On the Illusion of a Regional Awakening

Author: Abdel Majid Suwailem

The claim that there has been an awakening in the region after the Israeli attack on Doha is a claim without evidence or support.
At best, there is something resembling restlessness that sends, or attempts to send, a hesitant message that still circles the issue without any real approach so far.
Those who make this claim point to words spoken at the Arab-Islamic summit that “exceeded” the average expectations, citing specific phrases and speeches that called for tangible deterrent measures, and demands that rise to the level of changing reality and transforming it into an entirely new and qualitative reality, in a move that is almost “revolutionary” against the current state of affairs.
Let us return, in this regard, to the sequence of facts and events, and let us also make some comparisons.
This is the first time the summit’s communiqué was finalized before the speeches of kings, presidents and princes were delivered.
What does that mean?
Quite simply, and this is addressed to the United States because it stood behind the closed doors of this summit: do not worry about the speeches and words; they are nothing but a necessary media and political ritual. You — and again this is directed at the United States — are the ones who know best, and the matter is what is required on such occasions.
With this orientation, the summit left the communiqué as the focal point, so that the communiqué would be the standard and measure of American satisfaction, or even displeasure, with the summit.
From this angle the summit “excelled” by concluding everything before any remarks could be made afterwards.
Had the communiqué contained some indications that “smelled” of decisions, directions and measures, the matter — that is, finalizing the communiqué before the delegations’ speeches — could have been considered ordinary, perhaps even natural. But if the communiqué contains only vague and essentially neutral hints and gestures, that means the “excellence” was deliberate, and what occurred was merely the way to placate those who were behind the summit doors.
The matter is no different when the Security Council issued its statement after it was traded off — and the statement has no legal value — by omitting any reference to the Hebrew state, as if the state that attacked Qatar came from another planet, and any reference to it must be made in the passive voice because it is unknown and lacks sufficient information!
At the Security Council the name “occupying state” was conceded, and in the Arab-Islamic summit communiqué there was an explicit concession regarding the United States’ role in the attack on Qatar; indeed, in haste there was a renewed affirmation of the strategic partnership with the United States and that it remains as it was, more entrenched than before.
Is all of this a logical indicator that there is an Arab and Islamic awakening to confront the challenges and dangers that everyone discussed, diagnosed and elaborated upon?
Those who claim we are witnessing a new Arab and Islamic awakening see the joint maneuvers among major regional actors — naval or otherwise — and they point to the signing of the mutual defense agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as bright examples of this awakening.
It is certain that some countries in the Arab and Islamic region felt, after the attack on Qatar, a sense of danger as they followed and assessed the scale of Israel’s predicament and the level of Israeli despair that might push it to commit further follies, perhaps exceeding the folly of attacking Doha. It is also certain that some of these countries and actors perceived — though they already knew — an increasing danger from the brazenness and impudence of the American administration in balancing and choosing between Israeli recklessness and Arab pleas for at least some balance in the American position, a matter that undeniably troubles those parties and states.
These states may have wanted to send some messages to the United States, but the issue requires a much deeper look.
The truth is that some Gulf states stalled the reactivation of the Arab Joint Defense Agreement, and it is said that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi left the summit displeased because this proposal was originally Egyptian.
It is likely that the “maneuvers” in their various forms were a way of appeasing Egypt, and they convey in every sense that the real threat to national and regional security does not come from Iran or Turkey, but first and foremost from the Israeli state. That is, in any case, an important message—yet Iran needs such a message badly, and Turkey perhaps even more so, since Turkey realizes that the Israeli state has left the new Syrian transitional government with a single choice: accept signing the security agreement, and if the latter refuses, Turkey will inevitably be drawn into military confrontation with Israel. Turkey therefore seeks to strengthen itself through Arab and regional backing in anticipation of how events may develop.
Egypt also remains uncertain about securing the conflict in line with its vision in Libya and Sudan, while the Ethiopian threat remains looming, especially after Egypt has secured several footholds in Somalia.
I mean that these maneuvers arise from the specific needs of some regional states more than from a broad awakening. Even the mutual defense agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is merely a public declaration of a strong, special relationship between the two countries, including a nuclear umbrella, since the latter financed and sponsored Pakistan’s entire nuclear program and protected it with all the leverage, standing and roles it possesses.
Thus, displaying and announcing the agreement is a significant positive matter but essentially a fait accompli of a long-standing, solid and well-known relationship. There is no attempt here to play down the importance of any of this; these developments, regardless of their backgrounds and motives, are positive and head in the right direction. But the larger and more important question is: what about the war of annihilation, starvation and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip? And what about the war of consumption in the West Bank?
Is this “awakening” meant to stop the massacre and the campaign of annihilation and ethnic cleansing in Gaza along the path of displacement and uprooting that the U.S. administration, the executive proxy represented by the Israeli state, and its savage army are betting on, in pursuit of the real-estate “jewel” that the fascist Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich openly talk about in the media?
Is there any connection, however implicit, between all of this awakening and all the plans of consumption whose scenes we watch unfold, round the clock, in the West Bank?
Of what awakening are we speaking if everything surrounding this awakening concerns steps that do not even rise to the level of coded messages in relation to what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza?
And is all that is happening in the name of this awakening simply to ensure that Palestine pays the price for the preservation and survival of the Arab and Islamic order, instead of that order rising and rushing to defend Palestine, which is the true line of defense for two entire nations whose populations together approach two billion people?
Do the two nations lack the cards and capabilities to stop this barbaric, savage war against the Palestinian people, or has the U.S.-Israeli alliance become prepared, at least temporarily, to trade the “stability” of the Arab and Islamic region for the completion of Israel’s plan to finish off the Palestinian cause in all its aspects?
I hope a day does not come when we wish we had remained in deep slumber rather than experiencing such an “awakening.”