
5. Entanglement
6. Cooperation
7. Harmony

Previous studies

It is divided into seven axes:

The first axis: Studies related to Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East

This study dealt with the regional variables that affected the Israeli foreign policy, these changes represented in the revolution of January 25, 2011 AD in Egypt, as it represented a threat to the Israeli foreign policy, as well as the Arab Spring revolutions due to the emergence of a number of armed organizations, including ISIS, which represents A threat to Israel, and also dealt with Israel's position on the Iranian nuclear program, which is considered a major threat to Israel, based on the above, Israel pursued a certain foreign policy towards all of these variables. In this study, the researcher relied on the national interest approach to identify the national interest that Israel seeks to achieve through the foreign policy it adopts in response to these variables. This study reached several results, including:

- The factors influencing Israeli foreign policy represented by the lack of water resources, the Arab Spring revolutions and the Iranian nuclear agreement. In order to confront these factors, Israel adopted a foreign policy that guarantees the realization of its interests in the Middle East.

- Israel's position on the changes in Egypt, as these changes represented a concern for Israel because they threaten its national security.

- Israel's position on the Iranian nuclear agreement. Israel has adopted a military solution to deal with the Iranian program because it represents a threat to Israeli national security.

This study was limited to the impact of only two regional variables on Israeli foreign policy, namely the changes that Egypt witnessed during the revolution of January 25, 2011 AD and the Iranian nuclear program, and neglected the tools of Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East in light of these changes.

This study is based on the foreign policy of Israel towards the Arab Gulf states after the Iraq war, and it also clarifies the nature of the relationship before the war as well, and that the post-Iraq transformations took place in the region with dangerous and unprecedented outcomes that together, pushed for the opening of new horizons in the relationship between Israel and The countries of the Arab Gulf Council, and the researcher sees here that part of the strengthening of relations between the Gulf countries and Israel is due to the growing regional and international role in the region, and also shows that the war on Iraq led to a significant escalation of the American-Iranian role, and this reflected positively on the Israeli-Gulf relations .

This study identifies the reasons why cooperation exists between the Arab countries and Israel and the reasons for Israel's desire to strengthen ties between the two countries, but it did not talk about the Gulf countries' position on normalization.

This study analyzed and studied the intellectual and religious dimensions affecting the orientations of Israeli foreign policy towards the peace process in the Middle East since the Madrid Peace Conference. The study started from the hypothesis that the Zionist thought was able to adapt the peace process in line with its basic ideas.

The study relied on the historical approach and the analytical descriptive approach in studying, analyzing and developing Zionist political thought and its impact on the peace process in the Middle East.

middle.

The study concluded that the Zionist ideology contributed to the adoption of extremist views by Israeli governments towards establishing security and peace in the region, in light of their military superiority and the international support they possess represented by the United States of America in many issues, specifically those related to peace in the Middle East. This study neglected to address the Palestinian issue, which is considered the most important issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that the Zionist thought rejects the idea of ​​establishing a Palestinian state and granting the Palestinian people their right.

The second axis: studies related to the impact of the change of political leadership in the Gulf on the path of normalization

The study presents the beginnings of the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement since the changes in the Middle East following the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011, as the Saudi-Israeli cooperation will generate enormous potential on the political and economic levels, and the official diplomatic relations between the two countries will be reflected in the stability of the region and the advancement of peace and reconciliation processes with the Palestinians. The study assumes the impossibility of normalization without meeting the Palestinian demands, or at least a breakthrough in the negotiations, due to the historical Saudi commitment to push forward to solve the Palestinian issue. Therefore, the Saudi political system tended to follow the path of quiet diplomacy in order to promote strategic goals, instead of announcing relations in a manner official.

The diplomatic relations between the two countries are represented in achieving stability in the Middle East by stopping the subversive and extremist regional forces, under Iranian auspices. The study lists models for the flexibility of Saudi-Israeli relations; It agreed to Indian flights over its airspace to and from Israel, as well as meetings between Saudi and Jewish officials.

The researcher says that the view of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the present time differed from its view in the past, when the Kingdom was viewed as a sworn enemy responsible for the suffering of millions of Palestinians, despite the fact that the Saudi army did not actively participate officially in military operations against Israel, but the Its position was against Jews and Zionism, and it also remembered that the continuous failure of the Arab armies in their war against Israel led to a radical change in the Saudi leadership's perception of resolving the conflict. Using diplomacy as a means, starting with the peace initiative launched by King Fahd, but not implemented due to the outbreak of the Lebanon war.

The study concluded that the volatile regional reality created an opportunity between Israel and the Kingdom, and despite the increasing interactions between the citizens of the two countries, it is unlikely that official relations will occur without significant progress in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. A large number of security officials and politicians in Israel assume; It is better to continue the path of secret diplomacy, because of its many advantages, and because it does not require paying the price resulting from the transition to public relations, as the Kingdom and Israel agree on a long list of common issues, even without officially recognizing their relationship.

However, the study made many obvious points. Including the inability of the Arab armies to confront Israel militarily and their permanent failure, and their neglect of the victory of the October 1973 war, and also ignored the Arab popular opposition to normalization and that there are no increasing interactions between the Arabs and Israel, and the researcher speaks that the main obstacle to normalization is the failure to guarantee the historical rights of the Palestinian people, despite the reason The biggest one is that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the dome of Islam and fears for its position that someone will dispute it and the enemies are lurking in it. The study did not address the Arab reactions towards Saudi-Israeli normalization, if it happened, and the regional position, foremost among which is Iran. With its first enemy and threat to its security.

The study presents the Saudi Crown Prince as a hero and a recent leader in the Kingdom, and enumerates the reforms that took place during his tenure, three years before the time of the study, reforms that seemed unlikely before his arrival, as a conservative wave led by religious leaders dominated the Kingdom, characterized by a vision Mostly Wahhabi, and among the first and most important of these reforms are those related to women's rights, lifting the ban on women driving, women entering stadiums, and reopening cinemas. The study described him as a decisive and strong personality.

The study stated that the main concern is the arrival of bin Salman to power; Foreign policy, as the battle escalates with Iran and its allies in the region, and accordingly Saudi foreign policy struggles in Yemen, Lebanon and Qatar and in its relationship with Turkey, and on this basis and because of the Iranian threat to the throne of bin Salman; Bin Salman followed an unimaginable path. Cooperating with Israel in fighting Iran and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the Kingdom and the United States work together to find a common solution to this conflict, but they face an obstacle. It is that the Palestinian Authority does not accept US-Saudi dictates, and the Palestinians have the means to obstruct this work.

The study concluded that the decisive element in bin Salman's vision 2030 is his plan to reconcile feudal society with the world around it, but there are obstacles in front of it. Most of the young king's reforms target the pillars of the Saudi state. From members of the royal family and religious ideology, to the welfare of the state threatened by low oil prices, the study finds that the monarchy risks narrowing the shelf on which it stands without providing stability. The failure of economic and social reforms may open the door to chaos, and the greatest danger is; Bin Salman's rush in the framework of foreign policy and the war in Yemen, and the study ended with the question, "Is Muhammad bin Salman able, with the passage of time, to face all these challenges? .”

From the previous presentation of the study, we can see the great difference between the Arab society’s vision of the Saudi Crown Prince Bin Salman, and the Western regimes’ vision of him, as the study described him as (leader_leader_reformer_renewer_supporter of liberal ideals), and enumerated his economic and social reforms , and justified his political mistakes in the arrests of the Saudi princes, until he reached the height of his tyranny; October 2018 AD with the assassination of the opposition journalist at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The study also outlines Bin Salman’s foreign role and excessive foreign policy and involving the kingdom in wars. Then the study describes his normalization steps with Israel as unparalleled and their cause; Fear of Iran, and the study neglected the extent of Arab popular anger, with the Kingdom if it follows in the footsteps of public and official normalization with Israel, as it is the second kiss of Islam, and how the Arab and Islamic world receives this news, which is expected to fuel relations even with Iran, and thus it can be said that ; The Kingdom will not sign official public normalization agreements in the short term, and will suffice with secret diplomacy. Fearing for its status and leadership of the Islamic world, in addition to King Salman's opposition to normalization, this situation will not last.

The third axis: Studies related to Arab-Israeli normalization

This study deals initially with the Israeli project of normalization in terms of the concept of normalization in Israeli thought. It shows the first time this concept was used. In a speech to the United Nations in 1968 and after the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations prior to the signing of Camp David, and how the concept of normalization in Israeli political thought is elastic and very different, but in the end it contains arrangements on the ground with a strategic, economic and cultural content, although the normalization of Egyptian relations - Israel gained critical fame, especially in the framework of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but in reality it was only a link in a long-term Israeli strategy, preceded by the policy of forced normalization in the occupied territories and the normalization of the de-facto situation with Jordan through the policy of open bridges, followed by the policy of normalization with Lebanon since the invasion of the south. In 1978, and through the Falasha deal with the Nimeiri regime in Sudan, thus extending the map of normalization between Israel and some Arab countries from the heart of the Arab region to its farthest edges.

The strategic, economic, and cultural content of the Israeli project was dealt with in detail, so we find that the economic content of the Israeli project is the project's goal and its greatest prize. In Israeli thought, it is a necessity to promote peace, as much as it is one of the needs of the Israeli economy, and therefore the free flow of goods. Ideas are the only two pillars capable of consolidating peace and giving it an acceptable character. Cultural normalization represents the main pillar of building peace in the region from the Israeli point of view, as it is more convincing and stable than any security arrangements. From the Arab mind, as a continuation of the attempt to disarm the Arab hand, which is the task that the political and security normalization takes care of. Normalization was also mentioned in the balance of the comprehensive strategic strategy towards the Arab region, and normalization as an American strategy, so we find that in parallel with the dimensions of Israel, normalization represents the American choice for the equation of the American presence In the Middle East, after a series of challenges that this influence faced during the last quarter of a century in the context of its compatibility between strengthening the presence of Israel and strengthening its influence in the Arab region.

Looking at the map of Israeli normalization with the Arab countries presented by the book, we find that Israel's normalization efforts began practically after the defeat of June 1967 and were concentrated in the occupied Arab lands. The Arab people, and therefore the roots of dealing and normalization extended to all sectors, but the early beginnings of the strategy of normalization extended to Jordan through open bridges, which emerged from the geographical and social conditions in the region, and it is one of the deep and gradual normalization, while the next normalization step was on the Egyptian front, it took place in Earth for peace framework.

As for the next step, it targeted a deeper and more ambitious goal, which is building a new political system in Lebanon that does not normalize with Israel, but ally with it as Israel's allies in Lebanon. The next step for normalization in Sudan began with the ethnic minority in the south through the Anyanya organization in the sixties and died By exploiting the role of the Sadat regime in integration, then it developed into the smuggling of Ethiopian Jewish refugees “Falashas” to Israel. As for the last steps of normalization, they are those that took place with the Moroccan regime, from outside the geographical contact with Israel.

At the end of the book, the mechanisms of Arab action towards the Israeli normalization strategy were highlighted, and the main features of the confrontation, both governmental and popular, were clarified, in terms of Arab summit conferences and the strategy of political rejection, the Baghdad summit in the face of Camp David, the two summits in Fez and the dissolution of the strategy of rejection, and the alliance Syria and the Lebanese national forces, as well as the devotion of retreat in the face of the Evran meeting, the Amman summit, and the conferences of Arab ministers of culture and information in the face of cultural normalization, and the Egyptian popular experience: a case study.

We find that this book aims to draw a map of the new danger of the Arab-Israeli normalization strategy and its prospects, and to weigh the mechanisms of action that serve this strategy, and try to monitor the features of the existing and upcoming confrontation, by also highlighting the features of the Israeli project towards the region, and then dealing with the topography of the broad map of normalization, At the end of the book, its field is confrontation, reality, and the future. The outcome of the normal Israeli activities and Arab responses reflects the image of two main dialogues between Israel and the Arab countries. The first reflects the official contacts between Israel and parties of the Arab regime, whether declared or not. This dialogue extends on a broad front that includes the Egyptian regime. The King Hussein regime, the Moroccan regime, and some parties to the Lebanese regime. As for the second dialogue, it reflects the informal contacts between Israeli parties and parties from the Arab community. And the relationship of the parties to the regime with each other, or the relationship of the Arab regime with the peoples of the Arab nations, and the relationship of the Arab political forces with each other.

This study revolves around the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict linked to the emergence of Zionism and Arab nationalism near the end of the nineteenth century, and the Palestinians view the region as their historical homeland in which they lived for thousands of years, on the other hand, the Jews consider that they were promised this land according to texts in the Torah, In the Islamic context, they are Islamic lands. And this conflict has reached its climax in many periods since the 1973 war until it reached the point of displacing the Palestinians from their lands. The Oslo Interim Accords led to the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority in 1994, within the framework of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and in the same year, Israel and Jordan reached a peace agreement.

After that, Lebanon and then Syria were in conflict with Israel, which usually falls within the framework of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, the 2006-2012 period is also attributed to the Iranian proxy war with Israel in the region. Since 2012, Iran has severed most of its ties with the Sunni Hamas movement due to the Syrian civil war. Despite the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, the interim peace agreements with the State of Palestine and the existing cease-fire in general, the Arab world and Israel remain at odds with each other on many issues.

This study is based on the hypothesis that the Arab revolutions constituted a threat to Israeli national security, due to the political repercussions that reshape the regional balance in a way that affects Israel's situation in the Arab region, where the spring revolutions took place against regimes that derive the reasons for their survival from the West. The study focused on clarifying the extent to which Arab-Israeli relations reached after the Arab Spring revolutions and the motives towards the development of these relations in light of the effects of change brought about by the Arab Spring, but the study limited itself to focusing only on the rise of the Islamic trend in Egypt after the revolution and the extent of its impact on Israeli relations with Egypt and security. The Israeli nationalist, and clarified the form of relations between Egypt and Israel after the rise of the Islamic trend, and neglected to clarify that aspect in Tunisia, Libya and Syria.

The study deals with normalization and its many definitions. The first reference to it was the 1979 Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel. It also explains the types of normalization and its dangers to the Arabs, through helping Israel build the Middle East, which is the primary and nominal goal that Israel seeks, as the study focuses on. To clarify the relationship of the Arab nation with the Israelis, as it explains that the Palestinian normalization, if it happens, will be a drift and surrender. The main reason for it is the Arab countries. The study also focuses on clarifying the meaning of boycott, normalization, and communication. It also describes the relationship between Israel and the Arab countries as communication and submission to the Zionist entity. between Arabs and Israelis.

The study focused on explaining and clarifying the many definitions of the concept of normalization, while describing the relations between Israel and the Gulf countries as relations of communication and not normalization, but we see that the Zionists in the eyes of the Arabs in general are the first enemy, so it is not possible to establish relations with them, nor normalization with them in the first place, and what happened With Egypt, the signing of a peace agreement was an end to the war and the recovery of the land. Therefore, we reject normalization altogether, and this is what must be mentioned in all issues related to this issue.

This study sheds light on the determinants of the West's relations with the Arab countries, based on the care and attention that the State of Israel receives from the United States of America and Western countries, in order to define the concept of normalization and clarify its political dimensions, and to find out the reality of this project and its repercussions and risks. The importance of this study through what comes from the increasing danger to the future of the Palestinian cause, and the presence of political variables and events that cast a shadow on the subject under study in terms of agreements and political developments, from Camp David to the disengagement line, and other events that necessitate studying the extent of their impact on the issue of normalization.

In the beginning, the concept of normalization was discussed, which is one of the concepts produced by the Arab-Israeli conflict, as it is not explicitly mentioned in the peace treaties that linked some Arab countries with Israel. Peace agreements between Israel on the one hand and some Arab countries separately on the other hand, and these agreements involve political, economic and cultural normalization.

Up to the second form of normalization, which is regional or collective normalization within the framework of the determination of Israel and with it the Western countries, foremost of which is the United States of America, to normalize relations with the Arab countries at the collective level. As follows: As the new Middle East project, the Greater Middle East project, the expanded Middle East project, up to the Middle East and North Africa Economic Summit.

The manifestations of Israeli normalization and its dimensions of political, economic and cultural normalization were presented, then the positions of some Arab countries towards normalization were presented, including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Oman, and Qatar. Finally, the dangers of Arab-Israeli normalization and its repercussions on The Arab region in general and the Palestinian cause in particular.

This study helped us to get acquainted with the concept of normalization, clarify its implications, follow the manifestations of normalization and investigate its repercussions on the reality of Arab countries on the one hand, and on the future of the Palestinian cause on the other hand, and identify the status of normalization in Israeli policies, and monitor the most prominent Arab contacts with Israel and the view of Arab capitals to the subject of normalization.

This study deals with an attempt to provide a comprehensive vision of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its path and its future. It talks about Jewish groups and functional groups and an attempt to apply functional groups to Jews. It talks about how Zionist thought was formed, and it talks about the crisis of ideologies and the extent of the impact of Zionist thought on the future. Israel.

This study clarified the nature of the Jews, how the Zionist ideology began, and the extent of its influence on Israel, but it neglected the nature of Arab-Zionist relations and the roots of these relations.

This study is based on the fact that Iran has come to replace Israel in the Middle East conflict, and that the Arabs considered it their enemy instead of Israel. Iran.

This study considered Iran the first enemy of the Sunni Arab countries as a dangerous Shiite country in the region, and this study neglected that Israel is the first enemy and also ignored the impact of the normalization of Arab countries with Israel on the Palestinian people.

The study shows the memory of the Arab Muslim peoples compared to their rulers towards the Arab-Zionist conflict, as the Arab Muslim peoples consider the conflict to be an ideological conflict linked to a Quranic and prophetic methodology upon which every Muslim is raised.

The study also shows the refusal of the Arab peoples to deal and normalize with the Zionist entity in all its forms and manifestations, unlike the Arab rulers who completely disagree with their peoples towards Israel, where they place the Zionists on their thrones and in order to please the United States of America, which was credited with the loss of Arab and Islamic issues And the Arab relations with the Zionists were and still are topped by popular discontent, as the study shows the relations of the Zionist entity with some Arab countries such as Egypt, which ended with the signing of the Camp David Agreement until this period through attempts to coordinate for a bilateral summit between Netanyahu and Sisi, and the study also deals with relations The Zionists are with other Arab countries such as the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and the Zionists' relations with African countries and their relations with Turkey.[21]

The study deals with the Arab rulers’ dealings, even if in hidden ways, with the Zionists, and it clarifies the role of the United States of America in bringing about rapprochement between the Arabs and Israel, but the study neglected to explain the role of the Arab rulers who rejected normalization altogether, as well as their people, and it also neglected to analyze the reasons that called for the conclusion of the peace agreement between Egypt And Israel without talking about an agreement and Arabs led between Jordan and Israel.

The study deals with the Arab-Israeli conflict from its inception, as the conflict between the Arabs and Israel is one of the most protracted historical conflicts, as its roots extend back to the late nineteenth century until the establishment of the Zionist entity in Palestine in 1948. The study focuses on statistics and numbers of the Arab-Israeli conflict through several dimensions. Where the military dimension, the study shows the high level of military spending between Israel and the Arabs (Egypt, Syria and Iraq), where the policies between the two parties were distinguished by focusing on intensive armaments, which led to a significant increase in military spending rates, as the Israeli defense policy is based on taking into account the possibility of war It has a wide range between it and the Arab countries, including the countries with which peace settlement treaties have been signed, such as (Egypt and Jordan). The study also explains the strategic military programs of the two parties, whether at the Israeli level or the Arab level. It also deals with the American role in supporting the Zionist entity and focuses on other dimensions such as The economic, cultural and civilizational dimension of the conflict and analyzed them.[23]

The study focuses heavily on the statistics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while analyzing the various dimensions of the conflict in terms of military, economic, cultural, and other dimensions.

The study deals with the nature of the Jordanian-Israeli relations within the framework of the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty, which ended decades of war and no peace between the two countries, with a focus on the determinants of relations between the two countries within the framework of the peace treaty, especially the issues of water and borders, which are issues that have caused widespread controversy at the internal and regional levels. With an explanation of some of the principles and provisions of the peace agreement known as the Wadi Araban Agreement, the study also explains the impact of the treaty on Jordanian national security and Arab national security and the fate of the Palestinian cause in light of the agreement and the contribution of relations between Jordan and Israel in establishing a Palestinian-Israeli peace, while clarifying the stages of attempts to establish peace in the Middle East beginning With Security Council Resolution No. 242 following the 1967 war, the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords, through the signing of the Camp David Treaty between Egypt and Israel, and this is what the first chapter of the study dealt with.

As for the second chapter, it deals with the Jordanian-Israeli peace agreement, strengthening the Palestinian position, and clarifying Jordan's role in seeking progress in negotiations with Israel through the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state, and the Jordanian position and its push towards Jerusalem, refugees, and the right of return.[25]

The study dealt with the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel, which was signed in 1994, according to which diplomatic relations between Israel and Jordan began to take on a formal character, but the study neglected the Palestinian and Arab reactions to the agreement.

The fourth axis: studies related to the Gulf-Israeli normalization

In his book, the historian Ian discussed the reasons that prompted Israel to rapprochement with several Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, especially under the mandate of Muhammad bin Salman. In his book, Black highlighted some scenes of the radical change in relations that occurred in relations between Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Manama, and Tel Aviv. Black, saying that this meeting openly showed the Israeli-Saudi relations, which is something that Netanyahu was very keen on, and his motives in that related to his desire to show that Israel enjoys acceptance and support of some kind by the richest countries in the Arab world such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE - even though the prospects for a solution The longstanding Palestinian issue is at an all-time low - and this unprecedented rapprochement has been driven primarily by shared hostility toward Iran, and new, damaging policies to the region by US President Donald Trump.

According to the author, the Israeli plan led by Netanyahu aims to continue rapprochement with the Gulf states, which in turn will contribute to the marginalization of the Palestinian cause and pressure on the Palestinians, as explained to him by Dore Gold, Netanyahu's former security advisor, saying: “The Israeli-Arab rapprochement did not happen on the This is how it was already in our history, even when there was the signing of peace agreements, the rapprochement with the Arab countries was not in this great way, and that this joint cooperation with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others comes in many different ways and does not necessarily have to be exposed or public, but what is happening in secret is more Much more than any convergence that existed in the past.

The book reviewed the Saudi goals of this alliance with Israel, stating that its official agenda comes in light of the joint Israeli-Saudi endeavor to change the regime in Iran, and after Trump's withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement, Netanyahu indicated that he was ready for Israel to join an "international and regional" alliance against Tehran, and an Emirati analyst and expert says: “We were raised to see Israel as an occupying enemy, but the truth now is that Israel exists whether you like it or not, and we have common interests with them related to several issues, including the Iranian issue, and the matter in international politics is measured by interests and not by feelings and slogans.

And Ian Black continued in his book that all this does not mean that the Palestinian cause has died or disappeared in any way. Where “normalization” of relations with Israel remains a polluted word that is completely rejected by millions of Arab peoples, and for this reason the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and their allies who benefit from popular opposition fear their new friendship with Netanyahu, and the book highlighted the statements of the Palestinian activist Kamal Hawash, in which he said: “Our Arab brothers in Saudi Arabia And the Emirates have stabbed us in our backs and before our eyes, abandoned us politically and embraced Israel.” Exceptionally, Israel enjoys an official diplomatic presence at the headquarters of the International Renewable Energy Agency in Abu Dhabi - although both countries maintain that they do not have bilateral relations.

The writer addressed many controversial points very objectively and made it clear that the Arab street did not accept the new normalizing policies, even if they were implemented by political systems, because the Palestinian cause is alive in the hearts of the Arabs.

The fifth axis: studies related to Israel and Arab national security

The study dealt with the part related to the Israeli security strategy and Arab security; The beginnings of the Zionists seeking to declare their state; From a diplomatic deployment and the use of pressure in the United Nations to issue the Partition Resolution of 1947 AD, then after the catastrophe of 1948 AD, Israel tended to develop the military dimension by seeking to achieve security by participating in Western plans for defending the region because it is closely linked to its interests.

Israel began using the strategy of escalation by applying an organized and retaliatory attack on the borders of Egypt, Syria and Jordan until the tripartite aggression in partnership with France and Britain. Then came the 1973 AD war, which represented the culmination of the performance of the Arab political system and the coordination of Arab policies, and the stage of peace talks between Egypt and Israel began, ending with the 1979 peace treaty.

As for the part related to the Israeli security strategy and the Iranian nuclear program, because of the alliance between Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, and because the Iranian nuclear project is at the forefront of the Israeli security strategy's priorities for dealing with threats; Therefore, the researcher touched on the Israeli vision of this issue.

According to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed, it is entitled to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes, but much of the ongoing Iranian research could involve the potential of a dual-use capability; To deter the United States of America and because their interests are conflicting in the region.

The researcher summarizes the Israeli fears of Iran's nuclear capabilities in the following elements:

As for Israel's dealings with the Iranian nuclear threat, there are two ways. One of them takes a more stringent position and the other is heading towards international action, but both agree on the goal, which is to prevent Iran from reaching the nuclear threshold. In the end, Israel supports any initiative to remove Iranian nuclear capabilities, but it is skeptical of the success of any diplomatic efforts in achieving that goal.

Through the previous presentation of the study, the researcher touched on many important points related to our study, from the Israeli threat to Arab security and its beginnings, and the Iranian threat to Israeli security in the region, but the study did not address in detail the great American role in preserving the security and presence of Israel. It also overlooked the role of political leaders in the relationship between Arabs and Israel and the rapprochement between them.

The sixth axis: Studies related to the relations between the Gulf states and Iran

The study clarified the elements of rapprochement and divergence in the Iranian-Gulf relations in general, and Saudization in particular, since the rule of President Khatami (1997 AD: 2006 AD) until the presidency of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and clarified the critical elements in the processes of convergence and divergence that formed these relations, and regional developments and international relations that affected the processes of rapprochement and repulsion between the two poles of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The study showed that there are factors that led to the process of rapprochement between the Gulf states and Iran, such as the new approach in Iranian politics that calls for openness, dialogue, mutual visits, and the conclusion of economic agreements between the two parties. On the convergence process in addition to international developments. As for the element of difference, the UAE-Iranian dispute over the occupied UAE islands, and the sectarian difference, came to the fore. The study also showed that the development of regional and international situations, especially the situation in Iraq and the developments of the Iranian nuclear program, has led to fluctuations in the Iranian-Gulf relations, although the salient feature has always been and continues to move towards rapprochement.

The study relied on the analytical historical approach, which helped to know and develop the Gulf-Iranian relations, to enhance the study of the cases of convergence and divergence between the Gulf countries and Iran, by explaining the factors of convergence and divergence and analyzing their impact on these relations.

The seventh axis: Studies related to indirect relations between some Gulf states and Israel.

In this book, an Israeli diplomat reveals the efforts made by Israel, without stopping, to penetrate the Arab Gulf states and consolidate normalization with them. It also sheds light on the hidden, intertwined relationships between politics, economics, and change and systems of government as well.

In his book, Sami Revell focuses on the course of the relations that arose between Qatar and Israel, and the stages it went through, including secrets, transformations, and surprises as well. Qatar during this period to rule by turning against his father by consolidating Qatari-Israeli relations, and the second allegation is some of the pressure exerted by Egypt on Qatar to rein in its accelerating relationship towards Israel, due to Egypt's concern over its regional position in political terms, and fear that Qatar would win a gas supply deal to Israel instead of Egypt.

The author insists through his book to promote specific issues, the first of which is that Israel is not an enemy or a source of threat to the Arab Gulf region by saying that the central threat to the Gulf region stems from Iran, and the author believes that there is a peculiarity that distinguished the Emirate of Qatar, which he said is trying to split A special way for it to face the challenges that stand at its door, and praises Qatar because, despite the pressures it was subjected to from its neighbors in the Arab Gulf, it established official relations with Israel in 1996 and allowed it to open a diplomatic representation office on its lands, and the writer tries to escape from the reality of Israeli terrorism and the brutality that it uses as an occupation force against the Palestinians Through a lot of talk about what he describes as Islamic terrorism, accusing Saudi Arabia of having unleashed the Wahhabi radicals to spread extremism, and we find that the book is full of information and secrets, which reveal how the relations between Qatar and Israel arose, and how

The importance of this book stems from the fact that its author, Sami Revell, is considered one of those who had a long history in advancing normalization between Israel and many Arab countries, especially if we know that he was the first Israeli diplomat to work in Qatar. Where he was the head of the first office to represent Israeli interests in Doha during the period from 1996 to 1999, and from this book it becomes clear to us that the Israelis cannot be trusted with any secrets, for they will soon reveal the secrets they were entrusted with, whether out of a drive to drive a wedge between the owner of the secrets and his companions, or Motivated to take advantage of these secrets, whether by trading in them, or improving the image of the Israeli himself to present himself to others as the keeper of the secrets of so-and-so, who trusted him with his privacy, and did not trust his Arab friend.

Division of the study

The study is divided into a plan and three chapters:

Chapter One: Dimensions of Arab-Israeli Normalization.

Chapter Two: Justifications for the political shift of some Gulf countries towards Israel.

The third chapter: the repercussions of normalization on Arab national security.

Chapter one

The dimensions of Arab-Israeli normalization

In order to understand the nature of the discussions and perceptions about the idea of ​​establishing the State of Israel from its beginnings, it is necessary to refer to the theses and perceptions that Europe witnessed during the era of nationalism and what accompanied it regarding the Jewish issue, and we show the direct impact of these theses on the Jewish community despite the diversity of its walks and places Its presence in European countries and the United States of America, and through this, light will be shed in this chapter on the political events and unrest in Europe, some of which were practiced against the Jews, and contributed to strengthening the idea of ​​a solution to the Jewish question through the establishment of the unifying state for the diaspora of the Jews in Europe and elsewhere, and pushed some of them to The search for a political entity that brings together the diaspora of the Jews of Europe and the world, and the year 1948 AD was considered the official beginning of the discussion about the supposed naming of the state to be established on the land of Palestine in order to achieve what came in the Balfour Declaration, and we are trying to shed light on the factors that prepared for the establishment of the State of Israel, and the British role in the establishment of this entity , up to the decision to partition Palestine in 1947 AD.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 AD, the Israelis have realized that imposing the existence and survival of their state requires obtaining international legitimacy, and its recognition and acceptance by the Arab countries and the Arab regime, through the creation of normal relations between them and the Arab countries. Ways and means, and despite the Arabs' rejection of the idea of ​​recognizing the State of Israel and their attempt by all means to liberate Palestine, the defeats that befell the Arabs during the wars they fought with the Israeli enemy, beginning with the defeat of 1948 AD and then the setback of 1967 AD, led to a change in the official Arab position by accepting some international resolutions that It affected the Arab position by accepting some Arab countries with the idea of ​​negotiating with Israel in order to liberate the occupied Arab lands, while some Arab countries negotiated secretly with Israel.

The first topic

The establishment of the State of Israel

The Jewish population in Israel is considered a settlement, which was formed through a long path of immigration, prompted and encouraged by Zionist immigration, which employed the Jewish religious heritage and biblical myths as its starting points; Where the Zionist movement claimed that the Jewish issue arose with forced immigration after the events of 135 AD, which was followed by the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world known at the time as “Diaspora” [30], and because they were Jews they faced all kinds of torment and abuse over many centuries, and the logical solution to the Jewish issue is the return of the Jews to Palestine is the home of the fathers and grandfathers, as the texts of the Torah announce to them, which is the promise of God to the children of Israel to give them Palestine.

With the advent of the Zionist political thought, and its call to solve the Jewish issue by establishing a national home for the Jews, the Jewish issue began to take on importance, and the debate began to escalate about the nature of that state and its identity among the currents of the Zionist movement, and there were many opinions among a group that believes that the next homeland is an extension of Europe and the democratic renaissance In their countries, and another group believes that the next homeland should be in the form of God’s promise, a purely Jewish homeland, and this controversy extended since the first Zionist Congress in 1897 AD, until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 AD.[31]

The first axis: the factors that prepared the establishment of the State of Israel

A number of European personalities contributed to the crystallization of the content of the idea of ​​the Jewish state since the end of the nineteenth century, which witnessed a division over the idea of ​​establishing a Jewish state in terms of the reasons for supporting the establishment of a Jewish state. Religious and traditional with the Jews, and some of them support it as a result of his desire to rid the peoples of Europe of the Jewish minority that lives among them, for various reasons, and there is an agreement between politicians, elites, and financial and media sectors in Europe regarding the necessity of establishing a state for the Jews.[32]

It seems that the entry of Europe into the era of nationalism and the retreat of each nationalism into itself, this stage carried with it a new view towards the Jews in the continent of Europe, after they were viewed as members of a religious sect, just like the rest of the other monotheistic religions that live in Europe, the opponents began to follow The Jewish religion stresses that Judaism is a race, religion and nationality, so they were harmed in various forms, and they confronted the idea of ​​integrating Jews into European societies, and this contributed to the rapid crystallization of the idea that the necessity of establishing a Jewish state outside the continent of Europe in which the diaspora of the world’s Jews would meet.

We find that the leader and founder of the Zionist movement is “Theodore Herzl,” an Austrian Jew of Hungarian origin, who said that history must do justice to the Jews and they must gather in a homeland that includes them after a two-thousand-year diaspora [33], Herzl was able to bring about a revolution in The concept of Judaism on the grounds that Judaism is not only a religion, but rather a religion and nationalism, and it was considered as a revolution in the Jewish culture at the time because of what it brought about on the ground of the reality of the Jewish state later, and at this stage there was a great homogeneity between Zionism and anti-Semitism in the matter of searching for a homeland An alternative, and even events developed until there was coordination between them despite the difference in desire and ideology, and joint meetings were held that brought together the symbols of Zionism and anti-Semitism with the aim of drawing up plans and perceptions to prevent the integration of Jews into the European societies in which they live [34].

The first Zionist conference in the city of Basel (Baal) in Switzerland in 1897 AD is considered the actual beginning that paved the way towards the embodiment of the idea of ​​a Jewish state on the land of Palestine. He urged them to immigrate to Palestine, and “Moshe Hess” was one of the most prominent leaders of this movement at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, but this movement was unable to achieve its goals because of the great differences in views and goals aimed at gathering the Jewish diaspora, and therefore the Zionist Congress is considered The first, which included recommendations for the establishment of bodies, institutions and work structures that contribute to supporting the idea of ​​a Jewish state and embodying it in order to become a reality on the ground. [35]

With the Zionist proposition and the accompanying diplomatic activity carried out by Herzl, new political variables and facts witnessed by the world, including Palestine and the European continent, contributed to supporting the idea of ​​a Jewish state on the land of Palestine, while before that it was faltering, and these changes were represented in the developments of the World War And what resulted from it of the British and French occupation’s control over the land of Palestine and its geographical neighborhood, and in the midst of this scene, Zionism was on good terms with Britain through the tours and understandings approved and concluded by Theodore Herzl and the leaders of Zionism with the British government, and the result was Britain’s declaration of its promise issued by its Foreign Minister “James Balfour” in 1917 AD, from what was stated in the Balfour Declaration document: “The government of his country views with sympathy the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine.” This promise was included in the document of the British Mandate Deed of 1922 AD on the land of Palestine, and this is intended to assign the British High Commissioner, and by the way He is the British Jew “Herbert Samuel” with the aim of implementing what was stated in the Balfour Declaration document and bringing the promise into effect, and by that he means to gradually transform Palestine into a national home for the Jews.[36]

The second axis: the British role in the establishment of the Israeli entity

Throughout the years of the British Mandate over Palestine, the Zionist project grew, and the Jewish community was strengthened by overt and secret Jewish immigration, and by the policy of confiscating Palestinian lands in favor of the Jewish Agency under the supervision and support of the provisional British government on the land of Palestine. The efforts and support of the many newly established Zionist institutions, including The Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Constituent Fund, and active labor and agricultural institutions that were established on the land of Palestine, and provided field activity, most notably the Histadrut (the labor union), the Xipotes (an industrial colony) and the Moshofim (agricultural colony). The idea of ​​a Jewish state on the land of Palestine until it was able to transform the idea into a state, and where the Jewish military capabilities developed in Palestine.[37]

This was accompanied by the establishment of three military organizations: the Haganah, the Irgun, and Lehi, as well as the “Jewish Palestine Legion” operating within the British forces in the First World War, and during that period the number of Jews doubled during four waves of organized immigration driven by multiple contrived factors The Jews practiced their policies on the land of Palestine during the British Mandate with the utmost ease, given that the Zionist project on the land of Palestine is synonymous with the British presence, and this feeling was best expressed by the second leader of the Zionist movement, Haim Weizmann, in a statement in which Palestine is considered a Jewish land just as Britain is British, despite The number of Jews at the time was small compared to the number of Arabs, and despite the support provided by Britain in favor of the Jewish idea on the land of Palestine, some Zionist circles were angry at the British decision issued in 1922 AD to demarcate the borders between Palestine and East Jordan, and to establish the Emirate of Transjordan[38].

Before the end of the First World War, the institutions of the Jewish state had been completed, and it was called at the time a “state on the way.” These phrases were mentioned in many Zionist correspondences and speeches at the time, and the Jews also exploited the course of the events of the Second World War, and what resulted from it One of the results prompted the governments of Europe and the United States of America to accelerate the establishment of the Jewish state; Where the Jews took advantage of the Nazi crimes against the Jewish communities in Europe, and the Zionist movement took advantage of that and exerted remarkable political activity within European and American circles.

The Zionist movement was also able to humanely exploit the issue of the presence of 100,000 Jews inside the Nazi concentration camps, and ten million uprooted from their homes, dispersed in some territories under German control, so that thousands of them were displaced to the land of Palestine by illegal means, and this is inconsistent with The policy of the third white book issued by Britain in 1939 AD, which stipulates Britain’s commitment to support the establishment of a Palestinian state after ten years have passed, and Britain aimed behind that book to prevent the revolt of the inhabitants of its colonies in the Arab East, including Palestine [39]

It was decided to establish an independent Palestinian state for its citizens, Arabs and Jews, based on what was stated in the Third White Book in 1939 AD, but what happened later was the adoption of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 AD Resolution No. 181 to partition Palestine and includes a Jewish state on more than Half of the area of ​​Palestine, while the Jews represent only a little less than half of the area of ​​Palestine. The Palestinian people rejected the partition decision on the grounds that Palestine is a unified homeland for its citizens, regardless of their ethnic or religious origins[40].

The third axis: the decision to partition Palestine in 1947[41]

The decision of the United Nations General Assembly regarding the division of Palestine into two states: one Arab and the other Jewish is considered the most important United Nations resolution issued regarding the Palestinian issue, as it is the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel[42]. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Palestine in its eighteenth session, which was held in Algeria on November 15, 1988 [43] This resolution, which was approved by 33 countries, rejected by 13 countries and 10 abstained from voting, included three main points: [44]

In the midst of this, violent clashes took place between the two parties, “the Arabs and the Jews”, on the land of Palestine throughout the era of the British Mandate. The state, a discussion that took place before the head of the Jewish Agency, Ben-Gurion, announced the establishment of the Israeli entity, one day after the withdrawal of British forces from Palestine. And biblical connotations, including: the State of Zion, the State of Judah, the State of Israel, the State of Eber, and as a result, most of the population of Palestine was evacuated through expulsion, killing, or as a result of panic situations accompanying the war, and soon the State of Israel expanded over an area larger than what was stated in the partition decision, amounting to 78 % of Mandatory Palestine.[45]

The second topic

Preliminaries of Israeli-Arab normalization and peace agreements

The state of weakness and marginalization experienced by the Arab regimes on the one hand, and the United States' uniqueness in dominating the world on the other hand, encouraged all Western circles to pass the project of normalization with Israel by transforming the conflict relations between the Arab countries and Israel into normal relations and transforming the mechanisms of conflict into mechanisms of normalization , and the recognition of Israel as a state with its existence and sovereignty. [46] The following is a detailed presentation of the map of Israeli-Arab normalization, through bilateral relations and peace agreements concluded between both Israel and the Arab countries, and we will deal specifically in this topic with two Arab states (Egypt and Jordan).

The first axis: Israeli-Jordanian relations:

The early beginnings of Israeli normalization did not stop at the normalization of the fait accompli in Palestine, but rather extended to Jordan through the policy of “open bridges” that resulted from the social and geographical conditions in the region, as it expressed a common interest between Israel and the Jordanian regime. The relations between Jordan and Israel proceed through the policy of open bridges, as this policy means “freedom of movement between the eastern and western banks,” which began after the June 1967 war. It is considered the real advantage of this policy. If there was a need for a detailed agreement signed by both sides, this would not have been possible. The detailed agreement required defining procedures related to controversial issues such as sovereignty and legitimate control. Neither party could agree to any formula for fear of criticism, whether it was from Jordan's side or public opinion in Israel.[47]The Israelis believe that this policy achieves Jordan's interests even if it is outward, and that the West Bank is an integral part of Jordan, which is under temporary Israeli occupation. Both Israel and Jordan have shown great interest in continuing this policy because it achieves their common interests.

Bilateral relations between Jordan and Israel crystallized through the policy of open bridges, as there was cooperation between them in various fields, we mention the following some examples:

In September 1986, Israeli-Jordanian negotiations took place for agricultural normalization between the two sides. A delegation from the Jordanian Ministry of Agriculture visited the West Bank and this delegation met with Israeli officials, and the issue of agricultural cooperation between them was discussed. In the field of mining, meetings were held Between Israeli and Jordanian engineers to hold discussions about extracting potash from the Dead Sea. The Israeli engineers assist the Jordanians in extracting potash from the Jordanian part of the Dead Sea using a new method developed in Israel that reduces the cost of extraction.[48]

The field of cooperation between them extended to the field of energy and water, as the relations of cooperation between them in this field were based on the exploitation of a channel from the Dead Sea that would allow the establishment of a hydroelectric station on both sides of the border to be used by both parties.

The Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty has achieved, from a Jordanian official point of view, many advantages and goals in many aspects, but on the other hand, the opponents see that it failed in many aspects. The determinants of the Jordanian-Israeli relations will be addressed through the following issues:

First: the water issue

It is necessary to talk about Zionist ambitions in the Arab waters before delving into the Arab-Israeli conflict over the waters of the Jordan River Basin. With water for the purpose of drawing the features of the State of Israel at the expense of the Arab population in Palestine. The British Scientific Society sent a number of water experts headed by (Charles Warren) in 1873 AD for the purpose of studying the water resources in Palestine, and presenting the necessary proposals for transferring water from northern Palestine to the Naqib desert with the aim of settling the Jews.[49], Water occupied a prominent importance in strategic thought. The Zionist since the establishment of the Zionist state on the land of Palestine, where (Ben-Gurion) said in 1956 AD: “The Jews always wage a water battle against the Arabs, and the fate of this battle depends on its outcome, the fate of Israel.” [50]

The researchers will discuss the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty and what was reached by the agreement that led to the division of water between Jordan and Israel, and clarify whether its results were positive or negative for Jordan on the one hand and Israel on the other, and the consequent effects on the Palestinians in the West Bank West and the Gaza Strip.

The conflict between Jordan and Israel over water began in the fifties of the last century, due to Israel's occupation of the Baqoura and Wadi Araba regions. Yarmouk, the groundwater in the Araba valley, and al-Baqoura are the focus of this conflict, which continued until the signing of the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty in 1994 AD, during which the water relations between the two parties remained governed by the (Johnston) plan indirectly to distribute the waters of the Jordan and Yarmouk rivers, as they were distributed after a session of The negotiations conducted by (Johnston) with the Arab countries and Israel extended for two years 1953 AD: 1955 AD.[51]

Despite the existence of this agreement, Israel did not abide by it, and the Zionist water ambitions increased, until Israel was able to occupy most of the water sources surrounding southern Lebanon in 1982 AD, and the water issue turned into one of the important elements in Israel's proposals regarding its concept of security in the political settlement processes. [52]

The Wadi Araba agreement is considered the first agreement between an Arab country and Israel, dealing with the problem of shared water. Negotiations took place in light of Israel's unilateral negotiations with Jordan, as well as secret negotiations with the Palestinian side, which is represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization. [53]

Despite the conduct of negotiations between the two parties and the development of articles of the agreement specifying the share of both Jordan and Israel in the water, Jordan did not regain its water rights from the Jordan and Yarmouk rivers, in addition to the continued pumping of groundwater by Israel into the Araba Valley, thus conferring legitimacy on the treaty Israel's usurpation of Arab water. The agreement also ignored the rights of the other Arab states involved in the Jordan River Basin and the Yarmouk River, and it also considered that Israel lacks water resources, which makes Israel the right to demand securing its need for water, even if at the expense of the rest of the countries in the region. So, the results of the agreement negatively affected the Arab side, as well as the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for Israel, of course, its results were positive due to achieving the Zionist ambitions and goals in seizing Arab waters.

Second: Borders

The issue of borders in political theory is an important issue in defining the state geographically and constitutionally. Borders are considered one of the most important factors in defining the modern state, as borders define the region on which the political and administrative unit is based, which later becomes a state, and everyone agrees that Israel does not have borders. It is stable in almost all directions, even after the conclusion of the peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan. Therefore, we find that Israel is the only country in the world that has established itself without international borders recognized by the international community.[54] The issue of borders in Israel is not limited to being a political or geographical issue only, but it is also an ideological issue. The religious texts of the Jews are different in demarcating the borders of the Land of Israel as they appeared in the teachings and Talmudic texts. To Beersheba in the south, and from the east, by the Levant Valley, including the eastern bank of Jordan. [55]

Despite the importance of addressing the issue of borders in religious Jewish thought, its historical importance was marginal in Zionist thought, as the Land of Israel was subject to political and ideological coexistence within the Zionist movement.

Hence, the researchers focus on the issue of borders and lands between Jordan and Israel. The Jordanian and Israeli views differed regarding the lands that Israel occupied in Jordan, which the British Mandate authorities specifically occupied during the mandate period. 3,800,084 square kilometers in Wadi Araba, but Israel considers that the area of ​​this land does not exceed 325 square kilometers, while the land of Al-Baqoura constitutes 8% of the total occupied lands, as Israel occupied it in the year 1950 AD, and the area of ​​​​the occupied land of Al-Baqoura is approximately 850 square kilometers.

The lands occupied by Israel in the Araba Valley are divided into four regions, the first is located at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba west of the city of Aqaba called (Umm al-Rashrash), the second region is in the Araba Valley north of the Gulf, and to the north lies the third region, the fourth region: located north of the airport Aqaba.[56]

Concerning the demarcation of the borders between Jordan and Israel, it was agreed under Article (3), Appendix (A/1) of the treaty that the international borders form the following sectors (Jordan River, Yarmouk, Dead Sea, Araba Valley, Gulf of Aqaba).

From the above, the researchers’ point of view in that part revolves around: There is no justification for the Jordanian government to relinquish full sovereignty to Jordan over all the aforementioned areas under the Wadi Araba agreement, especially the Baqoura region, which represents the confluence of the Yarmouk River with the Jordan River, in addition to Because its strategic location represents military importance, and the restoration of the lands of Al-Baqoura to sovereignty will make the Jordanian citizen feel that the Jordanian government is able to restore its lands in full and undiminished sovereignty. It is worth noting that when dividing the borders between Jordan and Israel, reliance was made on the demarcation of the borders set by the British Mandate, and not on the basis of Security Council Resolutions No. (242/383) that were relied upon in the introduction to the treaty, as this represents a departure from the legal reference of the treaty. [57] ]

The second axis: the roots of the individual Egyptian-Israeli peace agreements and the factors for their emergence: [58]

After the setback of 1967 AD and Israel's occupation of new Arab lands, it became more intransigent and far from adhering to the decisions of legitimacy, especially Security Council Resolution No. (242) of 1967 AD, which mandated Israel's withdrawal from all occupied Arab lands. From this, the Israeli conflict began in the new circumstances more intense, deeper and complex for a number of reasons, the most important of which are:

Despite the approval of the late President “Jamal Abdel Nasser” and “King Hussein” at a later time on Resolution (242) and its acceptance as a basis for negotiations between the Arabs and Israel through the United Nations, the Israeli refusal to complete withdrawal and the lack of recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people, which This led to the halting of negotiations and the failure of the mission of the international envoy (Yaring). Egypt's reaction was to carry out a war of attrition that lasted from 1969 AD: 1970 AD, and despite showing some flexibility with regard to withdrawing from Sinai in the wake of Egypt's response to (Rogzer's) initiative to stop the war, its refusal to withdraw from the West Bank and the Golan Heights did not push Egypt towards the unilateral solution. With Israel.[59]

The deterioration of the Arab situation due to the clashes between the Palestinian resistance and the Jordanian regime at the end of 1970 AD, and then after that the death of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, which formed a political vacuum for Egypt and the Arab countries as well. Each Arab country was preoccupied with its own affairs, against the backdrop of the regional situation And the Israeli rejection of a comprehensive settlement, and in light of the international détente and signs of rapprochement between the Soviet Union and the United States of America, achieving a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict for the latter is no longer a preoccupation for the latter as much as it was seeking to freeze the political situation in the region to push the Arabs to be convinced of two issues:

The first: It is impossible, with the passage of time and the increase in the Israeli deterrence force, to restore the Arab lands occupied by war.

Second: The need for all Arabs to turn to the United States as the only country able to obtain Israeli concessions[60]. Hence, the researchers address the question: “Was the late President Muhammad Anwar Sadat influenced by the regional and international situation to move towards a policy of salvation in order to distance Egypt from the troubles that resulted from the conflict with Israel?”

After assuming power in Egypt in 1971, President Sadat implemented a series of policies that were characterized by a liberal nature and changed the general direction of Egypt and its pioneering role in the Arab and international spheres. At the head of those policies was what was known as the “openness policy” at all levels.[ 61] Sadat's goal was to create an appropriate political environment and social support that would support him in seeking arrangements for reconciliation with the Zionist state. It became clear after the October 1973 war, that after the war, Egypt did not want to expand and persist in the conflict with Israel.

It is worth noting that President Sadat's visit to Israel was a surprise to most Arab rulers, but it was expected from the Israeli side because of the indirect contacts that Sadat made with the Israelis through the King of Morocco and the Romanian President (Ceausescu), whose help had a role in bringing the two parties to the negotiating table. [62] In a speech to the Knesset, Sadat clarified the concept of peace when he referred to two points:

Camp David: [63]

The delegations of Egypt, Israel and the United States of America met and the talks began in 1978 AD, and after twelve days of talks, the meeting reached agreements that were signed by the three presidents:

The first document: It came under the title “Framework for Peace in the Middle East”, and it included principles and foundations agreed upon by the negotiating parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The second document: It came under the title “Framework for a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel.” This document was more clear and specific than the first document. The peace treaty between them within three months of signing this framework. Indeed, the three delegations negotiated and the treaty was signed at Camp David.

The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979:

This treaty was drafted in 1979 AD, and it was signed by President Sadat on behalf of the Egyptian government, Menachem Begin on behalf of the Israeli government, and the witness, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States of America. Middle East in accordance with Security Council resolutions (242/338), and its commitment to the framework for peace in the Middle East agreed upon at Camp David (the first and second documents of 1978 AD), which was adopted as the basis for peace, and the treaty called on the other parties to the conflict to participate in the peace process. [64]

As a result of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, Sinai was fully recovered and the state of conflict between them ended, but on the other hand, this had a significant negative impact on Egypt's regional role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the event that Israel exercises its aggression against any Arab country, Egypt has no right It has the right to intervene and provide assistance to that country that is under attack by Israel because its commitment to Israel outweighs its commitment to joint defense with the Arab countries, in addition to the fact that the treaty included Egypt's commitment to prevent any activity of the Palestinian resistance against Israel, whether directly or indirectly. In this way, the treaty led to curtailing Egypt's role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The foregoing also resulted in the Arab countries boycotting Egypt and moving the headquarters of the League of Arab States from Cairo to Tunisia for a period of ten years. It is worth noting that one of the repercussions of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel Is Israel attacking Lebanon in 1982 AD.

Egypt... normalization through agreements

After normalization in the occupied Arab lands and normalization through open bridges with Jordan, the Egyptian model came on the map of Israeli normalization in a new pattern, through agreements, although the visit of the late Egyptian President Muhammad Anwar Sadat to Israel in November 1979 was characterized by the nature of surprise It was later known that it had been preceded by many contacts, arrangements and meetings between Egyptian and Israeli officials, including security, political and cultural meetings that paved the way for the visit of the former Egyptian president to Israel.[65] These negotiations resulted in the signing of the Camp David Accords, in the framework of which the peace treaty and dozens of agreements were signed. Normalization in various fields, including:

First: The political field: The two sides signed the peace treaty in March 1979 AD, and in August 1981 AD the agreement to establish the multinational forces was signed, and an agreement on Taba, from which Israel refused to withdraw before April 1982 AD, within the framework of these agreements , Israel withdrew from the Sinai, except for Taba, and within the framework of these agreements, the primacy of Egyptian-Israeli relations was stipulated over Egyptian-Arab relations. From a peace treaty, one of the main features of Israeli activity in Egypt is the blatant exercise of political pressure to adapt the Egyptian position, and the evidence for this is that Israel spied on the actions of the Egyptian government, and even when there was an objection to its concepts or policy that it followed, it resorted to an explicit threat By not completing the withdrawal from Sinai, it is worth noting that Israel suspended its withdrawal from Taba as a means to adapt the position of the Egyptian government.

Second: The economic field: The peace treaty included the agreement of the two parties that the normal relations that will be established between them include full recognition of diplomatic and economic relations, the end of the economic boycott, and the abolition of discriminatory barriers against the freedom of movement of individuals and goods, as stated in The annexes of the treaty state that Israel has the right to submit bids for oil companies of Egyptian origin, which Egypt does not need for its domestic consumption. Within the framework of these agreements, Egypt dropped the boycott laws, which resulted in the opening of a shipping and air line between the two countries, and the “Al Al” company established an office for it in Cairo, as well as the “Zeim” company The Israeli Navy.

It is worth noting that trade relations between Egypt and Israel began before the official normalization, but with the lifting of the boycott and the signing of the trade agreement, trade transactions took a new path.

Third: The field of tourism: Israel has established a tourist office in Cairo, and an agreement has been signed regarding tourism in South Sinai that grants facilities to Israelis in terms of entry visas to Egypt.

Fourth: The field of culture: An agreement was signed in May 1980. This agreement included encouraging cooperation in the cultural and artistic fields, exchanging experiences and encouraging contacts. Within the framework of this agreement, several executive protocols were signed, the most important of which are: The protocol for the establishment of the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo in 1982 AD, a protocol for the exchange of programs, recordings and films in February 1982 AD,

Fifth: The Scientific Field:Israel attracted Egyptian researchers for joint research projects, and the Israeli activity in the scientific field extended to the field of conferences, as it was keen to attend conferences held in Egypt and invite Egyptians to conferences held in Israel. Israel sought to enroll Egyptian students in Israeli universities and to enroll Israeli students in Egyptian universities (but prevented this due to security considerations).[66]

Despite Egypt and Jordan's respect for the treaties, their commitment to their provisions, and their preservation of peace with Israel, this negatively affected their Arab policy and its regional and international role, in addition to the general trend of the majority of Arab countries towards recognizing Israel and direct and indirect negotiation in the aftermath of the Madrid Conference. However, Israel has not It continues to this day in its aggressive practice towards the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, and works to Judaize Jerusalem and build colonies in the occupied Arab lands, all of this is nothing but confirmation that it is not respectful of the rules of international law and the texts of the treaties it concluded and is not concerned with peace and the return of Arab rights to their owners .

Map of Israel (Occupied Palestine)

Chapter two

The justifications for the political shift of some Gulf countries towards Israel

Accelerated developments organized by the new normalization movement between Israel and the Gulf states, as these agreements are considered a profound strategic shift in the region, especially since in the depth of the new developments, it is clear that normalization is based in its essence on normalizing Israel's presence, accepting its role in the region, and making it a pivot They were security, political and economic. The new agreements are in fact engineering a new state of awareness among the peoples of the region, and an attempt to form a culture that allows Israel's integration in an operational manner in the Middle East.

But on the other hand, and despite the clarity of the essence of normalization, this does not present anything new for the Palestinian cause, as the Arab official abandonment of the Palestinian cause, as was evident in the refusal of the Arab League to condemn the Emirati and Bahraini normalization with Israel and its departure from the “Arab peace initiative.” However, it is now completely dependent on the Palestinian people and their solid will to resist, and on the other hand, the Iranian approach also runs in a context that contradicts the Gulf-Israeli orientations towards regional issues, especially Palestine and the resistance, which indicates the emergence of new alignments that would tamper with traditional alliances in The region, as well as the widening range of regional tensions, may reach the stage of partial collision, according to what leads to the formation of new equations on the political, military and even economic levels.

Through this chapter, we will discuss the motives of the UAE and Bahrain for normalization with Israel, and the justifications formulated by each of them to justify steps to normalize their relations with the Zionist entity, and this is through the first topic. The second topic will deal with regional reactions to the new normalization policies. The Emirati and Bahraini normalization agreements, and how were the positions of the countries of the Middle East region regarding these agreements? Who supported them? Who opposed them? Who remained silent or neutral? Who joined the path of normalization after the UAE and Bahrain?

Map of the Arab Gulf states in English

Map of Israel (Occupied Palestine)

The first topic

The reasons for the Gulf countries' aspiration to normalization agreements with Israel

The first axis: manifestations of Gulf-Israeli normalization

Normalization is another and different level of international relations, and it is not only between regimes, but also extends and expands to include many other groups of people, which poses a threat to peoples, especially since the people are the custodians of the national memory, and this means that great transformations have occurred, including that Normalization has become public.

There are different forms of normalization that have taken place between Israel and some of the Gulf countries, where a major change has occurred in recent years with regard to normalization with the Gulf countries. This change is linked to the presence of the Iranian threat and the growth of Iranian power in the region, with the United States of America reducing the numbers of its soldiers and its military presence. In the region, and thus Israel was able to play a role in the region to bridge the gap created by the United States with the presence of the Iranian threat, and many raised many questions about what the United States did by reducing its presence in the region, and the answer was that this policy could be a plan from the United States To push the Gulf countries to cooperate with Israel, and thus it can be said that it is in Israel's interest to continue the Iranian threat to the Gulf countries in the region because in the event that these threats recede, this will certainly harm Israel's relations with the Gulf countries, and on the other hand Israel is trying to make normalization popular and not normalization with Only state leaders and regimes.[67]

A follower of the international and regional arena can clearly see the recent acceleration in the pace of normalization of relations between the Arab countries and Israel, as it appeared in its beginnings in the form of meetings and visits between the United States and the Arab countries as the largest supporter of normalization, and the steps of normalization began. Between visits and meetings and an attempt to precipitate the idea of ​​normalization through television programs as a prelude to it.

In October 2018, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made his first public visit to the Sultanate of Oman, followed by a meeting with the President of the Sovereign Council of Sudan, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, in Uganda in February 2020. On June 12, 2020, Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper published On the seventeenth of the same month, the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Anwar Gargash, participated in the annual virtual conference of the Jewish-American Committee, and delivered a speech In it, he said, “Communication with Israel is important and will lead to better results than other paths followed in the past[69]

The situation is no different with the Arab countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel. In September 2016, the Jordanian National Electric Power Company and the American company “Noble Energy” announced the signing of an agreement to import liquefied natural gas from Israel at a value of $10 billion[70]. About signing an agreement with the Israeli “Delek Drilling Group” worth 15 billion US dollars, according to which the second company will supply Egypt with natural gas[71]

In terms of intelligence and security, some Arab countries are major recipients of Israeli security services and intelligence technologies. , to purchase monitoring equipment for critical infrastructure, including oil and gas facilities[72]. The same company provided Abu Dhabi with three drones, with the aim of enhancing its intelligence and security capabilities. It also provided the Abu Dhabi Police with a central security monitoring system, known as “Falcon Eye”, which officially began operating in July 2016.

In an incident that marked the beginning of Israeli intelligence and security cooperation with Saudi Arabia, in August 2012, Riyadh sought the help of a group of international companies in cybersecurity, including an Israeli company to protect information security, to stop the attack on Saudi Aramco; Hackers penetrated the company's computers using a virus called "Shamoon", which led to the disruption of Saudi oil production[73].

Militarily, many Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, participate in military exercises alongside Israel, the most important of which is the “Red Flag” exercise; It is an advanced exercise in air combat, supervised by the US Air Force. In March 2017 and April 2019, the UAE Air Force participated in military exercises known as “Inyo House” in Yunnan, in which Israel also participated.[74]

The second axis: popular normalization and the UAE-Bahraini agreement

Israel seeks to obtain Arab popular normalization from the Gulf gate, as the Israeli vision is fully aware that whoever fought the war differs from those who read about it in history books, and it is known that the only Arab countries that entered into a war against Israel are Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but the generations Al-Haditha, although it did not participate in those wars and does not remember them, normalization in these countries continues to face many difficulties, and thus there is a difference from the Gulf countries that did not fight any wars against Israel. Thus, Israeli foreign policy believes that the resistance in the Gulf countries will be less than the resistance. In Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and if Israel is able to normalize relations with the peoples of the Gulf, this will have a positive impact on the citizens of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. [75]

Israel was able to achieve one of its goals through normalization with the UAE and Bahrain, as the UAE and Bahrain signed the normalization agreement with Israel at the White House under the auspices of US President Donald Trump. New,” the three countries also praised the agreements and described it as historic. In the same context, Trump affirmed that there are other Arab countries that will normalize relations with Israel, but at the appropriate time, and stressed that the Palestinians are urging the Arab countries not to undertake normalization with Israel as long as their conflict is vacant without a solution, and he welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to the agreement, saying, “This is a pivotal day in history. It heralds a new dawn of peace.” However, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas described the agreement as a betrayal, stressing that only the Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories will achieve peace in the Middle East.[76]

The third axis: reasons explaining the importance of the historic step (the normalization of the UAE and Bahrain with Israel)

This agreement will enable Emirati businessmen to carry out important business, thanks to their position, as they have made themselves a commercial center and a major military force, and the Americans have promised the UAE to provide advanced weapons such as the F-35 fighter jet. What pushed Bahrain towards normalization is that Iran is considered an enemy of the United States of America, Israel and the UAE, as Iran claimed earlier, specifically in 1969, that Bahrain is part of its territory, which made Bahrain move towards normalization with Israel.

Normalization with the UAE and Bahrain is considered an achievement for the Israelis. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu believes in the “iron wall” strategy, as it focuses on the fact that Israeli strength will eventually make the Arabs realize that recognition of Israel and its existence is their only option. The Israelis believe that Israel's presence is a pariah in the Middle East and that peace with Egypt and Jordan was not enough, so Israel turned towards the Gulf countries, as they became optimistic about relations with the Gulf countries. The alliance against Iran is very important given that the countries of the region, Israel and the United States consider Iran to be their number one enemy, as Netanyahu compares Iran's leaders to the Nazis.

This agreement is of great benefit to the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, on several levels. It represents a great boost to America's strategy to put pressure on Iran, and an opportunity for Trump to brag that he is the best deal maker in the world, claiming that he is seeking peace in the Middle East. It is also a great opportunity for him In an election year, and that what he is doing for the Netanyahu government resonates well with American evangelical Christian voters who are an important part of his electoral base.

The Palestinian people condemned what is known as the “Abraham” agreement as a betrayal, as what the UAE did in terms of concluding an agreement with Israel is a breaking of the long-standing Arab consensus that the price of relations with Israel is the independence of Palestine. Israel is now working to consolidate its relations with the Arab countries and turn a blind eye to the Palestinian issue. The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, said, “The price of the deal is Israel’s agreement to stop annexing large parts of the West Bank.” However, the Israeli Prime Minister confirmed that he promised Mohammed bin Zayed that he will postpone the annexation of lands from the West Bank and will not stop annexing parts of it.

The Iranian leadership strongly condemned the agreement and condemned it, as this agreement will put them under new pressure, and the sanctions imposed by Trump on Iran have caused them great economic damage. After this normalization, Iran has an additional strategic headache.

The Israeli air bases are far from Iran, while the bases of the Emirates are across the Gulf waters, which causes concern for Iran in the event that there is talk of air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites again.[77]

The fourth axis: the most prominent reasons that prompted the United Arab Emirates to normalize relations with Israel: [78]

While this reason is considered the most prominent justification provided by the United Arab Emirates to the Arab and Islamic world as a whole, as a justification for its move that sparked discontent throughout the Arab and Islamic world, where most of the Emirati statements, whether official or semi-official, unanimously agreed to focus on this justification (stopping the annexation plan However, this justification was quickly denied by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as Trump stressed that what would happen was a freeze on the Israeli annexation plan, but Benjamin Netanyahu categorically denied that and that there was no intention to cancel the annexation, stressing that what What happens is just a freeze on the plan, adding that the annexation plan was originally frozen and its implementation was delayed beyond its time.

Since Benjamin Netanyahu suffers from crises with multiple aspects, whether on the political, judicial or economic levels. Politically, he was unable to resolve three elections, then judicially. He is being prosecuted in several corruption files, and he fears that it will lead him to where he does not want. As for the economy, a pandemic Corona had a great impact on the Israeli economy in addition to the economic crisis and the high Israeli unemployment rates, so the normalization deal is an attempt by the United Arab Emirates to extend a helping hand to Benjamin Netanyahu in an attempt to save him from those crises that might topple him.

Trump described normalization as a historic agreement, adding that he did a lot for Israel and provided many gains for it, such as the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transfer Washington's embassy to it, in addition to recognizing its sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The normalization deal is considered a gift to Trump at a sensitive and difficult time, especially after The great effects of the Corona epidemic on the American economy and the crises it caused.

Some analysts believe that the normalization deal is an attempt by the United Arab Emirates to protect Israel from the Democrats in the event of Joe Biden winning and to ensure that the Zionist lobby in the United States stands by it if the Democrats decide to punish it or influence its interests, especially since the Democrats will not forgive it. Accusations of influencing the US elections in favor of their future opponent, Trump, were quickly reported.

The British journalist Ian Block believes in his article in the newspaper “The Guardian” that one of the reasons for normalization is due to the differences between the rulers of the Emirates in managing their foreign affairs, as Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan is one of the most prominent opponents of the Zionist occupation and one of the most supporters of the Palestinian cause in complete disagreement With his son, Mohammed bin Zayed, whose interest is focused on pleasing Trump and keeping the United States involved and involved in the affairs of the Middle East, and this is what takes us to the difference of ideas and values ​​between rulers with different generations.

Some analysts interpret the UAE's normalization with Israel as an attempt by the UAE to protect Israel from the Turkish threat, especially after the threats made by the Turkish Minister of Defense when he said, "The UAE has carried out harmful actions in Libya and Syria, and that Turkey will hold it accountable for that in the appropriate time and place." “Since the Emirates cannot confront Turkey alone, therefore it seeks protection in Israel.

As the UAE is trying to obtain other gains from behind the normalization deal, after many of the benefits it obtained in the past years, such as Israeli spy systems to pursue opponents and spy on some leaders of countries and political activists, so it is likely that the secrecy of relations will be lifted and they will be formalized. Publicity will accelerate the UAE's benefit from Israeli security and technological capabilities.

The fifth axis: the most prominent reasons that prompted Bahrain to normalize relations with Israel:[79]

Where observers of the Bahrain-Israel agreement unanimously agreed that the main motive behind this agreement is the pressure exerted by US President Donald Trump on Manama, and this was confirmed by Israeli radio on the day in which Trump spoke about the agreement between Bahrain and Israel through his tweets on Twitter, Where the Israeli radio confirmed that the US president is exerting pressure on Bahrain and will announce its agreement today to normalization between it and Israel. Observers believe that despite the internal crises Trump faced and the criticism he is exposed to, he found his desired goal in the normalization of the Gulf countries with Israel and the establishment of peace agreements between them in order to raise his shares As peacemaker and peacekeeper.

As the participants in normalization, whether Bahrain, Israel or America, meet their interests within Trump's strategy aimed at containing Tehran, which represents a regional threat to US interests in the region from Washington's point of view, and at the same time represents a sworn enemy to Israel, as the Bahraini authorities It considers itself the most threatened by Iran, and Bahrain is ruled by a Sunni regime while the majority of its population is Shiite, in addition to many Iranian media considering that Bahrain belongs to Iran and was within the territory of Iran until 1970

Therefore, Bahrain's pursuit of normalization represents a major push to protect itself from the Iranian threat by obtaining Israeli-American support, and this was evident in Iran's condemnation of the peace agreement between Israel and Bahrain, which amounted to a threat from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

The motive for Bahrain's pursuit of normalization is not different from the motive announced by the UAE, which is the benefits and gains that will accrue to it from behind this agreement and the benefits of economic, security, military and technological exchange, but although Bahrain sees as the UAE sees that cooperation with Israel will achieve gains for it in terms of scientific cooperation However, there are observers who doubt this because of the imbalance between the two parties, as they see that the agreement will serve the interests of Israel by turning Bahrain into a market for security, technological and military products, which will achieve a boom in favor of the Israeli economy, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was clear in his focus On this aspect, he said in his statement, commenting on the peace agreement with Manama, on Friday, September 11, “For many years we have invested in peace, and now peace will invest in us, and it will make large investments in the Israeli economy, and this is very important.”

The second topic

The regional position on the new normalization policies

Since the UAE, Bahrain and other Arab countries signed the normalization agreements with the Zionist entity, various reactions have followed from the countries of the Middle East. And between this and that, the positions of countries, and not just the rhetoric, remain the yardstick for their foreign policy directions. Through this topic, we will address the official regional reactions to the normalization agreements for both the UAE and Bahrain.

The first axis: the regional position on the Emirati normalization with Israel

Through the official statements of Saudi Arabia about Emirati normalization, we find that; No official position was issued by Saudi Arabia regarding the public implementation between the UAE and Israel, and everyone remained silent, but the Saudi media took a different position than the official Saudi authorities, and concluded by publishing news stating that a number of Arab and Islamic countries welcomed this agreement, and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper published A number of articles welcoming the normalization of Israel.

The billionaire Haim Saban, the American Jew, quoted Muhammad bin Salman, the crown prince, as saying that he feared that the Iranians and the Qataris would attack him if he established public relations with Israel, and it was Saban who mediated the conclusion of the peace agreement between Israel and the Emirates, and revealed to Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that he had met with Mohammed bin Salman at dinner and asked him why he kept relations with Israel secretly, and bin Salman replied that he could announce that, but he was afraid of attacking the Iranians and the Qataris, and he was afraid of chaos in Saudi Arabia as well.

Statement by the Saudi Foreign MinisterFaisal bin Farhan

The Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan, said that he is “optimistic” that the Gulf crisis is about to be resolved through a satisfactory agreement for all parties, while stressing that his country was the first Arab country to put full normalization with Israel on the table. Prince Faisal bin Farhan added that “great progress” had been made, and he said: “We hope that this progress will lead to a final agreement and it seems that it is in the offing, and I can say that I am somewhat optimistic that we are on the verge of completing an agreement between all the conflicting countries to reach a solution that we believe.” It will be satisfactory to all.”

He stated that this progress occurred “thanks to the continuous efforts made by Kuwait, but also thanks to the strong support of President Trump and the American administration to bring all parties closer.” On the other hand, Prince Faisal bin Farhan said that the “Abraham” peace agreements signed by the UAE and Bahrain with Israel can “see it as steps in the right track.” He explained, “We can use these agreements as a starting point for new relations between the Palestinians and the Israelis and the settlement of this conflict in a fair and equitable manner that gives the Palestinians a sovereign and dignified state, in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and I think this is what we should focus on.”

He pointed out that “Saudi Arabia was the first Arab country to put normalization with Israel on the table, not only at the time of the Arab peace initiative, but explicitly since 1992 at the initiative of Prince (King) Fahd bin Abdulaziz when he was crown prince (at the Fez summit in Morocco). ), and we still have the same vision, which makes Israel a normal part of the region, where it has full, normal relations with its neighbors in the region.” And he continued, “What we want to happen is to grant a sovereign and dignified state, with practical sovereignty, as accepted by the Palestinians. The important part is to bring Palestinians and Israelis into dialogue.[80]

A follower of Bahrain's official position will find that Bahrain has shown a position in support of the Emirati-Israeli agreement. By rejecting a Palestinian draft resolution confirming that the Emirati-Israeli-American declaration detracts from the Arab consensus on the Palestinian issue.

The Arab League requires its members to establish relations with “Israel” on the latter’s withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, enabling the Palestinians to establish their independent state on the 1967 borders, and solving the refugee problem. Arab countries based on the principle of the “two-state solution”, the principle of land for peace, and the Arab initiative that was put forward in 2002 and endorsed by the Arab League.

Diplomatic sources also revealed a Bahraini threat to the Palestinians that it will place an item on its part to support normalization with the Israeli occupation state and encourage the deal of the century, in response to a Palestinian request to place an item rejecting normalization on the sidelines of the regular session of the Arab League.

The Bahraini position caused the postponement of the meeting of Arab foreign ministers in the Arab League, according to what was reported by the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Shorouk, quoting an Arab diplomatic source. That “Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit requested the postponement of the meeting to avoid divisions between the Arab countries.”, Bahrain justified its rejection of the Palestinian project, according to Al-Jazeera channel, on Friday, with the approaching date of the regular meeting of the Arab League scheduled for September 9, and said that the issue could be discussed during That meeting, and the Bahraini positions reflect the weakness and sagging of the Arab League, which banned normalization with the Israeli occupation state before finding a just solution to the Palestinian issue, and its inability to oblige Bahrain, the member state, to allow a meeting to discuss the new Emirati-Israeli alliance.

Bahrain not only obstructed holding a meeting of the League of Arab States, but rather went to open its airspace to Israeli planes coming to the UAE, which means strong support for the normalization agreement. Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa had previously congratulated Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, with the normalization agreement concluded between the UAE and “Israel.” Al Khalifa described the agreement as “an achievement represented in the historic peace step taken by the UAE towards Israel,” in addition to that it “will contribute to advancing and strengthening peace efforts, and opening prospects for stability in The Middle East region in a way that serves the aspirations of its peoples for security, progress and prosperity[81].”

The official Omani reactions contradicted the reactions of the Omani people, like other Arab peoples. In a surprising situation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Sultanate of Oman commented on the American announcement of reaching an Emirati-Israeli peace agreement under the auspices of US President Donald Trump, expressing the Sultanate’s support for the UAE’s decision. The ministry said, according to what was reported by the official news agency: “We express the Sultanate’s support for the decision of the UAE The United Nations regarding relations with Israel within the framework of the joint historical declaration between it and the United States and Israel.” And the ministry added: “We express our hope that this decision will contribute to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and in a way that serves the aspirations of the peoples of the region in sustaining the pillars of security and stability and advancing the causes of Progress and prosperity for all.”

The Sultanate of Oman is considered the third Arab country to declare its support for the Emirati-Israeli agreement after Egypt and Bahrain, while no Arab country has announced its rejection of the declared agreement, as the rest of the countries remain silent on the issue until the moment, and the tweeters in Oman launched the hashtag #Omanis_against_normalization after announcing an official spokesperson at the Ministry The Ministry of Foreign Affairs supports the Sultanate for the bilateral step between the UAE and Israel, and the UAE has become the first Gulf country to establish official relations with Israel, and the third Arab country after Egypt and Jordan.[82]

The Qatari position was nominally strict with regard to normalization with Israel and was as follows: Qatar has confirmed that it will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel before resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, at a time when the UAE and Bahrain are signing normalization agreements with Israel today in Washington. In the Qatari capital, Doha, at the beginning of this month, the Emir of the State of Qatar affirmed his country's position calling for a just settlement of the Palestinian issue on the basis of international legitimacy resolutions and the Arab peace initiative, and on the basis of the two-state solution, in a way that achieves security and stability in the region.

Qatar’s Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman said about Qatar’s waiting for its role in normalization. He said in a televised interview, “We are waiting for our role in normalization if Israel adheres to the Arab peace initiative to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and return the refugees.. and the State of Qatar will follow this path As for the issue, now we do not see any reason.”

Lulwa Al-Khater, Assistant Foreign Minister of Qatar, said in an interview with the American Bloomberg Agency, that normalization with Israel cannot be the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather the solution lies in implementing Security Council resolutions, granting the Palestinians their rights and finding a just solution to their cause, the official added. Qatari that the essence of the conflict is related to the harsh conditions under which the Palestinians live, as a people without a country, living under occupation (Israel), and made it clear that her country does not believe that normalization was the core of this dispute, and therefore the solution cannot be, without other details.

When asked about whether there is pressure from the administration of US President Donald Trump on Qatar to sign an agreement with Israel, Lulwa Al-Khater said that the relationship with the United States is based on mutual respect, noting that the Palestinian issue and peace talks in Afghanistan are on the table of the third strategic dialogue. The meeting is being held in Doha, and the White House will host, on Tuesday, the signing ceremony of the two agreements to normalize full relations between the UAE and Bahrain on the one hand, and Israel on the other, under the auspices of US President Donald Trump[83].

As for Yemen, he declared that the position of the Republic of Yemen will remain steadfast and will not change towards the Palestinian cause and the inalienable rights of the brotherly Palestinian people, foremost of which is the establishment of an independent state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. , that “the normalization agreement between the Emirates and” Israel “has lost the dream of Arab unity that we have defended for decades.” And in Kuwait, seven Kuwaiti political forces and blocs announced, on Friday, their absolute rejection of normalization with “the Zionist entity or recognition of it.”[84]

By tracking the Kuwaiti position, we find that; Kuwait's firm position came after Jared Kushner, son-in-law and advisor to US President Donald Trump, described Kuwait's position rejecting normalization and supporting the Palestinians as "extreme and non-constructive" to express true Arab affiliation that rejects, condemns and denounces all forms of normalization, and criticized Kushner in an interview with the American "CBS" channel. Kuwait's position on normalization with the Israeli occupation, saying that the Gulf country is "biased towards the Palestinians," before denying Washington's pressure on Kuwait to recognize Israel, similar to the UAE, and considered that it is in the interest of many countries in the region, especially from the economic side. To recognize Israel and establish relations with it, and to obtain “America’s confidence.”

However, he said that Kuwait, for now, “has so far adopted a view that is strongly biased towards the Palestinians with regard to the conflict, and it is clear that this is not very constructive.” Kuwait responded to Kushner’s statements, by saying that Kuwait’s position on normalization with the Zionist entity is constant and will not change, And it will be the last country to normalize with the occupation [85].

The Iraqi reaction was neutral. As Mr. Al-Kadhimi, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq, stated to the Washington Post, during his visit on 8/20/2020, to the United States of America, and as published by the electronic Rai Today newspaper on 8/23/2020, “The UAE’s decision is a decision that will be implemented and we do not want to interfere.” [86]

Jordan did not express an official position towards Emirati normalization, but unofficial positions that Jordan did not oppose can be traced; A member of the American Political Science Association, Dr. Bilal Al-Shobaki, confirms that the normalization agreement between the UAE and “Israel” will undoubtedly affect Jordan in several respects, most notably its presence in the occupied territories, especially the Hashemite Custodianship of the holy sites, and the Palestinian issue is, “, of An extension in the Jordanian context, and any prejudice against the Palestinians will affect the nature of the situation in Jordan, because it has the largest number of Palestinian refugees.

Concerning the official position on the UAE-Israel agreement, Al-Shobaki explains, “The popular mood rejecting the agreement coincides with the unannounced official position on it, in addition to the fact that Jordan officially announced its rejection of the annexation plans and the provision of free gifts to the Israeli occupation state.

According to Al-Shobaki, any normalization outside the Arab Peace Initiative is “the provision of free gifts to the Israeli occupation, without there being any return on the Palestinians.” Unofficial Jordanian positions on Emirati normalization reflect the cold war between Amman and Abu Dhabi, due to the agreement, which It directly affects Jordan and its interests in the region, according to observers.[87]

For decades, the Syrian regime was known for its position against all forms of normalization, as it remained next to Algeria at the head of the Arab resistance to all paths of rapprochement with the occupation before the return of all Arab rights, but now the position has changed remarkably, as the Syrian regime almost ignored Full comment on this agreement. Apart from what was stated by Al-Assad’s advisor, Buthaina Shaaban, regarding possessing strength and steadfastness as the only solution for Syria and Palestine, and that Tel Aviv does not consider every printer with it a friend, in addition to what was reported from the Baath Party, which considered the agreement “surrender and submission” and that its government is the only one in the region that It confronts Zionist hegemony. According to him, no other official position has been issued condemning the normalization of the UAE.

It is noteworthy that the Foreign Minister of the Assad regime, Faisal Al-Miqdad, had stated last December, on the sidelines of the Emirati embassy in Damascus’s celebration of the 48th National Day, in the presence of the UAE Chargé d’Affairs, Abdul Hakim Ibrahim Al-Nuaimi, that “Syria will not forget that The UAE stood by its side in its war on terrorism, and this was expressed through the UAE receiving the Syrians who chose it until the terrorist war on their country ends and we hope for their return to their homeland.”[88]

The position of the Palestinian Authority was initially sharp, as it described the normalization agreement as “treason” and considered it a “stab” in the back of the nation. The Palestinian Authority decided to return its ambassadors, whom it summoned from Abu Dhabi and Manama, respectively, to respond to the declaration of the two Gulf capitals to establish relations with the Israeli occupation state. And the Palestinian Authority had recalled its ambassador to Abu Dhabi immediately after US President Donald Trump announced that the normalization agreement had been reached, in mid-August, and then followed it with the withdrawal of its ambassador from Manama, in September of this year.

The Palestinian leadership received the wave of Arab normalization with condemnation and denunciation, and the spokesman for the Palestinian presidency, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, confirmed in a statement read on state television (mid-August) that the agreement torpedoed the Arab peace initiative. Abu Rudeineh described the normalization agreement as “a betrayal of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa and decisions Arab and Islamic summits, international legitimacy, and aggression against the Palestinian people.

Also, PA officials considered the agreement “an effective implementation of the American deal of the century, which is rejected by the Palestinians of all their orientations,” and said that it means “recognition of occupied Jerusalem as the capital of the occupying state[89].”

Egypt's position was in support of the Emirati normalization and praised it. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi blessed the agreement and congratulated its parties, but he has not commented on the agreement so far, except for a few mainstream writers loyal to the government in Egypt, including the veteran journalist Imad Adab, who has close ties to the UAE’s inner circles. Who wrote an editorial for Al-Watan newspaper praising the agreement and explaining the wisdom behind Abu Dhabi's decision.

On the other hand, “Jalal Dowidar,” a writer for “Akhbar Al-Ayoum” newspaper, considered that the agreement does not promote Palestinian rights, but rather uses them as a cover for normalization with (Israel). The writer in the state-owned newspaper, Al-Ahram, also questioned Salah Montaser,” on Israel’s intentions and whether it would really stop the annexation of the West Bank. However, most Egyptian TV presenters barely mentioned the agreement, and those few who did seemed disappointed.

Among former Egyptian diplomats, Amr Moussa wrote on Facebook that other Arab countries looking to normalize with Israel should press for additional Palestinian gains besides stopping the annexation process.

The Egyptian parliament did not comment on the agreement, contrary to its habit of openly supporting the Emirati steps against Qatar and Turkey. No political party issued an individual statement either.[90]

Sudan also joined the “neutral” team, albeit the most extremist of them, especially after it was raised about Khartoum joining the convoy of normalization, and talk about the imminent signing of a peace agreement similar to the UAE agreement, which greatly contradicts the previous general trend of the country, which was looking at “Israel” as the most prominent enemy of the Arabs.

The Sudanese authority’s silence regarding the Emirati move is a natural product of the formation of the ruling council on the one hand, and Sudanese pragmatism on the other hand, as Mohammed bin Zayed succeeded in recruiting some members of the government in the country, headed by Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo “Hamidti”, who is described as the man of the Emirates in Sudan, who was the godfather of bin Zayed to bring mercenaries and send them to fight on behalf of the Emirati forces in Yemen and Libya.

On the other hand, the current Sudanese government, led by Abdullah Hamdok, is seeking to bring views closer to the United States in order to remove the country's name from terrorist lists, in addition to canceling the economic sanctions imposed decades ago, which had the worst impact on Sudan's economy over the past years..[91] ]

The Libyan official position on Emirati normalization is a clear reflection of the political map in the country in which retired Major General Khalifa Haftar receives open support from Abu Dhabi and its allies, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the parallel government emanating from the House of Representatives meeting in Tobruk, Abdul Hady Al-Hawij, is preparing to visit the UAE to discuss The question of his country's government joining the normalization agreement.

The official silence of Haftar's team, fearing the local reaction, does not hide its completely supportive orientation towards the UAE, its ally and biggest supporter, in addition to the general's personal desire to improve his relationship with Washington, the sponsor of the agreement announcing the alliance between the UAE and "Israel", which may be reflected in Its position on the Government of National Accord, which it supports[92].

The Tunisian position was different. Despite the fact that the Palestinian cause topped the list of priorities in the political discourse of the current Tunisian President, Kais Saied, during his election campaign, the matter quickly changed with the first practical test on the ground. The president has not issued any official position until now. regarding the Emirati move.

While the UAE, led by the counter-revolution, is facing the failure of the democratic transition process in Tunisia, the president, who some believed came from the womb of the revolution, was unable to take an official position against it, despite its striking of the external foundations of the Tunisian state.

Tunisian journalist and political analyst, Boulbabeh Salem, believes that his country “does not want to lose its relations with the UAE because issuing a position will have a price, similar to the expulsion of the Tunisian ambassador and the expulsion of the Tunisian workforce of about 25,000 Tunisians, given that the UAE is a non-democratic country.” It deals with great arrogance”[93].

Over the past decades, Algeria has adopted a clear line regarding the absolute rejection of all forms of normalization with the occupying power, which was the line that distinguished its foreign policy compared to other Arab countries that were swinging on the strings of hesitation and firmness.

The clear changes witnessed by the regime in Algeria recently, it is clear that it cast a shadow over many political constants, including the position on “Israel”. Algerian political parties as a “stab in the back of the Palestinian cause.”

The leader of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, Sheikh Ali Belhadj, described the Algerian reaction as “suspicious silence, and a source of concern for the fate of Palestine and the entire region,” noting in press statements to him that “the Emirati-Israeli normalization agreement represents a disaster of disasters and a cunning trick. And that the official Arab position was lackluster and a cause for concern and confusion, not only because it did not commensurate with the scale of the disaster, but also because it might hide something worse and worse”[94].

The Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, considered that the agreement to normalize relations between the UAE and Israel undermines the two-state solution to the conflict in the Middle East and weakens Palestine's advantage in the negotiations.

Cavusoglu said in an interview with the Italian newspaper “La Stampa” published on Saturday, in response to a question about the Emirati-Israeli agreement: “Turkey, which has had diplomatic relations with Israel for decades, does not oppose normalization between Israel and other countries [95].” .

Iran's position was completely opposed to normalization and was as follows: Despite its importance and influence, economic calculations do not determine the course of Iranian foreign policy and its strategic decisions except in a secondary way. Therefore, statements were issued by the highest Iranian officials against the UAE for its “betrayal” and its throwing into the arms of Israel. The Supreme Leader declared that the UAE betrayed the Islamic world, the Arab world, and the countries of the region, just as it betrayed the Palestinian cause.

The President, Hassan Rouhani, denounced the Emirati-Israeli rapprochement and considered it a 100 percent unacceptable betrayal and an Emirati mistake, saying: This betrayal will not bring security to the Emirates, and the Iranian Chief of Staff blamed the UAE for any security complications arising from this step, and several statements were made in the same context [96].

The university that rose up forty years ago was silenced this time, and although almost a week has passed since Trump's tweet referring to the planned peace agreement between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv, there was no reaction from the university, which raised many questions. .

The Arab House was late in adopting a position that was controversial, especially since the League stipulates that any of its members establish relations with “Israel”, the latter’s withdrawal from the lands occupied in 1967, the empowerment of the Palestinians to establish their independent state on the 1967 borders, and a solution to the refugee problem.

The university's reaction, although it was shocking in terms of form (silence), was not surprising in its content (not taking a stand against the Emirates), especially since the political decision of this entity has become hostage to the political will of the countries with financial influence within it, led by the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Of course, behind them is Egypt, which embraces the university on its soil[97].

The second axis: the regional position on Bahraini normalization

Its position was consistent towards the two countries (the UAE _ Bahrain), as the Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned, on Saturday, and expressed its “concern” about the Kingdom of Bahrain establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, and according to the ministry’s statement, “Bahrain’s decision contradicts the Arab Peace Initiative and the pledges made within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The move would be a blow to the efforts exerted to defend the Palestinian cause,” the statement said. He added, "This step will encourage Israel to continue its illegal practices against Palestine, and its attempts to consolidate the occupation in the Palestinian territories."

The statement indicated that "the only way to bring peace and stability to the Middle East region is through achieving a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian cause within the framework of international law and United Nations resolutions." .

The Palestinian Presidency affirmed in a statement that “all the agreements that took place in the White House between the UAE, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Israeli occupation authority will not achieve peace in the region, as long as the United States and the Israeli occupation authority do not recognize the right of the Palestinian people to establish their independent and continuous state on The borders of June 4, 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the solution of the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with Resolution 194.

The Palestinian presidency said that the problem is not between the countries that signed the agreements and the Israeli occupation authority, but with the Palestinian people who are suffering under occupation[98].

Egypt's position was similar to its position on Emirati normalization, as follows: Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi welcomed the agreement to establish diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain, and before that the UAE, considering that it would “advance the efforts of the peace process and open prospects for stability in the Middle East region”[99].

The continuation of Iran's opposition to the new regional policies in the region. In Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani blamed the UAE and Bahrain for the “consequences” of signing normalization agreements with Israel under the auspices of the United States, warning of the impact on security in the region.

Amir Abdollahian, advisor to the Iranian parliament speaker for international affairs, said that what is happening in Washington is a “circus led by Trump,” and that these agreements open the door for Zionism to “occupy Gulf countries in a modern way,” as he put it[100].

Saudi Arabia linked its position on normalization to resolving the Palestinian issue in the footsteps of the Arab initiative. Riyadh did not comment on the Israeli-Bahraini agreement, nor did it officially comment on the Emirati agreement, except that “Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan said on August 19 His country will not follow the UAE’s example in normalizing relations unless the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is resolved.”

The frequency of reports about Saudi Arabia's positions on normalization is seen by some as an indication of its adherence to the Arab peace initiative, which calls for "Israel's withdrawal from the Palestinian lands it occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace."

The Arab Peace Initiative was launched by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia with the aim of establishing an internationally recognized Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. It was announced at the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2002.[101]

Its stance towards the two agreements was steadfast. The Tunisian government demanded a firm position rejecting this normalization step and taking concrete steps to contribute to its downfall and to boycotting every political alliance that supports the American-Israeli position.

She called for an end to the mentality of surrender and justification, and to work on launching effective and real initiatives to ensure that the Palestinian people enjoy their right to self-determination and build their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, and to ensure protection for the Palestinian people from all violations they are exposed to, and to stop all forms of normalization with Israel[102].

The repercussions of the Emirati-Bahraini normalization came quickly on the League of Arab States, and it was a blow that was about to be fatal to its forelock burdened with the rubble of years and decades of failure and loss. So far, 6 countries have apologized for assuming the presidency of its current session, and no country has volunteered so far to take over the role and raise Al-Raya, bearing in mind that the presidency of the university's sessions takes place in normal circumstances, according to the alphabetical order of the names of the member states.

The story began on the ninth of last September 2020, when the League dropped a draft resolution presented by Palestine at the meeting of foreign ministers, condemning the normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel, and expressions of denunciation and denunciation melted in this meeting, after the normalization trend became a striking force that expanded like Tongues of sand and waves of salt under the pillars of the shaky Arab House.

The godfather of normalization, Jared Kushner, adviser to the US President, quickly picked up the thread, to announce on the next day that the Arab League’s failure to condemn the normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel constitutes an important shift in the Middle East,” and that the patience of the countries supporting the Palestinians has run out, and that they are now seeking normalization with Israel to serve its interests.

However, the steps of normalization accelerated in the following days, to culminate on the 15th of the same month (September) with the UAE and Bahrain signing two normalization agreements with Israel at a White House ceremony sponsored by US President Donald Trump, ignoring the anger in the Arab popular circles.[103] ]

The United States' efforts to secure Israel in the region and, accordingly, its interests were not satisfied with the normalization of the UAE and Bahrain only, as Sudan and Morocco followed them. The coming days may show new normalizers on the path of normalization, so their steps can be summed up as follows:

Sudan signed, on Wednesday, an agreement to normalize relations with Israel, and at the same time received financial aid from the United States, which became available after Khartoum was recently withdrawn from the American list of state sponsors of terrorism, and during a short visit to Khartoum on Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin signed an agreement that allows Sudan Obtaining financing facilities of more than $1 billion annually to help him pay his debts to the World Bank.

Sudan also signed with the United States what has been termed the “Abraham Accords” regarding the normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel. Help Sudan further in the path of transition towards stability, security, and economic opportunities.”[104]

Rabat, Tel Aviv, and Washington signed a tripartite agreement that included several memorandums of understanding to establish relations between Morocco and “Israel.” Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita described it as “a road map that the three parties will work on during the next stage.”

The Moroccan foreign minister said that relations between his country and “Israel” were “originally normal” even before the normalization agreement announced by US President Donald Trump.

The Israeli-American delegation arrived in Rabat on the first direct flight from Tel Aviv. Which included an American delegation of senior officials in the White House, headed by the son-in-law of the US President, Jared Kushner, the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Alon Auschwitz, and the deputy head of the National Security Council known as “Maoz.”

Israeli media reported that Morocco had sent a message in recent days to “Israel” stating that it “does not want to sign the agreement to normalize relations with public ceremonies, as the agreements were signed with the UAE and Bahrain,” because “the agreement is not part of the Abraham Accords.”

Earlier, outgoing US President Donald Trump announced his country's recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the agreement to normalize relations between Morocco and "Israel".

It is noteworthy that Morocco is the fourth Arab country to announce normalization with “Israel”. On September 15, the UAE and Bahrain signed the normalization agreement with Tel Aviv in Washington at the White House, before Sudan joined later[105].

Chapter Three

The repercussions of normalization on Arab national security

The Arab-Israeli normalization has great repercussions that have affected the region, especially in the state of weakness in the Arab world due to the division of leadership, whether individual or collective, and the inability to unite the peoples. The normalization of some Arab countries has also affected the position of the Palestinian state and the Palestinians, as it has become There is a kind of intransigence on the part of Israel that will negatively affect the Palestinian cause and the Palestinians, and its feeling that its involvement in the Arab world is only a matter of time, and the bargaining has turned into peace in exchange for peace instead of peace in exchange for land, and this normalization is not a spur of the moment, but there has been a continuous leak since Years of secret relations, meetings, and public participations of Israeli leaders, athletes, and artists in these countries, however, the integrated process began with the Declaration of Principles in Washington between the UAE and Israel under American auspices on August 13, 2020 and signed between them, with Bahrain also joining on September 15 of the same year [106]

This chapter will deal with the impact of normalization on Arab national security, from all political, economic and other aspects, in the first topic, while in the second topic, it will deal with the impact of normalization on the Palestinian cause and the situation of the Palestinians, in the last topic, which deals with future scenarios for Israeli-Gulf normalization .

Trump tweeted a map of the future Palestine after his peace plan

The first topic

The impact of normalization on Arab national security

The Arab-Israeli normalization has serious effects on the national security of the Arab world, and its dangerous effects on the entire region, and the danger here lies in considering Israel a normal or neutral country, and even a friend or ally with some countries, because in fact it is considered the leader of a larger project It aims to engulf Jerusalem and all of Palestine, all the way to the entire Arab region, and to control it politically, economically, militarily, and culturally.

Arab security is concerned with serious thinking about how to deal with this project that is hostile to the nation, as well as the importance of preserving inter-Arab relations, and preventing Israel from attempting to disintegrate the Arabs and its infiltration among them. The relationship with the West, or standing with the Arabs on subsidiary issues that may be imaginary, is much more dangerous for Arab security and the Palestinian cause than managing the relationship with it on the basis that it is an enemy and danger, and as a state occupying Arab lands, and that it is a strategic and permanent threat to Arab security, and history, experiences and facts for decades. It proves this clearly, and therefore the best solution that the Arab world must take is to limit relations with Israel and be careful of it [107].

One of the most dangerous things that Israel does is trying to divert the attention of the Arabs from being their first enemy and trying to create another enemy so that the Arabs do not unite against it, so that it deals with some countries now as friends and allies to them, and it has already succeeded in that Now, the Gulf countries see that Iran is the first threat to their nationalism and existence instead of Israel, and even now the UAE and Bahrain consider it a friend to them after the normalization of relations. Israel was also able to divert attention towards being an enemy of the Arabs by exporting the idea that terrorism is the first enemy of countries, regardless of being one of the first countries The source of terrorism through the arbitrariness with which it deals with the Palestinians.

The current wave of normalization carried out by the UAE and Bahrain comes within two previous waves, the first was during the Sadat era 1977, and the second was with the signing of the Oslo and Wadi Araba agreements, and what is dangerous in the current wave is that it falls with countries outside the borders of Israel and there is no goal except To strengthen relations, and the motives of this wave come from the belief that strengthening Arab relations with Israel comes from the point of obtaining the approval of the United States, and also with the aim of obtaining technological and military facilities and advantages, but this is the opposite of what Israel aims for, as the goal of its presence in the Arab region is control and impose its dominance on it. [108]

The risks and aspects of normalization

This normalization has its negative effects on the national security of the Arab world. These risks include many aspects, the most important of which are:

Israel aims in the first place to extract the recognition of the Arab countries, especially those who print for them, the Jewishness of the Israeli state and its Hebrewness, since the mere approval of these countries of the deal of the century means their public recognition of the Jewishness of the Hebrew state, and the subsequent plans to liquidate the Palestinian cause and lead to more Israeli intransigence towards the terms of the settlement.

And to help further neutralize the Palestinian cause as a determinant of Arab-Israeli relations, and to push the Arab regime to more divisions and collapse than it is now[109], and normalization will also lead to the loss of the Arab political weight countries that were represented in Egypt, Syria and Iraq to its strategic political weight in negotiating with Israel and the solutions of other countries allied with the Israeli right and the American right [110], as well as Palestine losing the ability to influence the countries of the world due to its lack of influential tools and interests that it can offer, as it was in the past A win for any country that adopts the Palestinian cause.

One of the biggest risks militarily is Israel's attempt to turn a blind eye to being the number one enemy of the Arab world, and many Arab countries have come to see that the number one enemy is Iran, which is a threat to their national security. , And this has become more provocative to Iran, [111] This will also enable Israel to seek to prevent or restrict national defense operations and recruitment and try to reduce the number of armies in Arab countries.

In addition to defining the military and defense capabilities of the Arab countries, besieging them in buying weapons and preventing them from acquiring certain weapons so that Israel is the only country that is militarily superior and dominant militarily, and this has already appeared after its normalization with the UAE, where it was supposed to supply The United States and Israel requested certain weapons that included an electronic spy plane, the E-18G Grol, and the F-35 [112], but none of these agreements were implemented for fear of imbalance of power, also the continuation of Israel's exclusive possession of nuclear, strategic, qualitative, advanced and important weapons, opening the corridors The waters, the high seas and the Arab territorial waters in front of the ships and navy of the Zionist entity, the establishment of Zionist military and security bases in some Arab countries, which will allow the enemy strategic superiority and the imposition of more hegemony in the region, espionage and penetration into Arab and Islamic societies and entities.

It is expected that the current transformations will have extremely dangerous repercussions on the Arab economic system as a whole, and on the Gulf economy in particular, because the ability of the Israeli economy to penetrate the structures and structures of the economy of normalized countries is much greater than the ability of the economy of these countries to penetrate the structures and structures of the Israeli economy, and because the growth of Economic relations between Israel and these countries could constitute an obstacle or put more obstacles to the process of economic integration in the Arab world [113]. In addition to canceling the Arab boycott on Israeli products and opening the Arab market to Jewish agricultural, industrial and commercial products, working to plunder Arab water resources and wealth and establishing more industrial, development and investment projects, while exploiting Arab labor as cheap labor that can contribute to Prosperity of Jewish projects and investments.

One of the most dangerous things that normalization can lead to is the impact on the doctrinal pattern of the Arab people, as it strikes the idea of ​​Arabism at the core and leads to its complete marginalization, and what helps this is the Jewish intellectual, social, cultural, artistic and media penetration of Arab societies, as it is one of the most important things Israel aims to penetrate intellectually within the Arab world and portray itself in the image of a peace-loving state that is hostile to terrorism and a friendly state that renounces violence while showing that the Palestinian people are the terrorist and focusing light on that through the media, as the Jews have the largest media stations through which they can promote Therefore, Israel also sought to change the educational curricula, and remove it from the educational curricula in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Everything related to exposing the dangers and crimes of the Zionist entity and its conspiracies, deleting the history, geography and map of Palestine from all educational curricula, and replacing it with the geography and history of the Zionist entity, in addition to deleting Quranic verses and noble prophetic sayings from educational curricula that encourage jihad, and deleting topics and investigations related to the treachery and betrayal of the Jews. The curriculum of the Prophet’s biography and Islamic history also aims to strike morale and weaken the spirit of cohesion and social solidarity in Arab and Islamic societies and stir up strife and religious, ideological and sectarian strife among Arabs and Muslims.[114]

The second topic

The impact of the Gulf-Israeli normalization on the Palestinian cause

Israel has employed the policy of normalization in order to improve its image in front of the world in its attempts to expand the scope of its international relations and to confront the international campaigns boycotting it by claiming that it pursues peace through negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, but the process of Israel's normalization with the Arab countries constituted a weakening of the Palestinian cause In the process of a political settlement that allowed the formation of a Palestinian Authority that is submissive to Israel and loses all sense of patriotism, and thanks to normalization, the way was made possible for Israel to take control of the reins of power in the Palestinian Authority, by using various means of pressure that the Palestinian Authority cannot confront. Among the most prominent means of pressure is Israel's control of borders and crossings. Palestinian funds, in addition to its control over natural resources and water resources, and depriving the Palestinians of their basic rights in those resources and resources, thus Israel was able to subjugate the Palestinian Authority to it.[115]

One of the most prominent repercussions of normalization is that the character of occupation has been erased from Israel and it has been equated with the state of Palestine occupied by Israel. In that normalization with Israel is what will achieve peace in the region[116], and Arab normalization has caused disadvantages that affected the Arab resistance movements, through the adoption of Arab countries’ policies of restriction and stress on the resistance movements that call for struggle against Israel, and this led to the reduction of Arab support for the cause The Palestinians, especially the countries normalized with the occupying state, with the aim of forcing the Palestinians, subjugating them and convincing them of the idea of ​​normalization and coexistence with the occupying state. The Arab and Islamic countries should think about normalization with Israel and exchange relations with it after it was a main supporter of the Palestinian cause, and this led to the weakening of the Palestinian cause and the strengthening and strengthening of Israel’s position, both in the international community, the United Nations and the Security Council, after the Arab countries raced to normalize relations with it, which confirms the widening of its international relations Also, thanks to normalization, Israel was able to annex a large part of the Palestinian lands in its favor, with the approval and support of the normalizing Arab countries. Arabic, which states that there will be no normalization with the Israeli occupation except by resolving the Palestinian issue in a just solution.

The first axis: the impact of the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel on the Palestinian issue: [117]

The Camp David Accords of 1979 between Egypt and Israel had a great impact on the Palestinian cause as well as on the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was presiding over the Palestinian resistance and struggle against the occupying state, and it was receiving great and close support from Egypt, and we are in the process of identifying some of the main points raised by that agreement on The Palestinian cause:

The second axis: the impact of the Wadi Araban agreement between Jordan and Israel on the Palestinian cause [118]:

The Araban Valley agreement between Jordan and Israel led to the weakening of the Palestinian position and cause towards the occupying state, but the Jordanian people who rejected the agreement continued against Israeli policies, which led to a restoration of balance, albeit in a relative way, as the peace agreement was signed between Jordan and Israel in what is known as the “Wadi Agreement.” Araban" on the 26th of October 1994, and the agreement was regarding the borders separating them and passing through the Araban valley, and the Araban valley agreement was a result of the Oslo agreement between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel in September 1993, and the agreement between Jordan and Israel was considered one of the results of the historical Oslo agreement, which was followed by a set of relations Whether official, public or non-public, between Israel and other Arab countries, whether in North Africa or in the Persian Gulf.

The Wadi Orban agreement had significant effects on the Palestinian cause, as did other agreements between Israel and many Arab countries, such as the Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and cooperation agreements between Israel and other Arab countries. The Israeli side, and this was mentioned by Palestinian officials and experts, that any relationship between any Arab country with Israel weakens the Palestinian position, as the Israeli openness and its desire for normalization with the Arab countries has always been a tool of pressure on the Palestinians, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has warned against Israel's comprehensive normalization with the countries Arab countries through its implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative by establishing relations with the Arabs before resolving the Palestinian issue and reaching a final solution regarding Palestinian peace. The Palestinians believe that the relations of cooperation between the Arab countries and Israel mean the absence of pressure on Israel in order to reach a just settlement with the Palestinians.

The Wadi Araban agreement included leasing the two areas to Israel for a period of 25 years from the date of entry into force of the treaty, in addition to automatic renewal for a similar period. On October 22, 2018, Abdullah II, the “King of Jordan,” announced the termination of work on the appendices of the lands of Baqoura and Ghamr, which were leased to Israel. According to what was included in the Wadi Araba agreement, and in 2016 the Jordanian government signed an agreement with Israel to import gas at a value of 10 billion dollars, provided that implementation begins in 2020 for a period of 15 years, which caused widespread controversy in the Jordanian and Palestinian streets as well and raised many objections, as the Palestinians described The agreement is another point added to the Israeli strengths to put pressure on Palestine and enhance the survival of the occupation in Palestine.

The third axis: the repercussions of Emirati, Bahraini, and Israeli normalization on the Palestinian and Arab situation: [119]

According to what was approved by the United Nations, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement comes to resolve a dispute between two parties within the framework of conflict-prone areas, which entails the demobilization of combat forces, as well as the collection and destruction of their weapons under the terms of a peace agreement.

However, there has been no active armed conflict between the UAE or Bahrain with Israel in recent years, in order for there to be a necessity to establish a “comprehensive peace agreement” between the three countries.[120] The tripartite declaration between the UAE, the United States, and Israel does not represent an agreement to end a state of war and no peace between Israel and the UAE, as the UAE is not linked to any actual borders with Israel, such as Egypt or Jordan, and has not engaged militarily with Israel, as it is considered to a large extent outside the actual and direct circle of conflict. And the weakness of its historical status and the smallness of its human and geographical weight did not allow Arab bets to be built on it, in relation to what was previously mentioned, since the agreement between us and Israel cannot be called a peace agreement because it did not come to end a war, and if the agreement can be likened to the agreements signed by some Arab countries outside of it. The circle of conflict with Israel after the Palestinian leadership signed the Oslo Accords. However, the circumstances of this agreement are completely different from other agreements that preceded it, as the timing of the agreement, and the nature of the political and strategic orientations of the Emirati leadership, give it more dangerous meanings, due to its repercussions on the Palestinian situation and the Arab position. from the Palestinian issue.

The announcement of the agreement, with its content, timing and basic meaning, is considered a blow to the unified Palestinian position and cause, rejecting what is known as the American deal of the century, which the UAE supported and followed the side of the United States of America in order to normalize relations with Israel, as the Emirati support for the declaration represented a tool of pressure on the situation The Palestinian, in addition to the involvement of the Arab countries to establish relations with Israel, without reaching a solution or settlement of the Palestinian issue, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the end of the “land for peace” formula on which the settlement process was based, as the American administration seeks to install a new formula that ends It contains the formula on which the settlement process was based, which requires Israel to withdraw from the Arab lands it occupied in 1967, and here we find that the declaration indicates the Arab division and the distance from supporting the Palestinian cause, in addition to the extension of its impact on depriving the Palestinians of their Arab backer and supporting the American-Israeli vision against the Palestinian cause.

The UAE tried to justify the agreement as a deal that prevents annexation measures in the West Bank and tries to preserve the rights of the Palestinians to establish an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, but this was denied by the American and Israeli administrations, respectively, as it was emphasized that the annexation was temporarily stopped It is not completely stopped, which means undermining any possibility of establishing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, as the agreement gives the Arab countries many investments and economic opportunities in the Arab countries with which normalization has taken place, and normalization gives Israel other advantages as it gives it a dominant position in the region without paying any fees. A price in return for the Kurds of the Arab lands occupied by Israel or the rights of the Palestinians, and the normalization of the Arab countries with Israel and alliance with it means that Israel does not need the path of settlement with the Palestinians.

What has been mentioned about the executive arrangements between the UAE and Israel, especially cooperation in the security and military field, confirms and clarifies the official transition to the partnership camp between the UAE and Israel, in addition to the UAE's adoption of common or convergent concepts in the field of security and national security, strategic interests, and the diagnosis and identification of opponents and parties. Hostile, and these arrangements refer to the Emirati transition towards adopting Israeli standards in those aspects, which will have an impact on the Arab currents that support the Palestinian cause and support the Palestinian resistance against the occupying state, and on another scale, the Emirati-Israeli normalization means the possibility of other countries joining the normalization with Israel. By using the Emirati formula, which increases the pressure on the parties supporting the Palestinian cause and rejecting normalization with Israel. If the US administration and Israel are able to lure and bring other Arab countries towards normalization, especially Saudi Arabia, then this will mean a radical shift in favor of Israel and abandonment of the Palestinian cause, and despite the declaration Many countries express hostile attitudes towards the Palestinian resistance, but they adhere to the right of the Palestinians to establish an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 count, as a condition for normalization with Israel, in accordance with what was included in the Arab Peace Initiative.

The fourth axis: the role of Egypt and Jordan in the Palestinian cause after Gulf normalization

Director General of the Jerusalem Center for Political Studies, Oraib Al-Rantawi, said that “the establishment of close relations with “Israel” by Gulf Arab countries will weaken the Egyptian and Jordanian roles in the Palestinian file.

And he indicated that Jordan has historically been the channel of communication between “Israel” and the Gulf countries, and that he viewed the Kingdom as a buffer zone between “Israel” and the Arab oil countries, indicating that the Gulf countries’ normalization of their relations with the occupying state is a jump from the Jordanian role, Building direct bridges for the relationship between the Gulf states and Tel Aviv.

Al-Rantawi indicated that the “new normalization” with the occupying state differs from the normalization of Egypt, which has passed 41 years ago, and the normalization of Jordan, which has passed for nearly 26 years, citing the rush of the governments of Bahrain and the UAE, “towards normalization in all fields and relations.” And attempts to normalize relations between the two peoples, unlike the normalization of Egypt and Jordan, which remained confined to official frameworks.

Developments that the advent of Biden may bring

The director of the Jerusalem Center for Studies explained that US President Donald Trump's plan to solve the Palestinian issue was based on the idea of ​​a regional framework, which gave the Gulf role a broader presence in reaching any final arrangement for the Palestinian issue.

He pointed out that any progress in the Gulf role would weaken the traditional role of Egypt and Jordan, but added: “There is anticipation for the position of the new US administration headed by Joe Biden, which may offer a different approach to the previous administration in dealing with the Palestinian file, based on the usual role.” Most of the previous American administrations, and therefore we saw Palestinian and Jordanian satisfaction, due to the fact that what Jordan lost in terms of advantages and presence in the Palestinian file, it might regain it with the new administration.”[121]

With regard to the Egyptian issue, he stressed that Egypt may face problems against the backdrop of human rights and democratic transition, and that “despite its important and complex role in the Gaza file, Arab normalization has weakened the negotiating position and the ability to move between Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians.”

With regard to the relationship between Jordan and Egypt on the one hand, and the Gulf states on the one hand, and the extent to which they are affected by the Gulf normalization agreements, “the relationship is not equal, due to Gulf investments in the two countries, and the high numbers of Egyptian and Jordanian workers in the Gulf countries, and the important role that has in Alleviating unemployment problems, in addition to remittances for workers in these countries, which have a positive and important impact on the two economies, and their impact on providing a good balance of foreign currencies,” according to Al-Rantawi, who saw that the previous data made Egypt and Jordan in a weaker relationship.

He pointed out that although Egypt welcomes the steps of normalization, “it is more concerned about these agreements, due to fears of finding alternatives to the Suez Canal, through the establishment of a network of roads, railways, and pipelines for energy transmission, indicating that the effect of this matter will not be immediate.” Noting that these problems may later lead to crises in the inter-relationships of Egypt and the Gulf states.

Al-Rantawi went on to say that the position of the Artists Syndicate in Egypt regarding the Egyptian artist who took pictures with an Israeli artist, “is not just a response to the Egyptian popular position rejecting normalization, and it could only be with a green light from the official state apparatus, which does not want this. Countries are to be a trap that traps Egyptians in the trap of normalization, and to prevent the formation of a popular incubator that will defend normalization in the future.”

He believes that Jordan has another motive for concern, which is the arrangements for visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque for Gulf visitors without going through Jordanian territory or coordinating with the Palestinian endowments, and following the same steps as arranging the settlers’ “visit” to Al-Aqsa Mosque, by entering through the Mughrabi Gate, which is controlled by the Israeli occupation, and organized The entry and exit of settlers through it, and thus striking the inherited Hashemite guardianship in regulating the entry of worshipers and visitors at the same time, threatening the future of the Holy Mosque as a sacred place, and weakening the Jordanian role in caring for religious sanctities, indicating that these measures are “part of the processes of Islamization and Judaization to which the Holy City is subject ".

In turn, the writer and political researcher “Hazem Ayyad” said that one of the occupation’s efforts to normalize relations with the Arab countries is to strengthen its occupation position inside Jerusalem, indicating the occupation government’s rush to take any measure that legitimizes its presence inside the Holy City, such as the agreement to normalize relations with my government UAE and Bahrain.

He added: “The expected normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and the occupying power may result in the inclusion of Riyadh as a partner in organizing and sponsoring the affairs of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and this will weaken the Jordanian role in caring for religious sanctities.”

Ayad went on to say that the competition of Arab countries with the Jordanian state in caring for Al-Aqsa and regulating its affairs is a “point of contention subject to development.” to an “Arab-Arab” conflict; What improves the image of the occupying state.

National interests at the expense of Palestinian interests

Ayyad saw the normalization agreement as an abandonment of the Arab peace initiative, which means abandoning the Jordanian role, weakening Arab initiatives, skipping international decisions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus weakening the Egyptian and Jordanian positions, which depend on the Arab position and “legitimacy.” International” in dealing with the Palestinian file, so the change in the Arab position, a shift that limits the Egyptian and Jordanian role in the Palestinian cause.

These agreements would weaken the pivotal role of Egypt in managing the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the decline in the importance of the roles it plays, which means the decline in the importance of its role in relation to the United States and Israel.

As for the extent to which Jordan and Egypt's relationship with the printing countries was affected, Ayad ruled out the tendency of Egypt and Jordan to clash with the printing countries. Due to the economic crisis that the two countries are suffering from, without neglecting the emergence of signs of disagreement, “as appears in the Egyptian media,” Ayad also cited the statements of the Speaker of the Jordanian Senate, Faisal Al-Fayez, about Jordan’s adherence to its role and its exclusive right to take care of the affairs of religious sanctities in Jerusalem, and its rejection of any Change on this role or other countries have in this matter.

And he stressed: “The second part, on which the two countries rely, is their reassurance that the United States and European countries understand the Egyptian and Jordanian role in the Arab and Israeli conflict, and consider it a pivotal role that cannot be overlooked or bypassed.” And the possibility of disputes arising with Arab countries over this file.

He stressed that the biggest loser from the normalization agreements is Palestine, and that “normalization is a pure loss for the Arabs, and the bleeding can only be stopped by retracting the normalization steps”[122].

The danger of the new Arab normalization

The danger of the new Arab normalization lies not only in recognizing the colonial Zionist entity and establishing diplomatic relations with it, but also in the adoption by some of the normalizers of the Zionist narrative, which claims that Israel has always sought peace and that the Arab boycott and Palestinian resistance are the obstacles to achieving peace in the region and the world!

Unfortunately, the Zionists were able to plant this illusion in the minds of a generation of young Arabs who did not contemplate the history of conflict in the region and did not know that in all Arab-Israeli wars the Arabs defended their rights and lands or sought to restore them, and Israel was always the aggressor: the 1948 war, the aggression The tripartite 1956, the aggression of June 1967, the October war to restore the occupied lands in 1973, the aggression against Lebanon in 1982, and above all that it is an occupying country recognized by the United Nations and all countries of the world and refuses to obey United Nations resolutions.

The Palestinian people also extended their hand for peace since the Madrid Conference of 1991, then in Oslo 1993, and since that date they have been negotiating with Israel to accept the implementation of international legitimacy resolutions, and international legitimacy is a title for peace.

In the context of the policy of misleading and sowing discord, we note that all the news that is being reported about secret relations between Israel and Arab countries comes from Israeli sources, most of which are official sources, the latest of which was the allegations that were circulated through an official Israeli satellite channel about the role of King Hassan II of Morocco in The defeat of June 1967 or the secret relations with the Israeli Mossad and the role of the latter in the assassination of the fighter, Mahdi Ben Barka. Regardless of the validity or inaccuracy of these allegations, their promotion at this time and after the normalization of relations between the two countries aims to sow discord between Morocco and the Palestinian people and provoke angry Arab and Palestinian popular reactions against Morocco. Here, we must beware of slipping from official normalization into a state of hostility between the Palestinian people and their Arab brothers, which is what Israel wants. The latter wants to Zionize the Arabs by pushing them to sever all ties with the Palestinians, demonizing them, and adopting the Zionist narrative.

It is possible to remain silent about official normalization regardless of the justifications offered by the normalizing regimes, but what cannot be accepted or tolerated is that some adopt the Zionist narrative, and Arab newspapers and satellite channels allow Israeli and local hateful pens and voices sometimes to distort the Palestinian people and question the human, moral, national and religious ties that It binds the two peoples, or the Palestinian communities in the Arab countries are harassed, and they are communities that have proven that their loyalty to their host countries is no less than their loyalty to Palestine, and at the same time they prevent advocates of Palestinian right from expressing their positions and opinions, even through an article, a television broadcast, or through a peaceful march.

Normalization will temporarily end the official conflict with Israel and may weaken the state of hostility with it, but that does not mean that Israel no longer poses a threat to Arabs and Muslims or that Israel's neighborhood is better than that of neighboring Arab and Islamic countries, just as normalization, even if it affects The ideology of the conflict, it will not change the facts and reality of the conflict as a Palestinian-Israeli conflict and that Israel is a racist colonial state, but the new normalization will embarrass the Palestinian leadership. Relationship, and the policy of severing relations with every normalizing country, withdrawing the ambassador, or trying to incite against it will not work, and what is important at this stage is that the Arab regimes that are normalizing do not antagonize the Palestinian people and abandon them or demonize them to please Israel.

The Palestinian people must deal with an official and popular Arab and Islamic world different from what it was in the sixties and seventies, which requires more self-reliance and at the same time work to restore the popular dimension of the Palestinian cause because the popular masses in every country are the most capable party To confront normalization or limit its dangers, and the most important step required by the Palestinians is to change the negative image of them that has recently surfaced and their image as a people who have abandoned resistance to the occupation and whose political elites are fighting over power and wealth and begging for foreign aid, which is an image, although it has a basis in reality. There is no doubt, however, that media platforms are hostile It is for the Palestinian people to inflate and promote it to justify normalization with Israel. National unity, correcting the situation of the political system, and activating popular resistance are the best response to the dangers of normalization [123].

The opinions of some public figures

And their reactions to the UAE-Bahraini normalization agreements with Israel

In the following lines are the reactions to the Bahraini-Emirati-Israeli declaration of normalization:

·President of the United States of America

The reactions come after US President Donald Trump surprisingly announced the full normalization of relations between the UAE and Israel.

Trump described the agreement between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv as the “Abrahamic Accord” and a historic step in the region, and said that cooperation would replace hostility[124].

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “Today, a new era begins in relations between Israel and the Arab world.”

In 1979, Menachem Begin signed peace with Egypt. And in 1994, Yitzhak Rabin signed with Jordan, and he is credited with signing the third peace agreement with an Arab country in 2020. It is a real peace agreement, not a slogan.”

He said that other countries will catch up and sign peace agreements, and that the economic benefits of peace agreements will soon be tangible[125].

He wrote on Twitter, “I followed with great interest and appreciation the tripartite joint statement between the United States of America, the brotherly Arab Emirates and Israel on the agreement to stop Israel’s annexation of the Palestinian lands,” considering that these are steps “that will bring peace to the Middle East.”[126]

He said in a statement, “The Secretary-General welcomes this agreement and hopes that it will provide an opportunity for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to re-enter serious negotiations that achieve a two-state solution in accordance with United Nations resolutions, international law and bilateral agreements.”[127]

·The European Union

The European Union announced that normalization is in the interest of Israel and the UAE, but the spokeswoman for the Commission for Foreign Relations in the bloc, Nabila Masr, affirmed Brussels' commitment to the two-state solution. [128]

He believed that the normalization of relations between the two countries “is an important contribution to peace in the region.”

Mas, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, added, "We hope that this agreement will be a starting point for more positive developments in the region, and that it will give new impetus to the peace process in the Middle East."[129]

He considered in a statement that “the decision taken in this context by the Israeli authorities is a positive step that must be transformed into a final measure.

He added that “the new atmosphere witnessed by these decisions is supposed to allow now the resumption of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians for the sake of establishing two states within the framework of international law and agreed standards, which is the only option to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region.”[130]

The British Foreign Office considered that “there is no alternative to direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, the only way to achieve a two-state solution and lasting peace.”[131]

He says in a tweet on Twitter that the ministers of the UAE and Bahrain "played in the circus of the American president." He added that “Zionism, which yesterday occupied part of the Arab lands, is occupying today, in a new manner, the Gulf states”[132].

Israel will not benefit from this normalization, and its only gift will be more insecurity... What is happening in Washington is a circus led by Trump, and Bahrain and the UAE are just players in it. [133]

The Palestinian reaction to our peace proposal was childish. The Palestinians withdrew from our peace plan. [134]

The UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Anwar Gargash, said that “what we have taken is a bold step to ensure a two-state solution,” adding that the UAE embassy will not be in Jerusalem, and that its opening “will not take long.”[135]

The Bahraini Foreign Minister said, We welcome and appreciate the steps taken by Israel to achieve peace... For a very long time, the Middle East has been delayed due to mistrust.... The declaration supporting peace between Bahrain and Israel is a historic step on the way to lasting peace. [136]

The head of the Turkish Presidency's Liaison Department said that the agreement to normalize relations between the UAE and Israel is null and void for his country.

Altoun said in a series of tweets via his Twitter account, that the normalization of Emirati-Israeli relations ignores the rights of the Palestinians, and was condemned by the conscience of the peoples of the region, especially the Palestinians.

He added: “The so-called agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel is null and void for Turkey.”

Altoun noted that the agreement once again exposed those behind the wave of instability that has long dominated the region, as well as those who exploit the just cause of the Palestinian people for their personal interests.

Altun said that Turkey supports a just solution in Palestine, and will always stand up to attempts by third countries to make the Palestinian cause dependent, threaten the existence of the Palestinians, and ignore their rights. [137]

His affirmation of "the Sultanate's support for the decision of the United Arab Emirates regarding relations with Israel within the framework of the joint historic declaration between it and the United States and Israel."

He expressed his hope that “this decision will contribute to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”[138]

Palestinian Authority

Palestinian Presidency spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh confirmed - in a statement he read on state television after an emergency meeting at the presidential headquarters in Ramallah - that the agreement "torpedoed the Arab peace initiative," which is " A betrayal of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, the decisions of the Arab and Islamic summits, and international legitimacy, and an aggression against the Palestinian people.”

The Palestinian National Council condemned the UAE's normalization agreement with Israel, and considered it a "blatant aggression" against the Palestinian people and their cause.

The council stressed - in a statement - that "the Palestinian cause is not subject to the principle of barter, deals and false allegations, nor the disgraceful uses that were reflected in the UAE's agreement with the occupying state under American auspices."

He added: “The Israeli-Emirati-American tripartite declaration is considered a blatant aggression against the rights of our people and their sacred cause, and against the rights of the Arab and Islamic nations in Palestine, and the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.”[139]

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), through its spokesman, Hazem Qassem, said, “This agreement is rejected and condemned, and does not serve the Palestinian cause, and is considered a continuation of the denial of the rights of the Palestinian people.”

He added to Agence France-Presse that the agreement “is a free reward for the Israeli occupation for its crimes, and encourages the occupation to commit more massacres.”[140]

· “Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society”, the largest opposition party in Bahrain (dissolved)

The association published pictures showing a nightly exit of protesters against the signing of the normalization agreement, and the pictures that were published through the association’s account documented on “Twitter” show that dozens of people in one of the alleys raised banners condemning normalization with Israel.

The Anti-Normalization Society wrote a tweet above the photos: “The people of Bahrain are crying out despite repression, lethality and prisons: Normalization is treason - September 15th,” referring to the night of the signing.[141]

In the city of Jerusalem

In the context, dozens of Palestinians trampled on the image of Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, as part of protests at Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem, against the UAE's agreement to officially normalize its relations with Israel.

And the Anatolia correspondent reported that dozens of Palestinians gathered after the end of Friday prayers in Al-Aqsa squares, raised the Palestinian flag, and chanted slogans rejecting the normalization agreement.

The protesters raised a picture of the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi with the word (traitor) written on it, and later threw it on the ground and trampled it with their feet, while chanting angry takbeers.

The Israeli police stormed the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque and confiscated Palestinian banners and flags, and arrested a demonstrator, according to Anadolu Agency. [142]

Seven Kuwaiti political forces and blocs announced, on Friday, their absolute rejection of normalization with "the Zionist entity or recognition of it."

This came in a joint statement, signed by the Arab Movement, the Civil Conservative Party, the Justice and Peace Gathering, the National Islamic Alliance (Shia), the National Pact Gathering, the Islamic Constitutional Movement (the Muslim Brotherhood) and the National Loyalty Gathering.

The statement said: “We declare unequivocally that normalization is treachery and not a point of view, and recognition of the Zionist entity (Israel) is a crime against Palestine, its people, and the Arab and Islamic nation.”

He added that “the announcement by one of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (the UAE) of its recognition of the usurping Zionist entity and its intention to establish full relations came without justification or benefit for this country or the Arab and Islamic nation.”

These entities considered that “the normalization projects with the Zionist entity are a continuation of the practical implementation of the provisions of the deal of shame, called the deal of the century.”

The forces were surprised by the “Arab silence applied to the continuation of the Zionist entity with its criminal measures against our Palestinian Arab people, whether through direct or indirect aggression, arresting Arab citizens in occupied Palestine, humiliating them, stealing their lands, desecrating Al-Aqsa Mosque, establishing settlements and displacing their residents.”[143]

He described the agreement on Al-Masirah TV as “a step that provokes the Arab and Islamic nation, and proves that these countries, including the UAE, which wage aggression against Yemen, serve the Israeli entity.”[144]

The largest Islamist party in Yemen described the UAE's normalization agreement with Israel as a "historic crime" against the Arab peoples.

This came in a statement by the deputy head of the party's media department, Adnan al-Audaini, which was reported by the party's "Sahwa Net" website to Yemen.

Al-Audaini said, "The normalizers with the Israeli occupation give up everything in return for engaging in a Middle East based on the ruins of the Arabs as a nation and a single entity capable of controlling its own destiny or influencing its issues."

He added: “This is what makes normalization a historical crime against the peoples who will reap nothing but humiliation from the integration of their regimes into the new eastern system (..) What the Arabs did is that they abandoned the cause that was founded on its banks and for which their Arab conscience was established.”[145]

The third topic

Scenarios after Gulf normalization

The Israeli-Arab normalization has become a fait accompli, and the printing countries are trying in many ways to include it in their many aspects, especially the social aspect, directing the masses of the media that it is a natural matter, and trying to attract other non-printing countries to normalization and work to improve relations, and normalization can be seen However, it is of two types, one that aims only at improving trade and economic relations, and in which ambassadors are withdrawn if Israel persists in violence, and another type, which is what Israel aims to reach with all Arab countries, which is total normalization on the cultural, social, economic, social and military levels.

The first axis: scenarios of normalization at the level of Arab-Israeli relations

There are three scenarios in which these manifestations of normalization could result. The first is the commitment to normalization in its American form, the full details of which are not known yet, but it is noticeable through the statements that it differs in some of its clauses from the Arabic form, and if it differs from the Arabic version, a current will emerge. The last rejects this formula and adheres to the Arabic formula, and there is a third position that will continue to reject normalization in all its forms. [146]

The first scenario: partial normalization

This scenario assumes that some Arab leaders will undertake normalization, in compliance with Israeli and American pressures, in light of the escalation of local tensions and Iranian threats, and the Gulf states’ fear of Iran after they considered it their first enemy and found support from Israel and the United States. The direction of amending the Arab peace initiative and its approach to the American initiative that does not achieve the Palestinian demands. Although this scenario is likely, some Arab leaders taking such a step means handing over leadership of the region to Israel. Normalization with Israel will go beyond the Palestinian cause to Israeli political control of the region at the expense of the Arab countries.

The second scenario: the failure of normalization completely

This scenario is what is hoped for by the peoples of the Arab countries and Islamic leaders, and this scenario comes from the fact that Israel is the first enemy of the Arab countries and Muslims as a usurper and occupier of the Palestinian lands and what it has done in terms of killing, theft, looting, genocide, bombings, and the violation of the sanctity of women, children and lands, Unfortunately, the occurrence of this scenario is weak due to the preoccupation of the leaders of the Arab countries with internal issues and the failure to consider the Palestinian cause as one of the priorities of the states, and the rulers’ consideration of the economic and military interests in a greater way, although this scenario will receive great approval from the Arab peoples and Islamic countries.[147]

The third scenario: total normalization

There was a desire among some Arab leaders for normalization, and this desire was limited only by the rejection of the Arab peoples and the Israeli rejection of the proposed Arab provisions. Now, the Arab leaders have rushed towards normalization, taking advantage of the peoples' preoccupation with their internal issues, and citing the length of the Palestinian conflict and divisions. It is expected that these leaders will push for the endorsement of normalization through the Arab League, or provide an umbrella that obliges countries to normalize.

On the other hand, after the American president declared Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and Israel obstructed all Arab initiatives, it seems that the American administration wants to impose the American formula for peace to please Israel, a step that was supposed to be announced from an early age, but as a result of the preoccupation of countries An Arab country on which America relies a lot in dealing positively with the initiative on internal issues. Its announcement was delayed, and despite this, the option of normalization by all Arab countries seems impossible. [148]

This scenario weakens the nature of the conflict and its historical process, and the presence of other actors represented by the resistance movements, which have become more capable and experienced in managing the conflict, in addition to the absence of the strategic interests of the countries normalized with the Israeli occupation, and the growing dangers of Israeli hegemony over the countries of the Arab region.

The second axis: scenarios of normalization at the level of Palestinian-Israeli relations

It is very likely that this normalization will weaken the position of the Palestinian people in its relationship with Israel, and legitimize the Israeli position and Israel's intransigence in the negotiations, and therefore there are many scenarios about the future of relations.

And on November 17, 2020, the Palestinian authorities announced the return of relations with Israel, and Israel, in turn, affirmed its commitment to the signed agreements, and in light of that, relations were resumed. [149] On the one hand, the full restoration of relations inaugurates a new phase that must be stopped. Because it lowers the ceiling of the Palestinian position, in addition to giving legitimacy to what Israel has done and will do, in addition to establishing that the reference for the Palestinian-Israeli relations is with the Coordinator of the Civil Administration, whose reference is the Israeli Ministry of War, which is supposed to have been resolved in accordance with the Oslo Accords.

The first scenario: coexistence with the reality of normalization and acceptance of it

This scenario, which is the most likely, is based on the PA coexisting with the existing reality, and dealing with it as it is available, and this opens the way for implementing the Israeli solution and not being intransigent with it, for fear that not accepting it will lead to great efforts to rebuild and reconfigure the PA, This means here that the political upper ceiling is the current situation and not as it was at the time of the Oslo agreement.

The Palestinian leadership imagines that by making these concessions it is buying time and paving the way for relations with the new President of the United States, Joe Biden. ready to pay the price[150].

It is expected, within this scenario, that there will be no major initiatives from the American administration due to its preoccupation with its internal and external conditions without the Palestinian administration presenting goodwill gestures, and the negotiations will most likely not reach a final solution, but it will search for the best alternatives and preserve the vacancy. In his best condition and image, and to keep him under control in exchange for gifts and economic advantages.

The second scenario: reaching a possible agreement between the Palestinian leadership and Israel

This scenario is based on the Palestinian leadership, in the event of American pressure and encouragement, and strong pressure from the Arab normalizers, to make new fundamental concessions that make the agreement possible, even if it is considered a new transitional agreement, no matter how unfair and unfair it may be, for fear of losing what It remains, and until history records that it achieved the embodiment of the establishment of a Palestinian state, albeit not a state, but an autonomy called a state. The Palestinian state that will be established in this scenario does not fall within the Palestinian political vision of the state, as it will be demilitarized, without sovereignty, without most of Jerusalem, and at the expense of the right of return and the Palestinian historical narrative of the conflict, in addition to that it will legitimize settler colonialism and the apartheid system that was established by law nationalism.

This scenario is considered unlikely because the Palestinian people will not accept it and will strongly reject it, and it will not gain legitimacy, and the Palestinian leadership will not accept a surrender solution like that solution, and here the possibilities of launching an aggression against Gaza will increase, to put out the fires of resistance.[151]

The third scenario: the Palestinian rebellion against the conspiracy

This scenario is based on a broad Palestinian rebellion against a conspiracy to gradually liquidate the Palestinian cause due to the failure of negotiations with the United States and Israel and the Palestinian leadership’s non-acceptance of them, while continuing to make concessions to Israeli intransigence. One of the requirements for the occurrence of such a rebellion is the crystallization of a national front A comprehensive Palestinian, and this has become possible now, after the restoration of relations with Israel and the illusions about Biden, and a more difficult settlement that includes everyone, and emerges from it a unified national leadership that seeks to escalate resistance and boycott, leading to the outbreak of a massive popular uprising, or the establishment of a broad national front that includes new groups and forces and all forces, institutions and individuals. Including within the Fatah movement, which considers it necessary to adopt new alternative strategies that focus on the struggle to change the balance of power, on ending the occupation, stopping and removing settler colonialism, embodying freedom and independence, and cutting ties with previously approved strategies, especially the Oslo strategy, and the intense pursuit of reviving a negotiated settlement. failed a long time ago [152]

The third axis: normalization scenarios after Joe Biden came to power

It may be difficult to ascertain the future paths of Arab normalization with the Israeli occupation entity after Biden came to power. In view of the changes that may occur in the Arab region and its regional neighborhood or even at the international level, the following are expected scenarios:

The first scenario: expanding the circle of normalization

This scenario expects some Arab regimes to join the list of countries normalized with the Israeli occupation, during the era of President Joe Biden as bilateral efforts between the Israeli occupation and those countries. Directly with the Israeli occupation entity, the Sultanate of Oman and Morocco, and even Qatar and Saudi Arabia, albeit with limited measures, aimed at breaking the barriers that previously prevented normalization, in order to open the door to normalization in front of other Asian countries. [153]

This scenario reinforces the entry of the countries of the region into many problems that threaten their national security, and in the absence of a horizon for a just settlement of the Palestinian issue, which they believe has exhausted its options during the past decades, in addition to the decline in fear of people’s reactions, and the belief of some Arab leaders in the necessity of approval of the Zionist lobby. for his rise to power.

This scenario weakens the absence of real interest that could accrue to normalizing countries, and the decline in incentives for normalization under President Joe Biden.

The second scenario: stagnation of normalization

This scenario assumes that the wave of normalization will stop at the level of establishing full official relations between new Arab countries with the Israeli occupation after the end of the presidency of Donald Trump. As US President Joe Biden's administration seems concerned with dealing with many domestic challenges and foreign policy priorities.

This scenario expects that President Joe Biden's administration will focus on reviving negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, and the need for the two parties to make joint concessions.

This scenario is reinforced by the emergence of indications of this, represented by the return of security coordination between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli occupation, which diverted the funds of the Palestinian Authority, in addition to the weak gains of normalization or its return with negative results, and the weakness of the stability of the ruling regime in it, and the changes it is known for, whether In the volatility of the state's foreign policy positions or even the change of ruling figures.

The third scenario: the contraction of normalization

This scenario, which is considered the least likely to be realized, expects that a group of events and factors will contribute to the retreat of some countries that initiated normalization from continuing with it, due to the occurrence of expected excesses from the Israeli occupation, followed by popular protests. As a war waged against the Palestinians and exaggerated oppression, or the occurrence of military coups or regional alliances, and this scenario is difficult to happen.[154]

The conclusion:

The study dealt with an introduction that started with the idea of ​​the historical conflict between the Arabs and Israel since its establishment on the land of Palestine, and the extent of Israel's desire to overcome this conflict. In order to dispel her isolation and integrate into the surroundings, which consider her an intrusive body, as this has become a dream that has been difficult to translate into reality over the past decades.

The introduction discusses the lack of conviction among the leaders of successive governments in Israel about the form of previous relations between Israel and the Arabs, most of which were secretive in nature, and they sought open relations. It worked to stimulate normalization agreements and change the region's vision of Israel from a threat to Arab national security to a strategic ally.

Then it was completed with a main question entitled “What is Israel’s vision towards Gulf normalization after 2020?” The study chapters were as follows; The first chapter dealt with the reasons and incentives for Jewish immigration and its history to Palestine until the establishment of their alleged state, leading to the beginnings of normalization between Israel and the Arabs (Egypt _ Jordan).

The second chapter deals with the motives of the UAE and Bahrain for normalization with Israel and its importance for the normalizing countries separately, followed by a statement of the regional position on the new policies in the Middle East and reactions parallel to the agreements.

And then came the third and final chapter to interpret and analyze the results and repercussions of the normalization agreements on Arab national security, especially the state of fragility the region is going through. It also deals with the impact of the normalization agreements on the Palestinian cause and the resistance movement. Finally, the third chapter deals with the possible scenarios after the Gulf-Israeli normalization agreements. .

The study concluded with a set of results that we will list below, which center on; Israel seeks to consolidate relations with its Arab neighbors and marginalize the Palestinian cause, and the most dangerous thing that the current wave of normalization has done is; Distracting Arabs from being the main threat and enemy to Arab national security and their eternal cause.

The results of the study

Through what was presented in the study, the researchers reached a number of results:

There were two previous waves of Arab normalization with Israel, the first was during the era of President Sadat in 1977 AD, and the second was the signing of the Oslo and Wadi Araba agreements.

Study recommendations:

Through our study, a set of recommendations can be presented that are proposed to be taken into consideration regarding the future of relations between the Arab countries and the Zionist entity, in light of the new normalization policies, as follows:

1. A new Arab strategy should be outlined to manage Israeli-Arab relations in light of the third wave of Israeli-Arab normalization.
2. Frank Arab talks should be held with the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, ensuring that they will have opportunities to benefit from the estrangement. The Arab-Israeli in favor of the Palestinian cause.
3. The need to call for support for the steadfastness of the Arab countries in the face of American pressure to normalize relations with Israel away from the Palestinian cause, and to unify its position in support of the Palestinian people in regional and international forums, and the strengthening of national unity in every Arab country contributes to strengthening the states Arab governments and peoples to confront challenges and pressures.
4. The need to work to refute the narratives and sayings that some seek to consolidate that normalizing and strengthening relations with Israel is the way to solve the internal problems that Arab countries suffer from, or to strengthen their relations With the active international forces, and stressing the need to understand the reality of the Zionist project and what it aims for in terms of normalization with the Arab countries.
5. All forms of internal Palestinian disagreement must be ended in order to reach a national project for resistance in all its forms, based on specific and clear foundations, foundations, and goals. It confirms the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people so that the transition from the Oslo situation to the state of the people resisting the occupation and deterring Israel and preventing it from continuing its annexation and Judaization policies takes place by taking clear and declared positions.
6. We must take into account that a large part Among the changes in Arab relations with Israel as a result of changes in the political culture of the new ruling elites in some Arab countries, at a time when we are witnessing adverse changes in the political culture in Israel in a way that enhances the presence of the Israeli right in all governments, and allows it to impose its agenda.
7. The Arab countries, in light of the many transformations they are witnessing at all levels, do not have to build their relations and establish strategic projects without gathering the elements of the national political and social strength. Or a social one that has multiple future risks. Most of our Arab countries need to face internal challenges and strengthen the building of political systems on solid foundations that enable them to manage their external relations and face their challenges.
8. The need for Arab countries to resort to research centers to describe the situation objectively and develop strategies A new Arab to deal with Israel, and accordingly, the internal decision-maker can make rational decisions regarding what he is about to do, in a way that achieves the greatest benefits for him. In the past, it has become a condition for their independence in the present, and a necessity for their renaissance in the future.
9. Focus should be placed on the Arab people in decision-making under democratic regimes, and the continuation of the pursuit of development in all fields.
10. Encouraging activities and events Political, media, cultural and scientific studies that focus on the process of normalization and its effects on the Arab world, and its reflection on the Palestinian cause.

Study appendix:

The administrative borders of Palestine during the Ottoman era, the second half of the 19th century (Palestinian Central Statistical Organization)

The original document of the Balfour Declaration

United Nations resolution to partition Palestine in 1947

The path of displacement of Palestinian refugees PalestineRemembered.co

Territories occupied by Israel in 1967 (Palestinian National Information Center)

The peace treaty between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Israel in 1979

The Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1994

The Gaza-Jericho-Cairo Agreement of 1994 (Palestinian National Information Center)

The borders of the Palestinian territories according to the first Oslo agreement (Palestinian Central Statistical Organization) 1994

The borders of the Palestinian territories according to the second Oslo agreement of 1995 AD (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics)

The Abraham accords and normalization agreements (CNN Politics)

Trump tweeted a map of the future Palestine after his peace plan

List of References:

First the books:

Second: Scientific theses

Third: periodicals

Fourth: Websites:

91) Words, pictures and reactions.. The facts of the signing of the UAE-Bahraini normalization agreement with Israel, moment by moment, Al-Jazeera, 9_16_2020, available at the following link: https://www.aljazeera.net/news/politics/2020/9/16/ %D9%84

References in English:

[1] Nourhan Al-Sheikh, Concepts: The National Interest: The Tyranny of Realism and the Decline of Idealism in International Relations, International Center for Future and Strategic Studies, 2009, available at the following link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t& source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abjjad.com/autho

[2] Arabi Ladmi Muhammad / Foreign Policy: A Study of Concepts, Determinants and Directions / 2016. Arab Democratic Center.

[3] Muhammad Reda Al-Aboudi / The lobby: a pressure group behind the veil of power / 2017. Andalus News Network.

[4] Ahmed Saeed Qadi/Normalization with its Multiple Definitions/2017. Rumman Cultural Magazine. https://rommanmag.com/

[5] Hamdouche Riad/Regional Studies/Territory Theory/2018. University of Constantine.

[6] Abdel-Moati Zaki/National Security: Reading Concept and Dimensions. 2018. Strategic Thinking Group.

[7] Al-Balagh website. Saad Tawfiq Hakki - The Concept of International Relations 2017. https://www.balagh.com/

[8] Arabi Ladmi Muhammad - Foreign Policy: A Study of Concepts, Directions and Determinants 2016 / Arab Democratic Center.

[9] - Yasmin Al-Sayed Ahmed, “The Impact of Regional Variables on Israeli Foreign Policy During the Period (2011-2016 AD)”, Research Study, Arab Democratic Center, Published: July 31, 2016, available at: https:// www.democraticac.de/?p=34868 , the date of the site visit: November 28, 2020 AD.

[10] Hossam Mamdouh Khairo, Israeli foreign policy towards the Gulf Cooperation Council countries after 2003, Lark Journal of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Social Sciences 2020. Available at https://lark.uowasit.edu.iq/index.php/lark/ article/view/1391

[11] - Hani Fahad Al-Kabeer, “Zionist political thought and its impact on the Arab-Israeli conflict during the peace phase (1999 AD: 2013 AD)”, Master Thesis, Middle East University, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Political Science, available at the link: https: //meu.edu.jo/libraryTheses/586a1ce9993d8_1.pdf.

[12] Michael Yaari. Israel and Saudi Arabia: On the way to normalization? MITVM. 2018.available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mitvim.org.i

[13] Ely Karmon. Muhammad bin Salman. A new protagonist in the Middle East. Herzliya conference.Available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.idc.ac.il/en/research/ips/2018 /do

[14] Hassan Awad, “The Israeli Strategy for Normalizing Relations with the Arab Countries,” Beirut, Center for Unity Studies, 1988, first edition.

[15] Abd al-Alim Muhammad and others, Settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Egypt's regional role, “Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. Available at the following link: https://www.kutubpdfbook.com/book/%D9%83%D8 %AA%D8%A7%D8%A8

[16] - Saif al-Islam Eid, “Arab-Israeli relations after the Arab revolutions.. dimensions and challenges,” Arkan Center for Studies, Research and Publishing, 2019. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337316546 .

[17] Bakr Abu Bakr/Normalization between the idea of ​​cancellation and the necessity of communication/2018/The Arab Democratic Center.

[18] Muhammad Ahmad Shuaib, “Normalization with Israel and its Impact on the Arab Region,” Faculty of Economics and Commerce Zliten, Al Asmariya Islamic University, Libya, Journal of Economic and Political Sciences, No. 7, June 2016

[19] Abd al-Wahhab al-Masiri, An Introduction to the Study of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 2002 Available at https://foulabook.com/ar/book/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A9

[20] Karrar Anwar al-Badiri, Normalization with Israel: The sand line that draws the Gulf states in the Middle East, 2018. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340176053_alttby_m_asrayyl_kht_alrmal_aldt

[21] Tarek Fikry - “The loss of memory of the Arab-Zionist conflict and the development of relations” - 2016 - Arab Democratic Center - Berlin - Germany. Available at: https://democraticac.de/

[22] [22] Dr. Ahmed Thabet - “Aspects and fields of the Arab-Israeli conflict” 2004 - Al-Jazeera. Available at the link WWW.aljazeera.net[24] Suleiman Falah Aqeel Al-Ghuwairi - “The Impact of Jordanian-Israeli Relations in Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict 1994-2016” 2017 - Master Thesis - House of Wisdom Institute - Al al-Bayt University - Jordan.

[26] Ian Black. Enemies and Arab Neighbors and Jews in Palestine and Israel 1917:2017. The Guardian. Available at https://al-sharq.com/article/20/03/2019/%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8

[27] Ahmad bin Ali al-Asiri, The Israeli Security Strategy and its Implications for Arab Security, a thesis submitted to complete the requirements for obtaining a master's degree, Naif Arab University for Security Sciences, College of Strategic Sciences, Department of Strategic Studies, 2014, 107:164.

[28] - Mukhaled Mobaideen, “Iranian-Gulf Relations (1997:2006) …Saudi Arabia is a case study,” Al-Manara Magazine, Publication date: September 27, 2008, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2008.

[29] Sami Revell, translated by Muhammad al-Buhairi, Qatar and Israel: Secret Relations File, Ward Island Library, Cairo, Egypt, 2011, 1st Edition

[30] The word diaspora in its comprehensive meaning means the exiled Jews, and it is a Greek word meaning dispersion, and is used to refer to the Jewish minorities present in the world, according to the Zionist and Jewish perception

[31] Yahya Salim Hassan Abu Odeh, “The dialectic of the relationship between religion and politics in Israel and its impact on trends in Israel and its impact on settlement trends”, Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, a study submitted to complete the requirements for a master's degree, 2011.

[32] Regana Al-Sharif, “Non-Jewish Zionism has its roots in Western history”, translated by: Ahmed Abdullah Abdulaziz, The World of Knowledge, Kuwait, 1406-1985, p. 12, p. 105

[33] Theodor Herzl, “The Jewish State,” Austria, 1896

[34]

[35] Abd al-Wahhab al-Masiri, “Encyclopedia of Jews and Judaism,” Dar Al-Shorouk, Cairo, 1999, Volume 7, p. 102, 202, 212, 271, 271

[36] Emad Ahmed Abdel Karim Salameh, “Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and its impact on the establishment of the State of Palestine”, An-Najah National University, College of Graduate Studies, Nablus, Palestine, 2015

[37] Abd al-Wahhab al-Masiri, “Encyclopedia of Jews and Judaism,” Volume 7, previous reference, p. 310

[38] Regana Al-Sharif, “Non-Jewish Zionism,” Ibid., pp. 51, 52

[39] Abd al-Wahhab al-Kayyali, “Modern History of Palestine,” Beirut, 1986

[40] Azmi Bishara, “A Jewish and Democratic State Book,” p. 7, p. 29

[41] General Assembly, sec.2, 1947.

[42] Muhammad Ismail Ali, “The Extent of the Legitimacy of the Bases of Israeli Sovereignty in Palestine: A Study in the Framework of Public Law,” Cairo, World of Books 1975, p. 37

[43] Abdulaziz Sarhan, “Introduction to the Study of the Palestinian State,” Cairo, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, 1989, pp. 43-44

[44] David Gilmour, Dispossessed, The Ordeal of the Palestinians, London, Sphere Book Ltd., 1980, pp.70, 71.

[45] Osama Abu Nahl, “The Jewishness of the State of Israel, the roots of the term and its impact on the Palestinian cause,” research accepted for publication in the Journal of Al-Quds Open University for Research, Issue 23, pp. 18-19

[46] - Muhammad Ahmad Shuaib, reference previously mentioned.

[47] - Mohsen Awad, “The Israeli Strategy for Normalizing Relations with Arab Countries”, Center for Arab Unity Studies, first edition, p. 139, Beirut, 1988 AD, available at: file:///C:/Users/makaa /AppData/Local/Temp

[48] - Mohsen Awad, reference previously mentioned.

[49] - Sahib Al-Rubaie, “Water Security and the Concept of Sovereignty and Peace in the Jordan River Basin Countries, 2000 AD, 1st Edition, Damascus: Dar Al-Hasad, Syria.

[50] - Omar Shadid, “Palestinian Water and Security”, 1999, 1st Edition, Amman: Dar Majlawi Publishing, Jordan.

[51] - Adel Muhammad Al-Aidlah, “The Struggle Over Water in the Middle East, 2005 AD, 1st Edition, Amman: Dar Al-Shorouk for Publishing and Distribution, Jordan.

[52] - Munther Khaddam, “Arab Water Security: Reality and Challenges”, 2001 AD, 1st Edition, Beirut: Center for Arab Unity Studies, Lebanon.

[53] - Suleiman Falah Aqil, “The Impact of Jordanian-Israeli Relations in Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.. 1994 AD: 2016 AD,” Master Thesis, House of Wisdom Institute, Al al-Bayt University, Jordan, 2016 AD: 2017 AD.

[54] - Najwa Mustafa, “The Rights of Palestinian Refugees Between International Legitimacy and Palestinian-Israeli Negotiations,” 2008, Beirut: Al-Zaytouna Center for Studies and Consultations, p. 59.

[55] - Najwa Mustafa, previous reference

[56] - Qasim Dweikat, “The Problem of the Western Jordanian International Political Borders” 2000 AD, Yarmouk Research Journal, p. (2), p. 83.

[57] - Khaled Abdel Razek Habashneh, “Jordanian-Israeli Relations.. Roots and Agreements”, 1999, Amman: Center for Middle East Studies, Jordan.

[58] - Salah Al-Akkad, “The Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1956 AD: 1958 AD)”, Institute for Arab Research and Studies, Cairo, 1975 AD, p. 36 and beyond.

[59] - Mahmoud Riyad, “The Search for Peace in the Middle East,” The Arab Institute for Studies and Publishing, p. 188.

[60] - Rabab Hussein Abdel-Mohsen, “Camp David, Egypt's exit to the labyrinth”, Madbouly Bookshop, Cairo, 2005 AD, p. 18, Mahmoud Azmy, “Facing the change in the balance of power and the strategic and military results”, Beirut: Center for Arab Unity Studies , 1980 AD, p. 88 and beyond.

[61] - William Quandt, editor of the book, “Camp David Ten Years Later”, Al-Ahram Foundation, Cairo, 1989 AD, p.11.

[62] – Clashion Sucher, “The Truth of Camp David”, translated by Radwan Ziyad and others, Arab House of Science, Beirut, 2006 AD, pg. 381 et seq.

19- Rabab Hussein, previous reference.

[64] - Hussein Al-Sayed Hassan, “The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1979 AD and its Impact on Egypt’s Regional Role,” Historical Studies Journal, Issues 117, 118, 2012 AD.

[65] Mohsen Awad, “Egypt and Israel: Five Years of Normalization,” Dar Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arabi, Cairo, 1984.

[66] - Muhammad Ashraf al-Bayoumi, “Scientific Normalization between Egypt and Israel,” Confrontation, No. 6, May 1986, pg. 36: 51.

[67] Ahmad Al-Jundi, “Normalization, Challenges and Possibilities of Confrontation,” Al-Masar for Human Studies, 2020. https://almasarstudies.com/

[68] Yousef Al Otaib, “Annexation will be a Serious Setback for Better Relations with the Arab World,” Ynet News, 6/12/2020, accessed on 11/29/2020, at: https://bit .ly/30HBefg

[69] Anwar Gargash, “The race against time for normalization, the Emirates can work with Israel through open lines,” Al-Sharq Newspaper 2020 https://bit.ly/2zQfP8w

[70] Reham Zaidan, “Officially... Jordan signs the gas import agreement from Israel,” Al-Ghad, 9/26/2016, accessed on 11/29/2020, at: https://bit.ly/30NGT3

[71] “Israel announces the signing of a 'historic' deal to export gas to Egypt,” BBC Arabic, 2/19/2018, seen on 11/29/2020, at: https://bbc.in/ 3dh4E

[72] Nissar Hoath, “AGT Wins Two Government Security Contracts,” Emirates 24/7, 2/3/2008, accessed on 11/29/2020, at: https://bit.ly/2UG5C5z

[73] Jonathan Ferziger & Peter Waldman, “How Do Israel's Tech Firms Do Business in Saudi Arabia? Very Quietly,” Bloomberg, 2/2/2017, accessed on 11/29/2020, at: https://bloom.bg/30KIMh6

[74] “The launch of the 'Red Flag 2019' exercise in America in Saudi Arabia,” Asharq Al-Awsat, 9/13/2020, seen on 11/29/2020, at: https://bit.ly/2CbtXt

[75] Ahmed Al-Jundi, “Normalization, Challenges and Possibilities of Confrontation,” Al-Masar for Human Studies, 2020. Previous reference, p.

[76] “Normalization with Israel: Donald Trump celebrates the “dawn of a new Middle East,” 2020./BBC NEWS, Arabic. https://www.bbc.com/

[77] Jeremy Bowen, “Normalization of Israel's Relations with the UAE and Bahrain: Five Reasons Explaining the Importance of the Historic Step” 2020, BBC NEWS/Arabic. https://www.bbc.com/

[78] Amin Habala - The normalization deal.. 12 reasons explaining the UAE's scrambling to establish full relations with Israel - 2020 - Al Jazeera + agencies + websites. www.aljazeera.net

[79] What are Bahrain's motives for concluding a peace agreement with Israel? - September 13, 2020 - BBC NEWS Arabic. https://www.bbc.com/arabic

[80]CNN in Arabic, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister clarifies his country’s position on normalization with Israel, Biden and the Gulf crisis, December 2020. Available at the following link: https://arabic.cnn.com/middle-east/article/2020/12/ 04/saudi-foreign-mlf-crisis

[81] After Bahrain refused to discuss Emirati normalization.. Has the Arab League ended?, Al Khaleej Online, 5_9_2020, available at the following link: https://alkhaleejonline.net/%D8%B3%D9%8A% %D8%

[82] A surprising position from the Sultanate of Oman on the treacherous normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel sparks widespread anger among the Omanis, Al-Waqi’ Al-Saudi, 14 August 2020, available at the following link: https://thesaudireality.com/Read/36462

[83] Qatar defines its position on normalization with Israel, Ma’an, 8_1_2021, available at the following link: https://www.maannews.net/news/2029276.html

[84] Normalization is treachery...global and regional condemnations of Emirati-Israeli normalization, Al-Bassair, January 2020, available at the following link: https://elbassair.org/10610/

[85] Kuwait is a firm position on normalization with the Zionist entity, Al-Wahda, August 22, 2020, available at the following link: https://www.alwahdahnews.net/79065/

[86] The official Arab position and Iraq’s position towards Emirati-Israeli normalization: mistakes and strategic risks, Al-Maalomah, 27_8_2020, available at the following link https://www.almaalomah.com/2020/08/27/492041/

[87] Emirati normalization and Jordan's options... Strategic troubles await Oman, Al Khaleej Online, 13_9_2020, available at the following link: https://alkhaleejonline.net/%D8%B3%D9%8A% D

[88] The first comment from Syria on normalization between the UAE and Israel, Sputnik Arabic, 8-16-2020, available at the following link: https://arabic.sputniknews.com/arab_world/20200816104623%D9%8

[89] Reuters: The Palestinian Authority softens its criticism of Emirati normalization, Al Khaleej Online, 9-9-2020, available at the following link: https://alkhaleejonline.net/%D8%B3%D9%8A8%%D9%8A%D8

[90] Egypt is worried about the Emirati-Israeli normalization. Why? The New Khalij, August 21, 2020. Available at the following link: https://thenewkhalij.news/article/202220/%D9%85%D8%B5%D

[91] The official Arab position towards the Emirati-Israeli normalization is strategic troubles, International Times Analytics Magazine, 8-30-2020, available at the following link http://alasrmag.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D99%82%D9% 81

[92] Emirati-Israeli normalization: roots, motives and effects, Vision Center for Political Development, September 8, 2020. Available at the following link: https://vision-pd.org/archives/511282

[93] Ibid

[94] Emirati-Israeli normalization: roots, motives and effects, Vision Center for Political Development, September 8, 2020, available at the following link: https://vision-pd.org/archives/511282

[95] Turkey: The normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel violates the Arab initiative and undermines the two-state solution, Art TV, 10-3-2020, available at the following link: https://arabic.rt.com/world/1159959-%D8%

[96] The Gulf-Iranian conflict after Emirati normalization, Al-Bayan Center for Studies and Planning, 26-8-2020, available at the following link: https://www.bayancenter.org/2020/08/6284

[97] A wave of widespread condemnation of the position of the League of States towards Emirati normalization, September 10, 2020, available at the following link: https://arabic.iranpress.com/world_middle_east-i141629

[98] Normalization with Israel: What are the most prominent reactions to the signing ceremony of the two agreements with the UAE and Bahrain, BBC News, September 16, 2020, available at the following link: https://www.bbc.com/arabic/54178915

[99] Ibid

[100] Normalization with Israel: What are the most prominent reactions to the signing ceremony of the two agreements with the UAE and Bahrain? BBC News, September 16, 2020. Available at the following link: https://www.bbc.com/arabic/54178915

[101] Bahrain and Israel: Is their agreement a step on the road to Saudi normalization? BBC, September 12, 2020. Available at the following link: https://www.bbc.com/arabic/trending-54133003

[102] Ibid

[103] The League of Arab States without a President after the Emirati-Bahraini normalization, Hana Aden, 10-9-2020, available at the following link: https://hunaaden.com/news60352.html

[104] Sudan signs an agreement to normalize relations with Israel and receives US aid, SWA, January 6, 2021, available at the following link: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ara/afp/%D8%A7%D9A7 %D8%

[105] Morocco signs the normalization agreement with Israel under American auspices in Rabat, Al-Mayadeen Net, December 23, 2020, available at the following link: https://www.almayadee%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8

[106] Jawad al-Hamad, “The dangers of the phenomenon of Arab normalization with Israel and its future,” Palestinian Affairs, Issue 281, Fall 2020, link link https://www.prc.ps/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ %D9%85%D8%AE%D8%A7%D

[107] Amr Moussa and others, a symposium on “Transformations in Arab-Israeli Relations and Their Repercussions on Arab Security and the Palestinian Cause,” Center for Middle East Studies, Jordan, 10-13-2020, link http://mesc. com.jo/Activities/Act_Sem/symposium/mesc-2020-10-13.html

[108] Ibid

[109] Jawad al-Hamad, “The dangers of the phenomenon of Arab normalization with Israel and its future,” Palestinian Affairs, Issue 281, Fall 2020, link link https://www.prc.ps/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ %D9%A7%D

[110] Ibid

[111] Amr Musa and others, a symposium on “Transformations in Arab-Israeli Relations and their Implications for Arab Security and the Palestinian Cause,” Center for Middle East Studies, Jordan, 10-13-2020, link http://mesc. com.jo/Activities/Act_Sem/symposium/mesc-2020-10-13.html

[112] Ibrahim Darwish, “Netanyahu gave his approval to the F-35 deal with the UAE before publicly denouncing it,” The New York Times, 4-9-2020, link link https://www.alquds.co.uk/%D9 %86%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%8A

[113] Jawad al-Hamad, “The dangers of the phenomenon of Arab normalization with Israel and its future,” Palestinian Affairs, Issue 281, Fall 2020, link link https://www.prc.ps/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ %D9%85%D8%AE%D8%A7%D

[114] Muhammad Abu Samra, “The dangers of normalization agreements with the Zionist enemy on the Palestinian cause,” Amd, link key, https://www.amad.ps/ar/post/369094

[115] Dr. Ayman Youssef - Transformations in Arab-Israeli relations and their repercussions on Arab security and the Palestinian cause - 2020 - Center for Middle East Studies - Amman - Jordan.

[116] Dr. Ibrahim Abrash - The Palestinian issue in the time of official Arab normalization - 2020 - Middle East Online. https://middle-east-online.com/

[117] Bilal al-Hassan - The repercussions of Egypt's peace with Israel on the Palestinian cause - 2009 - Al-Jazeera www.aljazeera.net.

[118] Muhammad Ahmad - The Araban Valley Agreement weakened the Palestinian position - 2019 - Al-Quds Al-Arabi. https://www.alquds.co.uk

[119] Arafat al-Hajj - Emirati-Israeli normalization... Roots, motives and effects - 2020 - Vision Center for Political Development. https://vision-pd.org/archives/511282

[120] Untitled - Does the “peace agreement” with Israel have a legal effect on the Palestinian cause - 2020 - Enab Baladi - Syria. https://www.enabbaladi.net/archives/416798

[121] Arab normalization and its repercussions on the Palestinian cause, Donia Al-Watan, 13_9_2020, available at the following link: https://pulpit.alwatanvoice.com/articles/2020/09/13/532339.html

[122] The Palestinian issue in the time of official Arab normalization, Middle East Online, 21_12-2020, available at the following link: https://middle-east-online.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%

[123] Ibid

[124]Words, pictures and reactions.. The facts of the signing of the UAE-Bahraini normalization agreement with Israel, moment by moment, Al-Jazeera, 9_16_2020, available at the following link: https://www.aljazeera.net/news/politics/2020/9/16 /%D9%84

[125] Ibid

[126] Egypt is concerned about the Emirati-Israeli normalization. Why, The New Khalij, August 21, 2020, available at the following link: https://thenewkhalij.news/article/202220/%D9%85%D8%B5%D

[127] Normalization with Israel: What are the most prominent reactions to the signing ceremony of the two agreements with the UAE and Bahrain? BBC News, September 16, 2020. Available at the following link: https://www.bbc.com/arabic/54178915

[128] Normalization with Israel: What are the most prominent reactions to the signing ceremony of the two agreements with the UAE and Bahrain? BBC News, September 16, 2020. Available at the following link: https://www.bbc.com/arabic/54178915

[129] Normalization is treachery...global and regional condemnations of Emirati-Israeli normalization, Al-Bassair, January 2020, available at the following link: https://elbassair.org/10610/

[130] Normalization with Israel: What are the most prominent reactions to the signing ceremony of the two agreements with the UAE and Bahrain? BBC News, September 16, 2020. Available at the following link: https://www.bbc.com/arabic/54178915

[131] Ibid

[132] The Gulf-Iranian conflict after Emirati normalization, Al-Bayan Center for Studies and Planning, 26-8-2020, available at the following link: https://www.bayancenter.org/2020/08/6284

[133] The Gulf-Iranian conflict after Emirati normalization, Al-Bayan Center for Studies and Planning, 26-8-2020, available at the following link: https://www.bayancenter.org/2020/08/6284

[134] The official Arab position towards the Emirati-Israeli normalization is strategic troubles, International Times Analytics Magazine, 8-30-2020, available at the following link http://alasrmag.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D99%82%D9% 81

[135] Emirati-Israeli normalization: roots, motives and effects, Vision Center for Political Development, September 8, 2020, available at the following link: https://vision-pd.org/archives/511282

[136] Ibid

[137] Turkey: The normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel violates the Arab initiative and undermines the two-state solution, Art TV, 10-3-2020, available at the following link: https://arabic.rt.com/world/1159959-%D8%

[138] A surprising position from the Sultanate of Oman on the treacherous normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel sparks widespread anger among the Omanis, Al-Waqi’ Al-Saudi, 14 August 2020, available at the following link: https://thesaudireality.com/Read/36462

[139] Reuters: The Palestinian Authority softens its criticism of Emirati normalization, Al Khaleej Online, 9-9-2020, available at the following link: https://alkhaleejonline.net/%D8%B3%D9%8A8%%D9%8A%D8

[140] Normalization is treason... global and regional condemnations of Emirati-Israeli normalization, Al-Bassair, January 2020, available at the following link: https://elbassair.org/10610/

[141] Normalization with Israel: What are the most prominent reactions to the signing ceremony of the two agreements with the UAE and Bahrain? BBC News, September 16, 2020. Available at the following link: https://www.bbc.com/arabic/54178915

[142] Ibid

[143] Kuwait is a firm position on normalization with the Zionist entity, Al-Wahda, August 22, 2020, available at the following link: https://www.alwahdahnews.net/79065/

[144] Normalization is treason... global and regional condemnations of Emirati-Israeli normalization, Al-Bassair, January 2020, available at the following link: https://elbassair.org/10610/

[145] Ibid

[146] Without a Name, Arab Normalization with the Israeli Entity, Strategic Thought Center for Studies, January 24, 2019, link key https://fikercenter.com/position-papers/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8 %AA%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9

[147] Without a Name, Arab Normalization with the Israeli Entity, Strategic Thought Center for Studies, January 24, 2019, link key https://fikercenter.com/position-papers/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8 %AA%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9

[148] Ibid

[149] Daoud al-Awda, The Palestinian Authority announces the return of relations with Israel, Al-Ain News, 11-17-2020, link key https://al-ain.com/article/1605631194

[150] Hani al-Masri, Palestinian scenarios after the restoration of Israeli relations and Biden’s victory, Al-Manar newspaper, 11-29-2020, link key, https://www.manar.com/page-44847-ar.html

[151] Daoud al-Awda, The Palestinian Authority announces the return of relations with Israel, Al-Ain News, 11-17-2020, link key https://al-ain.com/article/1605631194

[152] Hani al-Masri, Palestinian scenarios after the restoration of Israeli relations and Biden’s victory, Al-Manar newspaper, 11-29-2020, link key, https://www.manar.com/page-44847-ar.html

[153] Without a name, the future of normalization with the Israeli occupation after Joe Biden came to power, Center for Strategic Thought for Studies, 11-27-2020, link key https://fikercenter.com/position-papers/%D9%8

[154] Without a name, the future of normalization with the Israeli occupation after Joe Biden came to power, Center for Strategic Thought for Studies, 11-27-2020, link key https://fikercenter.com/position-papers/%D9%8

5/5 - (1 vote, 1)(Read more) Israel's soft power towards sub-Saharan Africa and its impact on the Israeli presence