In politics, the notion of absolute correctness is frequently seen as a matter of perspective, with different positions yielding varied outcomes. The ongoing, conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is not only cruel but also destructive.
The current situation in Gaza is just one facet of this conflict, albeit a particularly tragic one, often described as a “genocide.” Nevertheless, it’s crucial to recognise that this is just one chapter in a larger narrative of conflict. It is disheartening that much of the analysis of this conflict from the Arab perspective is dominated by emotional responses.
In light of these complex issues, there is a need for an objective reassessment of certain matters:
The concept of “Western double standards” frequently appears in Arab analyses, highlighting perceived disparities in Western attitudes towards human dignity, the right to self-determination, and equality among individuals regardless of sex, colour, or culture. While there is some truth to this claim, when examining the evolution of Zionism into the State of Israel, a nuanced perspective emerges, as noted by Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi in his book “Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.”
Historically, major world powers have consistently supported the Zionist cause, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel. This support has come from countries like Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and the United States, and even post-World War II Germany has played a role in various forms of assistance, be it positive (providing weapons and financial aid) or negative (refraining from condemnation).
Additionally, emerging global powers such as China have also shown support for Israel. This reality prompts us to delve deeper into the reasons behind this overwhelming support and, in doing so, question the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people to their homeland. It becomes apparent that a significant factor in this support has been the desire to resolve the “Jewish issue” in the West by “settling” Jewish populations in Palestine.
There is much discussion today about a potential shift in “world public opinion.” This is evident in General Assembly votes and public protests in some Western capitals. While these developments do hold moral significance, their practical impact on the ground, beyond their moral weight, is often limited. They do not typically lead to substantial changes in policies.
Western politicians are acutely aware that factors such as financial influence, media sway, and historical guilt concerning the Jewish question in Western history tend to make them more inclined to justify Israel’s actions rather than condemn them. Even those in the West who sympathise with the situation in Gaza may refrain from using the term “genocide” and reserve it solely for the Holocaust suffered by Jews during the Second World War.
Additionally, the label “anti-Semitism” is highly alarming for Western politicians, and accusations of being “anti-Semitic” can simply lead to a loss of position or status such as the recent dismissal of a minister in the British shadow government who publicly called for a “ceasefire.”
The American position, articulated by President Joe Biden as “I am a Zionist” and echoed by his foreign minister saying, “I came to you as a Jew,” reflects the prevailing electoral sentiment in countries like the United States, Britain, France, and Germany. If these politicians did not sense substantial support for the Jewish state “for various reasons,” their positions would likely be different.
The concept of “unity of forces” and “opening fronts” has been something of a myth. Many in the Arab public have held the belief that there is actual unity among the entities within the so-called axis of resistance, viewing it as their sole hope.
Numerous statements have been issued, with claims of a “joint operations room,” as asserted by Ali Baraka, introduced to us as a “Hamas leader.” His statements were made one day before Hassan Nasrallah’s speech, claiming that ‘angels’ fighting alongside Hamas in Gaza.
In spite of these statements that leaders once used to promote to the uninformed, they urged Hassan Nasrallah to ‘put into action what was agreed upon.’ However, it became evident that the notion of “unity of the forces” was yet another deceptive myth, designed to offer nothing more than temporary relief to the public.
The facts subsequently debunked the claim made by the Iranian Foreign Minister, who had asserted ‘a finger on the trigger.’
With reverence for the lives lost and the bloodshed in Gaza, it is evident that the Zionist-Israeli approach aims to either eliminate the Palestinian people through violence and displacement or, significantly, to sow division among them using various pretexts.
Regrettably, some Palestinians have fallen into this trap, leading to internal conflicts. The Israeli strategy has been to exert control over Gaza by providing financial support, fuel, and job opportunities while maintaining division as a key component of its agenda.
Despite various Arab initiatives to reconcile the differences between the Palestinian factions, the conflict between Hamas and their counterparts in the West Bank persisted.
The Arab public is still being manipulated by sensationalism. Promoting “Yemeni Forces” or “Iraqi Forces” while demonising other Arabs is a misleading tactic that serves no real purpose other than deceiving the public. The truth is, neither the missiles launched nor the “pointless” marches from Sana’a will have any impact on the course of the battle.
Similarly, the attacks by certain factions of Iraqi Hezbollah and others on the Jordanian border will not affect the overall outcome. Despite non-stop attempts to underestimate the Arab public mentality, many have moved beyond this disinformation and now judge matters based on their actual consequences.
The bottom line is that believing the enemy’s propaganda is foolish, and it’s even more foolish to mislead your own audience.
Mohammad Alrumaihi is a thinker, author and Professor of Political Sociology at Kuwait University