Arab writers from the Middle East opine on shifts in attitude in Lebanon towards Israel, the failure of a Palestine leadership and the sense in the Middle East of the US election feeling like a local election.
Has the trend of normalization reached Lebanon?
By Luay Rahibani
Enab Baladi, Syria, October 4
In recent weeks, the Lebanese government began changing its approach toward Israel in a subtle yet significant way. Instead of the usual rhetoric of the “Zionist entity” or the “Zionist enemy,” the Lebanese speaker of the Parliament, Nabih Berri, referred to his country’s neighbor in the south simply as “Israel” when he announced the government’s plan to launch direct negotiations with Israel that would demarcate the land and maritime borders between the two countries. In his press conference, Berri indicated that the negotiations would take place under the auspices of the United Nations, indicating that the Lebanese army would lead the negotiations, and that the US of America would work to create a positive atmosphere for the success of the talks.
On the Israeli side, Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz affirmed that the talks with Lebanon would be mediated by the US, “to end the long dispute over the maritime borders between the two countries.”
This announcement can only be interpreted in a single manner: a clear concession by Beirut on its stance toward Tel Aviv. Lebanese writer and journalist Munir Rabee claims that what is happening is the result of Israeli and American pressure on Lebanon, amid the deteriorating economic crisis it is experiencing, to normalize its ties with Israel. He stressed that there is great pressure on the political forces in Lebanon to curb Iran’s influence over the country while opening up to the US and Israel.
Similarly, Nawar Shaaban, the notable military expert, argues that the French efforts led by President Macron to push for these talks will serve as a major blow to Hezbollah and will severely tarnish the movement’s reputation among the Lebanese public. Perhaps the most important impact of these talks is the promotion of the message that calm and stability in the region can be reached through negotiations rather than fighting. The demarcation of borders will inevitably lead to other agreements and security arrangements between the two countries, which means that Lebanon will de facto recognize Israel, its sovereignty, and its borders.
This view aligns with predictions of other experts that Syria, too, will consider normalizing its relations with Israel in an effort to gain international support and legitimacy.
– Luay Rahibani
A failed Palwstinian leadership
By Abdulaziz al-Jarallah
Al-Jazirah, Saudi Arabia, October 9
Prince Bandar bin Sultan summarized the Palestinian case succinctly and clearly last week when he explained that while the Palestinian issue is important, its advocates are its biggest detractors. That’s because the Palestinian leadership always bets on the losing side.
This statement is an accurate diagnosis of the Palestinian situation. The Palestinians, as Bandar recounted, never miss an opportunity to make a mistake, including most recently, when they launched vehement attacks against one of their biggest supporters, the United Arab Emirates. Palestinian seminars, conferences, Friday sermons at mosques and media coverage all lashed out at the UAE and described its people in vulgar terms. This behavior is shameful. As usual, it was full of victimhood and defeat. Unfortunately, not a single Palestinian appearing on television managed to justify the harsh rhetoric directed against the people of the Gulf.
The Palestinian leadership has blackmailed the Arab world, and Gulf states in particular, for several decades. It has been ungrateful and unthankful for all of the support, both material and nonmaterial, it has received throughout the years.
Instead of recognizing their own failure, the Palestinians pointed fingers at the Gulf. Their behavior is immoral and embarrassing. If anything, it serves as proof that the decision to normalize ties with Israel and take a step back from the Palestinian issue was a right choice.
– Abdulaziz al-Jarallah
When the US elections become local elections
ByAli Hamade
Al-Nahar, Lebanon, October 9
The United States has entered the last stretch of an electoral journey, beginning its mail-in voting process ahead of the official election date of November 3, when incumbent President Donald Trump faces his biggest challenge to date.
The coronavirus epidemic ravaging the US since the beginning of this year has caused great problems for Trump. The financial-economic crisis caused by the spread of the virus struck Trump’s momentum and allowed his Democratic rival, Joe Biden, to make remarkable progress, especially since Trump’s platform was based on remarkable outcomes during the first three years of his term.
Still, his declining popularity doesn’t mean the elections will be devoid of surprises. All possibilities are on the table, and if history has taught us anything, it is that opinion polls don’t necessarily reflect the truth.
Perhaps what’s more interesting about these elections is that they are followed not only in the US but also in the Middle East. To the average person in the region, it seems as though people on our side of the world are monitoring the election outcome even more closely than the American people are themselves. Indeed, people throughout the Middle East, the Arab world, Iran, Turkey and Israel are treating the election as a local election.
The reason is pretty obvious. Despite China’s growing military power and Russia’s increased geostrategic involvement in world affairs under Vladimir Putin, the US remains the world’s strongest economic, military and political power. Even in the Middle East, despite setbacks caused by Russia’s involvement in the Syrian civil war, the US remains the most influential power.
Washington has proven time and again that when it makes a strategic choice in the region, it has the ability to turn the tables, regardless of where its opponents stand.
President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq following the 9/11 attacks, for example, changed the face of the region for several decades. Similarly, the appeasing stance enacted by President Barack Obama toward Iran, culminating in the signing of the nuclear deal, opened the door to Tehran’s great expansion toward the Mediterranean coast and the Gulf.
Therefore, people in the Middle East are closely tracking the presidential race and waiting to see its outcome. After all, the identity of the next American president may very well determine their own fate.
Perhaps the only country in the region able to separate its own fate from the fate of the election is Israel, which exerts tremendous power over White House officials through its pro-Israel lobby in Washington. Israel has managed to overcome the policy shifts enacted by successive American administrations.
As for the rest of the countries in the region, including Turkey and Iran, they have to closely monitor the polls and assess their next moves based on their assumption of who will win.
– Ali Hamade
*Translations by Asaf Zilberfarb
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs
