By Doğan D. Akman*
I am no diplomat. I have no any idea of what was actually said, of the verbal assurances and undertakings given and promises made prior to the execution of the treaties among Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo, and the King and the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirate (UAE), nor with the former three King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of the Kingdom of Bahrain.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Isma'il Alazhari of the Republic of Sudan signed only a preliminary agreement in light of the fierce protests against any signing by the largest political party. Therefore, the prospect of such an agreement becoming a treaty between Israel and Sudan is far from assured. In the meantime, the Sudanese refugee applicants in Israel say that Israel is making peace with a rotten regime and wonder why Israel would normalize ties with transitional leaders considered illegitimate by the pro-democracy Sudanese.
As a matter of fact, the preliminary agreement is far from being on sure footing as the U.S. seems to have some difficulty in delivering its side of the bargain. Two Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Shumer and Bob Menendez are reluctant to get the appropriate legislative approvals to remove Sudan from the list of State sponsors of Terrorism and thereby restore its sovereign immunity.
I did my middle and high school in a foreign language school in Istanbul where I was taught the official history of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey by Turkish teachers.
Although, by now I have forgotten a good deal of what they taught, one thing remains vividly in my mind: their bitter recriminations against and utter contempt for the Arabs whom they accused of having treacherously betrayed their Muslim brethren of the Ottoman Empire during WW I by allying themselves with the enemy and more specifically with the perfidious British.
They did not talk about what the Ottoman Empire might not, or might have done with and to the Arabs when it conquered their lands in two stages in 1514 and 1517 and occupied them during the ensuing 404 years.
From the Arabs’ point of view, the State of Israel was established on a small parcel of Arab lands conquered by the Empire.
In due course, after three military defeats Jordan and Egypt signed peace treaties with Israel. As we know, while neither country broke or repudiated their respective treaties, it is fair to say that the treaty relations between Israel and each of these two countries have remained cold save where mutual interests of national security were and remain at play. In the meantime, in both countries, hate for Israel remains a palpable reality.
After living in Canada for a few years, I started to read the unofficial history of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey written by western historians. And despite all this reading, I have not been able to totally dismiss the bias of my history teachers’ in regards to the Arabs.
Nevertheless, I have a lot of respect and admiration for both the late President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and late King Hussein of Jordan for their courageous engagement in peace-making, although regretfully the former paid for it with his life.
The Abraham Accords: The Accomplishments
So what have the treaties with UAE and Bahrain achieved? And what will the one proposed between Israel and Sudan also achieve?
It is fair to say that the treaties and the preliminary agreements are primarily and essentially economic, cultural, scientific, technological agreements of mutual benefit.
For the hard working optimistic Israeli Prime Minister and his diplomats, the treaties open new trade routes, to new trade relations and peaceful co-existence with two and hopefully more Arab or Muslim countries.
The Abraham Accords: What has not Changed?
Now, it is said that these treaties normalized the relationships between Israel and both the UAE and Bahrain. Someone, poetically inclined, decided to insert the phrase the Abraham Accord in the title of these treaties, the name of Abraham being invoked to describe the treaties as promoting the “spirit of co-existence, mutual understanding and mutual respect” between descendants of Abraham.
How well are these treaties likely to succeed in promoting these things in light of the abominably hateful characterisation of the Jews, and later of Israelis and Israel, both in the religious and secular historical contexts, in which the inhabitants of the region have been and continue to be brought up, schooled and brainwashed in large measure aided and abetted by the regional terrorist organisations?
To this day, in the eyes of the Arab masses, Israel remains an illegitimate entity that must to be removed from Arab lands which she illegally occupies.
More specifically, I will outline some of the data and issues that flow from it:
For the UAE and Sudan this is not the first but the second time at treaty making.
The UAE Crown Prince skipped the White House signing over Netanyahu’s stance on the so-called “annexation” remaining on the table.
All three, UAE, Bahrain and Sudan continue to vote as they did before in support of all the Israel- bashing resolutions at the U.N. which accuse Israel of having committed all the possible and imaginable sins of the world, and those invented for the occasion as well, in her treatment of Palestinians including those who are Israeli citizens, knowing full well that this yearly verbal mob lynching exercise does not help peace-making, but instead feeds the rejectionist instincts of the Palestinian Authority and the terrorism of Hamas.
UAE and Bahrain, against a large majority of the UN General Assembly, voted against the Israeli resolution on entrepreneurship which focuses on actions needed for the post-pandemic recovery; calls for efforts by UN member states to help entrepreneurs and micro-, small-and medium-sized enterprises, with an emphasis on those most affected. Surely, such a resolution stands to benefit both countries’ trade partners and countries which are among the most adversely affected by the pandemic in the sectors in question.
It is highly unlikely that anyone of the three countries will do anything to stop voting against Israel at the UNGA or for that matter at any of the various emanations of the U.N. where they have seats.
Just as unlikely that they would support the dismantlement of any, let alone all, of the UN organisations that consistently and continuously delegitimize Israel, or support such in any other world forum to stamp out the venom of antisemitism of one kind or another.
A study released in early November by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Israel Office based on multi-country public-opinion towards the Israel-UAE-Bahrain peace shows that, (a) only 31% of Bahrainis consider Israel favourably while 48% view it unfavourably, while (b) the corresponding ratios in the Emirates were 46% and 43% respectively.
While 69% of the UAE respondents approved of their treaty with Israel, only 46% of Bahrainis approved theirs, as Bahrainis in general show no interest in the treaty.
In Saudi Arabia 65 % of the sample consider Israel unfavourably, and 23% favourably while the corresponding rates in Qatar are 59% and 28%. In Germany, supposedly Israel’s friend, the corresponding poll showed the rates to be 49%, and 26% respectively.
N.B. Paradoxically enough in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), Israel is described unfavourable by 56% while 33% view the country favourably: a more favourable
view of Israel than among the people in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco and Germany. And more interestingly, the residents living under the Palestinian Authority have a higher approval rating of Israel than even that of Bahrain.
According to another opinion poll conducted on behalf of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which asked the question, “which country threatens the stability of the Middle East the most,” 33% of the Saudi Arabians chose Israel compared to 25% for Iran; in Bahrain the corresponding percentages, are 24% and 18% while in the UAE 27% chose Iran, 17% chose Israel.
UAE retains her observer status on the U.N. Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) which is a pillar of the U.N’s anti-Israel infrastructure.
UAE continues to financially support UNWRA.
UAE and Bahrain are most unlikely to show the respect due to Israel as a sovereign country by locating their respective embassies in Jerusalem.
Bahrain has already reneged on her promise to classify goods produced by Israelis and Arabs in Judea and Samaria as goods made in Israel.
On a glimmer of brightness, to the best of my knowledge, so far neither country has made a fuss about Israel’s plan to build new housing for Jewish and Arab Israelis in Jerusalem over the 1949 Green armistice line.
It remains to be seen
whether, in due course, UAE, Bahrain and Sudan (assuming she eventually signs the peace treaty) will also keep quiet over the unilateral execution of Israel’s decision to recover part of the territory originally set aside for the Jewish Homeland, now the State of Israel, under the British Mandate established pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 1920 or will suspend or altogether cut diplomatic relations;
what will happen, when and if Israel does anything that would displease the new partners; will they, as UAE and Sudan did before, play hardball and breach the arrangements; and
what will these countries do about the P.A. if after the octogenarian Mr. Abbas and his entourage retire and are succeeded by a charismatic serious-minded leader with positive credentials who surrounds himself with like- minded people?
Conclusion: Normalisation of the abnormal
In the light of the foregoing facts and considerations, it is fair to conclude that while the treaties and the preliminary agreements normalized pre-exiting hush hush trade and civil relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, by the same token they also normalized what must be considered abnormal in the new circumstances, namely: all three Arab countries carrying on with their persistent hostility to Israel by voting in support of every mindless, bizarre, mendacious, motion that seeks to de-legitimise and de-humanize Israel at the United Nations just as they did before.
In the premise, the treaties normalized that which logically ought to have become abnormal save for a yearly vote that supports the establishment of a Palestinian State on terms negotiated by Israel and the Palestinian.Authority.
Then again sadly enough, what, if any, is the difference between these three countries and France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, the U.K and other members of the E.U. who engage in the same kind of sordid behaviour?
At the end of the day, I cannot help but wonder what my Turkish history teachers would have said about these deals and what their advice to Israel would have been both before they were made and in the aftermath.
*Doğan D. Akman is an independent researcher and commentator. He holds a B.Sc. in sociology, an M.A. in sociology/criminology and an LL.B in law. He held academic appointments in sociology, criminology and social policy; served as a Judge of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and occupied the positions of Crown Counsel in criminal prosecutions and in civil litigation at the Federal Department of Justice. His academic work is published in peer-reviewed professional journals while his opinion pieces and other writings are to be found in various publications and blogs.