“It’s peace in the Middle East without bloodshed,” said United States (US) President Donald Trump of the Washington-brokered Abraham Accords, which have normalised ties between Israel and several Arab states. However, upon closer inspection, these normalisation deals appear to be more centred around the US’ involvement, with countries using this as an opportunity to gain diplomatic and economic concessions from and sign crucial arms deals with Washington. Rather than acting as a guarantor of peace, these “deals of the century” appear to be entirely transactional in nature and do not have the best interests of Palestinian people at heart. Moreover, even the populations of the states signing these treaties aren’t on board with their government’s decisions to establish formal diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, viewing it as a betrayal of their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters. Against this backdrop, it becomes crucial to ask whether the normalisation deals can achieve their purported objective of peace in the Middle East without popular support?
President Trump, for his part, insists that the deals do not undermine or overlook the struggle of the Palestinians, saying, “The Palestinians, by the way, if you ask about the Palestinians, they’re wanting to do something. They have never seen anything like this. They’re wanting to do something. I’m sure that will get done too.” However, the lack of initiative that has followed such statements has done little to reassure the residents of Arab states that the normalisation accords hold anything positive in store for the Palestinians.
This has stirred intense social media agitation across the region, with over 200,000 social media users signing the “Palestine Charter”, a document that rejects the Arab states’ normalisation of relations with Israel. The hashtag #Palestine_Charter has gained viral popularity, and the document has been endorsed by more than 20 pro-Palestinian organisations, including the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and the Gulf Coalition Against Normalisation.
These digital protests have inspired in-person demonstrations as well, with many taking to the streets of UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan to voice their displeasure with their government’s rapprochement of Israel. In the UAE, for example, dissidents have formed a movement called the UAE Resistance Union Against Normalisation (Al-Rabetat Al-Emaratiyat Le Moqawemat Al-Tatbi’e). Similarly, in Bahrain, rejectionists expressed their disdain by carrying banners with the slogans “Normalisation is treason”, “We reject submission, humiliation and surrender to the instructions of the US and Britain”, “Israel is a cancer that must be eradicated, and we will”, and “We will never surrender”. These sentiments have been echoed by several Moroccan citizens as well; one 22-year-old student from the Advanced School of Commerce in Tangier told Statecraft: “The normalisation deal is a betrayal for the whole Arab World. No matter what the government decides, the fight against the Zionist entity will continue. For us Arabs, it will always remain the Palestinian land, with Jerusalem as its capital.”
These misgivings have also fostered a sense of betrayal among opposition parties. In Sudan, for example, alongside popular protests in the streets of Khartoum and criticism by former leaders like ex-PM Sadiq al-Mahdi, opposition political parties such as the Popular Congress Party have issued statements condemning the agreement, saying that Sudanese people are not obligated to accept the normalisation deal, and that “the ruling transitional government hijacked the Sudanese position to satisfy regional and international intelligence agencies”.
The governments of the signatory parties have responded to these criticisms by saying that the deals do not signify the abandonment of support for Palestinians. Moroccan King Mohammed VI, for one, has reassured demonstrators by arguing that the deal “does not affect in any way Morocco’s permanent and sustained commitment to defend the just Palestinian cause and active engagement for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
Likewise, UAE has claimed that one of the biggest motivations behind the agreement is its commitment to the Palestinian cause, arguing that the new diplomatic relationship can pressurise Israel to freeze its annexation plans in East Jerusalem and West Bank. Emirati Minister of State Anwar Gargash stated that the deal would “preserve the chances of a two-state solution.” Bahrain has made similar arguments as it seeks to strengthen the image of the Emirati-Saudi axis globally.
Yet, in the same breath, Moroccan authorities have banned all anti-normalisation demonstrations, with local rights groups denouncing these measures as a “dangerous step” and saying that they undermine principles of free speech. While other Arab Gulf states have not banned protests, they have dismissed the concerns of their citizens by meekly attempting to reassure demonstrators that the deals have the best interests of the economy and the Middle East at heart.
All that being said, not all the reactions to the normalisation deals have been dismissive. For example, a 27-year-old Jordanian working in Canada, who spoke to Statecraft on the condition of anonymity, said, “The bilateral agreements are necessary from a political point of view whereas ethnically it’s an open debate between those who think Palestinians are victims due to their own failures.”
The deal also holds promise for the minority Jewish communities in some of these countries. For instance, a 35-year-old Moroccan Jew refugee living in Athens said that the deal between Morocco and Israel bestowed “dignity” on his religious identity, and offered hope that he may one day be able to return to Morocco and live his everyday life “free from hate and discrimination”.
In spite of these small pockets of hope, while governments have for now dismissed, curbed, or banned anti-normalisation demonstrations, the anger still continues to grow. While much of this discontent has been reserved for social media, the power and influence of technology cannot be underestimated, particularly in the Middle East. If history is any witness, these Arab states should take a lesson from the 2011 Arab Spring, when massive uprisings used social media platforms to amplify their voices, strategise, and bring swathes of people together, and in doing so toppled several regimes across the Middle East. The signatory parties are now faced with the dual challenge of proving their loyalty to the Palestinian cause while simultaneously fostering a sense of understanding of the merits and significance of the deals they signed with Israel. Ultimately, signing the normalisation deals is no guarantee of peace, particularly when the people are not on board with the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, as I previously argued, public appeasement has taken a back seat to gaining diplomatic and economic concessions and signing arms deals. Thus, perhaps popular discontent is a risk that Arab governments are willing to take. Only time will tell whether this risk will pay off.
Can the Normalisation Deals Restore Peace in the Middle East Without Popular Support?
Since September four Arab-Gulf States have normalised relations with Israel, inciting popular discontent across the region.
January 2, 2021
SOURCE: Middle East Monitor