Alwaght- Despite more than 700 days of the Israeli crimes against humanity in Gaza, it appears that Arab states still think of normalizing relations with Tel Aviv at the back of their mind.
Recently, the Arab League chief Ahmad Aboul Gheit following a meeting of the bloc's foreign ministers in Cairo, while highlighting the need to form an independent Palestinian state, has made a stance in a way as if the Arab normalization agreements with Israel are subjected to revocation.
Already, six Arab countries normalized ties with Israel; Egypt in 1979, Jordan in 1994, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan in 2020. However, the genocidal war on Gaza has made the Arab rulers more cautious in their approach to the normalization project. Despite this, Arab countries have rarely taken a strong and decisive tone against normalizing relations with Tel Aviv, and their positions indicate that the Arab world still has one eye on continuing the process of normalization with Israel. This is occurring while global public opinion, even in Western countries, condemns the war and atrocities in Gaza. Yet the question remains: why are Arab states still pursuing normalization with Tel Aviv?
Forced normalization
Available data indicates that the Israeli regime, with US support, is exerting significant political and security pressure to impose its model of forced normalization across the region.
According to an article in Jurist News titled "Shifting Power in the Middle East Post-October 7: Israel's Push for Regional Hegemony," Tel Aviv's pressure to expand normalization is characterized as a tool to reshape the regional balance of power. The report argues this push aims to usher in a new "post-colonial" era, one marked by uncontested Israeli dominance. To achieve this objective, Tel Aviv is pressuring regional nations to continue down the path of normalization.
Normalization strategies
According to a research report by Mohammad Al-Manshawi, an Arab researcher for Al Jazeera, the author cites the article "The Many Faces of Normalization: Models of Arab-Israeli Normalization" to outline Israel's strategy in the normalization process into three main forms:
1. Covert, back-channel relations
2. Public understandings without formal normalization
3. Full normalization
Al-Manshawi further argues that Tel Aviv is currently pursuing its desired form of normalization in the context of the Gaza war with a sense of euphoria, unbridled brutality, the perception of a regional power vacuum, American support, and opportunism. In essence, this approach by Israeli leaders is part of a broader effort by the Tel Aviv’s hardline politicians to completely reengineer the West Asian geopolitical landscape in the wake of the Gaza war.
Why do Arab monarchies accept normalization?
Amid the ongoing criminal campaign in Gaza, as Arab leaders pursue normalization under the banner of promoting stability or preventing regional chaos, they are, in effect, moving to sideline the fundamental moral questions surrounding this process. They are engaging in normalization with an actor they see committing atrocities in real-time.
This situation persists even as numerous Western governments and institutions—traditional allies of Israel—have themselves acknowledged and condemned the Israeli war crimes in the coastal Palestinian enclave.
Simultaneously, affiliated media outlets have adopted a distinct lexicon, framing these arrangements not as normalization with an occupying regime but through the euphemistic lens of "peace agreements." The language surrounding the crimes in Gaza is similarly reframed, with attacks and atrocities often described as "security measures" or "military operations", hence, normalizing evil actions.
Terms such as "partnership," "joint cooperation," "mutual technological development," "shared security threats," and the "Abraham Accords" are central to the narrative advanced by Tel Aviv to promote normalization with Arab states. Arab leaders, in turn, frequently echo this constructed terminology to justify their diplomatic approach.
This apparent indifference by Arab rulers to the Israeli crimes in Gaza may have a psychological explanation. Research published in the journal Springer Nature, in an article titled "The Lack of Emotional Empathy in the Face of Violence," suggests that repeated exposure to traumatic and violent events without a corresponding actionable response can lead to a state of emotional desensitization or numbness. According to the study, individuals continually exposed to horrific events can become increasingly indifferent to the violence, a phenomenon that could be applied to the desensitizing effect of prolonged conflict on political discourse.
In an attempt to morally justify normalization amid the ongoing atrocities in Gaza, some Arab leaders claim their engagement with Israel is not an endorsement of its crimes but is, paradoxically, for the benefit of the Palestinians themselves. They argue that normalization is a tool to curb the brutal policies of the occupiers, preventing further annexation and displacement. In essence, Arab states pursuing this path frame it as a pragmatic choice: a necessary evil that guarantees a measure of security and stability, which they present as a preferable alternative to perpetual war and devastation.
They contend that acquiescing to normalization is an unavoidable necessity to mitigate greater risks and minimize harm.
However, this rationale is profoundly challenged by both historical precedent and current events, which call into question the promise of stability post-normalization. The complete erosion of the Oslo Accords by Israel—evidenced by extensive settlement expansion that has increased the settler population in the West Bank from under 100,000 at the time of the agreement to over 600,000 today—demonstrates that occupation has persisted relentlessly, even alongside diplomatic normalization.
Furthermore, Israel's continued airstrikes inside Syria, including after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad government and the rise of a Western-aligned administration led by figures like Ahmad al-Sharaa, better known for his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, illustrate that for the Israeli government, no clear boundary limits its military campaigns. Even if a figure amenable to normalization were to lead Syria, evidence suggests Israeli operations would not cease; indeed, Israel has gone beyond bombing to occupy parts of Syrian territory outright.
These developments collectively prove one thing to the Arab rulers: They cannot rely on normalization to halt the expansionist policies of the Israeli regime.
Gap between Arab public and rulers
Just contrary to the propaganda of the Arab media funded by the rulers about the need for normalization, data shows public opposition to the thaw agenda.
According to an Al Jazeera report, a poll by an Arab institute shows that 89 percent of the Arab public opinion are against their countries recognizing the Israeli regime. This poll also reveals a sharp increase in the percentage of Saudis opposing normalization—jumping from 38 percent in 2022 to 68 percent following the start of the war in Gaza. In Morocco, public support for normalized relations with Tel Aviv has plummeted from 31 percent in 2022 to a mere 13 percent since the aggression on Gaza began.
This dramatic shift underscores the profound fragility of normalization projects across Arab nations. It demonstrates that overwhelming Arab public opposition presents a significant, and potentially insurmountable, barrier to the success and long-term sustainability of normalization.
In other words, should deep political changes occur in certain Arab countries, the normalization process could easily be reversed. Despite official government agreements, the Arab public remains deeply committed to the Palestinian cause. The people of the region continue to view Israel as an exogenous colonial-settler entity with ambitions extending beyond Palestine's borders.
Consequently, Arab governments aligned with Israel, especially amid a shifting global order, are increasingly vulnerable to erupting domestic backlash and profound political upheaval that could jeopardize these diplomatic arrangements.
Fragile normalization in a combustible environment
In general, the current Arab-Israeli normalization is based on a key fundamental pillar. Unwavering US support, especially after Trump's comeback to the power.
This comes at a time when heightening strategic competition between Washington and Beijing may force Washington to reassess its regional commitments and reallocate resources away from West Asia to other regions, such as East Asia. In such a scenario, Arab states that entered normalization agreements lured by promises of American security guarantees could find themselves feeling abandoned, with their perceived strategic backer increasingly distracted.
Simultaneously, the Israeli regime is facing deepening international isolation, and its standing has deteriorated significantly even among its traditional European partners, such as France and Spain, and other Western nations.
This erosion of Israel's international position will gradually force the countries that normalized relations with Tel Aviv to confront a fundamental question: What tangible benefits has this normalization actually yielded for them?
It is also crucial to consider that, based on historical experience, Israel's failure to adhere to its treaties represents a consistent and enduring pattern of behavior by its leaders. The history of recent decades demonstrates that Israel has routinely exploited agreements as a platform to seek further concessions, often using various pretexts to justify its expansionist ambitions.
Consequently, it is far from improbable that the normalization agreements with certain Arab states will be instrumentalized by Israeli leaders as a pretext for heightened security interventions within Arab affairs. In such a scenario, Arab leaders would find themselves dealing with a pact-breaking regime that feels bound neither by its commitments nor by any limits on its interference and occupation.
This would create a precarious situation where Arab leaders, due to normalization, would be grappling with a severe loss of domestic support while simultaneously lacking a reliable external ally for the tough days ahead.
