After 11 days of bloody and tragic confrontation with Israel, Hamas has demonstrated its short-term political goals. In a speech in Qatar, its leader Ismail Haniyeh, praised the alleged “end of the process of normalization and coexistence”, in reference to the peace agreements signed in 2020 between the Israelis and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates. Sudan.
Called the Abrahamic Agreements, these treaties represent the most important advance in decades in the search for an end to the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. The diplomatic offensive also provoked political earthquakes in the Middle East, by not conditioning dialogue with Israel on efforts to seek a Palestinian state.
From 1948 onwards, leaders in Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad began to spread the story that Israel’s independence, made possible by UN resolution 181, was “the world’s greatest catastrophe. Arabic ”in the twentieth century. In political rhetoric, the central theme of propaganda machines for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.
Leaders like the Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser or the Syrian Hafez al-Assad have used the struggle against Israel to mobilize their populations and obviously avoid debates on internal issues, such as the absence of individual freedoms or inefficient economies.
However, with the advent of the 21st century, the logic began to change. The loss of relevance of oil and the need to build more modern and technological economies, coupled with the concern for expansionism of rivals such as Iran and Turkey, have led Arab countries to review their relations with Israel.
Then come the Abraão Accords, a relevant step in the idea of turning a bitter and bloody conflict into a cycle of cooperation in areas such as defense and the economy, among others. And, in addition to the four signatories from last year, it’s important to highlight the earlier peace accords Israel signed with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994).
Betting on the escalation of violence, with rockets fired at Jerusalem on May 10, Hamas sought a list of political goals that went beyond undermining the Abrahamic accords. The group, ruling dictatorially in the Gaza Strip, also wanted to show strength and weaken its Palestinian rival, Fatah, widespread in the West Bank and responsible for dialogues with Israel.
The dispute between the largest Palestinian groups culminated in 2007, when Hamas, in a civil war, expelled Fatah from the Gaza Strip. By chanting victory in Qatar’s speech, Ismail Haniyeh also seeks to weaken the image of Mahmoud Abbas, a West Bank leader, weakened by accusations of corruption and inefficiency.
The Arab signatories of the Abrahamic accords make no secret of impatience and disappointment with the Palestinian leadership, torn between the pro-Iranian radicalism of Hamas and the political weakening of the veteran wing in charge of Fatah. During the recent conflict, countries that signed the peace treaty in 2020 criticized Israel, but did not question recent dialogue initiatives.
Yousef Al Otaiba, Emirati Ambassador to Washington, described the February Abrahamic Accords as a strategy capable of keeping the two-state solution, one Jewish and one Palestinian, viable side by side. The diplomat is right.
As the interaction between Israel and the Arab world progresses, the chances of a negotiating scenario increase. And Abraham’s accords, backed by strong pillars, will survive the challenges posed by Hamas and Iran, refractory to a scenario of normalization and coexistence.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this column? The subscriber can release five free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue F below.