Middle East peace: Saudi backing is key to successful deal
In Washington, the twin deals have been hailed as a historic triumph for President Trump’s statesmanship. In the Middle East, comedians joked about the blood of aeons now drying on Gulf sands, a sarcastic reference to the fact that the three countries had never actually fought each other.
However, the level of anger from Israel’s many enemies at the deals suggests they represent a big change.
Whether that is for good or ill depends whose side you take in the Arab world’s divide, between strongly pro and anti-US leaders. Forcing states to take sides is in part what the deals are intended to do, with the betting by the main participants that few can afford to take on the US.
Omar Ghobash, a senior Emirati official, said a taboo had been broken, and that it had proved easier than expected to accomplish. “We have up-ended the logic that has dominated Arab discourse for a long time, which was that the Gulf states are a sort of gift to give the Israelis after the establishment of a Palestinian state,” he said. “We’re basically signalling that that kind of approach is over. We are agents of our own fate. We will fight for our own interests.”
Sayed Alwadaei, a London-based Bahraini dissident, said the deals were yet another betrayal of ordinary Arab people: “This deal was created by tyrants against the will of the people.”
The agreements do not carry the weight of those made with Egypt and Jordan in 1979 and 1994. Those two countries share borders with Israel, fought its founding and were the two main frontline threats to its existence.
The failure of those peace treaties to lead to a lasting settlement with the Palestinians, however, led to a long freeze in the Arab world. It has had a corroding effect on Arab countries, whose leaders excuse their failings by blaming Israel, and whose enmity prompts aggressive action by the Israelis against their territory.
Critics of the latest deals say they will do nothing to end this freeze. The fact that it is two absolute monarchies with close ties to President Trump’s America – the al-Khalifa dynasty of Bahrain and the al-Nahyans of Abu Dhabi who effectively control the UAE – that have brought them about will further discredit the idea of normalisation in many Arab states.
Within Israel, opposition circles see the deals as orchestrated theatre to help out populist leaders facing trouble at home. Mr Trump, they say, needed a foreign policy “win” before the election. Mr Netanyahu is facing corruption charges and has lost control of the coronavirus epidemic.
Much will depend on what follows. If the rapprochement between Israel and Arab leaders stops with Bahrain and the UAE, critics will claim vindication. However, there is every indication that other Gulf states are open to a relationship with Israel.
Importantly, analysts and diplomats believe the Bahraini agreement is a proxy for Saudi Arabia, which has huge sway over its smaller neighbour. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has suggested that the Palestinian cause should not stand in the way of some ties with Israel.
Turkey has emerged as the most important critic of the agreements, but as a Nato US ally with its own embassy in Tel Aviv, its anger will be limited in effect.
The deals are certainly not a recipe for peace in the Middle East. But they serve the purposes of all those represented in the White House without much fear of blowback.
The Times
More Coverage
Ukraine: Britain takes key role to help Ukraine in peace talks
Britain has taken the lead in advising Ukraine how to handle the US during peace talks in Saudi Arabia.
Pope Francis set to miss Easter, the church’s most ‘crucial moment’
As Pope Francis starts his fourth week in hospital with pneumonia, the events he is missing are coming in thick and fast.
Some of the rhetoric thrown out by Wednesday’s “peace deal” ceremony at the White House between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain has been hard to take seriously.