Abraham Accords: the Palestinian cause is still a crucial question in Arab-Israeli relations

Any thoughts that the Abraham accords between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain would bring a new era of peace and harmony to the Middle East must have been dashed by the fierce speech from King Salman of Saudi Arabia to the UN by video on September 23. 

It had been believed that the Saudis had actively encouraged their two Gulf Arab neighbours to get alongside Israel. The deal had been in the works for some time and seemed to cover a wide range of joint endeavours from oil and gas development, to agricultural science and technology, and two programmes on antidotes to corona virus.

Roger Cohen, columnist and former foreign editor of the New York Times, who is deeply versed in Arab-Israeli matters, even hinted that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (sometimes referred to as M.B.S.) might be egging his father to follow up with Saudi Arabia itself normalising diplomatic ties with Israel. Apparently the Crown Prince considered this to be his country’s gift for the re-election of his pal Donald J. Trump.

“The last thing M.B.S. wants,” Cohen wrote a week ago, “is a Joe Biden victory accompanied by renewed opprobrium over the Saudi murder of Jamal Khashoggi and a more balanced American approach to Iran.”

Cohen even suggested that the Abraham accords had put the Palestinian issue into the freezer, much to the relief of many in the Arab world – possibly even to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

The fierce intervention by video link from King Salman, 84, at the UN General Assembly offers a reality check to the more fanciful ideas about Israeli-Saudi rapprochement, however. He did not mention as such the deal between Israel and the two Gulf states, Bahrain and the UAE, but made it clear that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would not be joining them – at least not yet. As the custodian of the two holiest sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina, he said he could not contemplate any agreement Israel which did not guarantee full statehood to the Palestinians.

This, of course, would mean Israel giving up the West Bank of Jordan and retreating to the borders of Israel prior to the Six Day War of 1967.

The commitment to the Palestinians suggests the limitations of the Abraham accord, and might yet mean that it is only a very modest milestone in the Arab-Israeli story. The King’s speech showed that the Palestinian cause is not in abeyance. Trump may not have mentioned the Palestinians in the White House signing ceremony for the Abraham accords – but that does not mean they have been forgotten.

Instead, the Saudi speech showed the limited intention for the new accords – to galvanise efforts and Israel-UAE cooperation in close defence and security against Iran. Indeed, the ageing King’s main demand was for Iran to be stopped at all costs in its nefarious activities across the region. Above all, Iranian government must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons technology.

“The Abraham deal has split the Arab League from top to bottom,” a senior European diplomat in the region reported last week. “It is very limited, and primarily aimed at ramping confrontation with Iran. It is not a deal for peace – but points to more war, which is very bad.”

He said that Iran had deliberately exploited the nuclear deal of 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, “to intensify its expansionist activities, create its terrorist networks, and use of terrorism.” He said this had led to nothing but “chaos, extremism, and sectarianism.” He denounced Iran’s backing of Hezbollah – “this terrorist group must be disarmed.” He said the group had been responsible for the devastating explosion in the port of Beirut in August – for which there is no direct proof, it must be noted.

He denounced Iran’s backing for the Houthi cause in Yemen, which had led to the surprise missile attack on two of the Kingdom’s main oil installations last year.

Responding to King Salman’s speech at the UN, Iran’s representative Saeed Khatibzadeh dismissed the King’s “delirious talk”, adding “they want to get away from the responsibility of their war crimes against Yemeni women and children by pointing the finger at other countries.”

A counter to the suggestion that Saudi Arabia could make a deal with Israel, is the theory that there could be some military adventure against Iran to boost Trump in the last days of the presidential campaign. The Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has been suggesting that the US may close its huge embassy in Baghdad, the largest US overseas mission, because of continuous rocket attacks on US facilities across Iraq by pro-Iranian militias. He advised European governments to do the same. US troops in Iraq are to be cut to 1,000. The pro-US prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi has asked the Americans to stay and not give in to Iranian provocation.

It will take at least three months to close the monster legation. But this doesn’t quite allay suspicion that the Trump administration may be thinking of some kind of action, similar to the drone strike against the Iran Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad airport in January.

One of the spurs to the new verbal assault on Iran is the fear of what might transpire from Tehran’s prospective rapprochement with China. Mohammed Javid Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, made it clear in briefings this summer, as I reported previously for Reaction, that America’s withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal and tougher sanctions led to the development of closer ties between Iran and China. A new trade and security pact was in the offing between Beijing and Tehran, he told us.

Iran sells oil to China, which in turn helps with technical development in modernizing the oilfields, 5G infrastructure, and a defence deal. Though not explicitly stated, the defence package is sure to have a nuclear component, both in tactical and strategic weaponry. Team Trump seems to have been stepping closer to a conflict while not having a clue about how to manage it.

Firmly in the house of war, and the mission of confronting Iran and its cousin, Lebanese Hezbollah, was Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his video speech to the 193 members of the General Assembly this week.

Netanyahu focused on what he claimed to be a clandestine arms dump concealed by Hezbollah in the Beirut suburb of Janah. “I say to the people of Janah, you’ve got to act now. You’ve got to protest this. Because if this explodes, it’s another tragedy. Iran and Hezbollah have put you and your families in grave danger.” Israeli military sources later said they thought an explosion in the village of Ain Qana in southern Lebanon last week was in another Hezbollah missile dump. The Israeli Defence Forces also briefed that they had detected Hezbollah underground facilities for precision guided missiles (PGMs) in 28 sites across Beirut and central Lebanon.

Netanyahu went on to castigate the Security Council and the three European allies – Britain, France and Germany – for “doing nothing” about Iran’s breeches of the JCPOA, the 2015 nuclear agreement. He stated that Iran had now developed a new centrifuge for the production of weapons-grade nuclear material, the IR9, enhancing the productive capacity by 50 times. “Iran will have enough enriched uranium in a few months for two nuclear bombs … There is no question Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Netanyahu is desperate to boost support at home. A few months ago, he was reported to be contemplating triggering a new general election in the belief he would win an outright majority, at last, because of a boost to his popularity caused by his handling of Covid-19 and his plans to annex part of the West Bank. Yet Isreal’s epidemic has now turned sour, with the figures for positive infections surging unexpectedly and hospitals asking for emergency help.

The plan to annex “Zone C” of the occupied West Bank is not looking so smart, either. It would mean that Israel would absorb about 40% of the Palestinian population of the Judaea and Samaria – the West Bank – and they would have to be offered citizenship. This comes on top of the plan drawn up for a Palestinian state proposed by Jared Kushner, which the Palestinian Authority of Mohammed Abbas refused to even discuss. It offered cash, albeit from Gulf sponsors, and bits of territory, including enclaves in the Negev desert. But the parts were not contiguous and would have to be reached by security corridors.

Even the proposal to annex Zone C meant a further security commitment by the Israeli Defence Force, which calculated that it would have to mobilise a further 90,000 troops to manage the extra tasks.

Contrary to what was suggested at the time of the Abraham deal with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinian question has not gone away. In the view of a long-term diplomatic observer of the region, “Israel has to consider what happens to 6.9 million Palestinians – it can’t avoid this.”

The debate about the “two state” solution for Palestine and Israel is alive as ever. Despite suggestions to the contrary, a one-state solution, which would mean parity between Arab and Jewish populations, remains a fantasy.