March 31, 2008

[E]very Arab summit since the 1946 Anshas one and then the 1964 Cairo one has been tied to the Paletinian-Israeli issue, as if the Arabs and their summits—supposedly the culmination of their political lives—are unequivocally reduced to this issue. Yet, the question is slightly more complicated and twisted. This link between the summits and the Israeli issue happens to be the primary element responsible for voiding all summits of any meaning and turning them into purposeless ceremonial rituals. This is attributed to the fact that as a result of this link, the supposed joint Arab action has been based on the very issue on which joint action has no influence whatsoever. …

On the other hand, shifting the focus of the summits to live and effective issues where intervention and influence are possible represents an opportunity to revive these summits, resurrect them from their state of death, and pull them out of the loud ideological screaming where accountability is impossible, and turn them into real political tools for real states and societies. Based on our numerous experiences, our absolute unity over Palestine and against Israel literally means doing nothing. In contrast, disagreement over Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, or Morocco means setting foot into the realm of politics—by definition is a realm of disunity—in pursuit of influence and efficacy.

Needless to mention, the Syrian regime’s enthusiasm over linking the Palestinian-Syrian issue to the summits goes without saying. This has nothing to do with the ideologically stated "nationalism" of the regime or to any exceptional love for the Palestinian people or unique sympathy for its suffering. Rather, it is driven in this direction by its hostility toward politics at home where it has been exercising military domination since 1963, and by its animosity to the regional equations and balances which it attempted to escape via an alliance with Iran that bypasses the Arab world. Once all these contradictions are intensified in Lebanon, seeking refuge in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict became a requirement for the survival of the regime. Access the full article>>



Subscribe to Middle East Progress Alerts

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

Setting the Record Straight

Determined to Reach a Common Objective

“We knew at the outset that the task would be difficult. We acknowledged that publicly and privately. We knew this would be a road with many bumps— and there have been many bumps—and that continues to this day. But we are not deterred. We are, to the contrary, determined more than ever to proceed to realize the common objective, which we all share, of a Middle East that is at peace with security and prosperity for the people of Israel, for Palestinians, and for all the people in the region. We will continue our efforts in that regard, undeterred and undaunted by the difficulties, the complexities or the bumps in the road.”—George Mitchell, special envoy for Middle East peace, remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu, September 29, 2010

Middle East Analysis

Upcoming Events

The U.S. Agency for International Development and Conflict: Hard Lessons from the Field

May 17, 2011, 12:00pm – 1:15pm

From Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan, Somalia, and South Sudan, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, is engaged daily in trying to help some of the most troubled nations on the planet make a lasting transition to stability, open markets, and democracy. Few areas of the agency’s work are more challenging or more controversial.

Join us for remarks by, and a roundtable with, the deputy administrator of USAID, Ambassador

more