On the 13^th of August, nine days after the “earthquake” that hit Lebanon in the Port of Beirut, another piece of major news drew the attention of the entire international political, social and media community – with very different meaning and consequences – and turned the eye of the media and daily news consumers. At that time, from the Oval Office, President Donald Trump announced, urbi et orbi, that following a personal initiative, managed by his son-in-law and presidential advisor Jared Kushner, there have been negotiations between the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Bin Zayed, and that they have agreed the normalization of relations between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel.

Mohammed Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, UAE Crown Prince

As far as the roadmap regarding the peace-making process between the UAE federation and Israel is concerned, it sets the following coordinates, course of action and objectives:

- Normalizing the relations between the UAE and Israel worldwide.

- Establishing diplomatic and consular relations and opening embassies, both in Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem, run by resident ambassadors.

- Establishing direct airlines, including freedom to fly over for commercial aviation.

- Allowing Emirati citizens increased access to sacred Muslim sites, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

- Encouraging direct mutual investments between the two countries.

- Negotiating and signing cooperation agreements in various sectors of activity, such as tourism, security, communications, advanced technologies, energy, medicine, culture, environment, water and so on.

Following the rhetoric and hyperbole that characterises the political discourse of Donald Trump Administration, the draft official document that would be signed – in its final form – early September, at the White House, was described as historic. President Trump even joked about it, saying that the historic document should be named after the current White House resident, who didn’t hesitate to suggest that his “numerous accomplishments” should be awarded with old Alfred Nobel’s prize. The document was eventually given the code-name Abraham, as a symbol of peace.

Having the same enthusiastic, dithyrambic discourse, the head of US diplomacy, Mike Pompeo, chose to step outside the lines and quote the apostle Matthew, who said “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God”. So, we come to the conclusion that the authors of the “Abraham Agreement”, that is President Trump, the pious Mohammed Bin Zayed, Bibi Netanyahu and the younger “peacemaker”, Jared Kushner, will be known as the “children of God”. This is something, especially during a presidential campaign.

If during this time (three weeks) the agreement is signed (and there is not any reason this formality should not take place), the UAE will become the third Arab, Muslim country in the history of conflicts in the Middle East to sign a peace treaty with Israel, after Egypt (Camp David 1979) and Jordan (the peace treaty in Wadi Araba/Arava in Hebrew – 26^th of October 1994).

Looking back at history, the normalization of the relations between Israel and the UAE is not that historical and there are at least two reasons why. The road to Arab-Israeli peace, as far as the Arabs are concerned, was set by Anwar Al-Sadat, was carried on by the late Jordanian monarch, King Hussein Bin Talal, and was continued, without having been completed, by Yasser Arafat and then by the Palestinian National Authority, led by Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Besides, for the past few years we have been witnessing several Emirati discourses and endeavours regarding the initiation of a peace process with Israel. Anyway, this royalist Emirati peace trend was set by the Saudi conductor, especially after the internal Saudi chessboard witnessed the rise of the royal son, Mohammad Bin Salman – a “peacemaker” as well, this time in Yemen, while competing against the Iranian “peacemaker”. The UAE and the other four Gulf monarchies – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman – are members of the sub-regional organization titled the Gulf Cooperation Council (Qatar used to be a part of this organization; however, it was expelled once the Saudis and the Emiratis invaded Yemen). So long as, and as we well know, the de facto leader of the Council is Saudi Arabia, it is easy to see that the Emirati government could have not made a move towards peace with Israel without receiving the green light from Riyadh – the same Riyadh where the tempestuous Crown Prince, Mohammad Bin Salman, advised his Palestinian “brothers” to “stop complaining and return to the negotiating table with Israel (former “Zionist enemy”)”.

The spectacular announcement of the normalization of the official relations between the UAE and Israel can be associated – in the most pragmatic way possible – with the old popular saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. If the Emirati federation decided – upon the insistencies of the Trump Administration – to take a giant step towards the political and diplomatic recognition of the Jewish state, following years of confidential security and economic cooperation, it is – before all – only due to the national and collective interests of the Arab Gulf countries to consolidate as much as possible the front against the assiduous regional influence of the Iranian theocratic regime. And this is reflected in the common policies and apprehensions between the United States and what Donald Trump called “America’s greatest friends in the Middle East”, Israel and the UAE.

We do not believe it is an exaggeration to state that the step taken by the de facto leader of the Emirates, Mohammed Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, may be seen, under these circumstances, as an endurance test or a “feasibility study”, according to which this experience can be gradually mimicked by the other Arab monarchies in the Gulf, starting with Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait (that cannot forget that its existence is due to the United States, which freed the country from the occupation of Saddam Hussein’s armed forces), ending with a similar decision, which will be made official by Saudi Arabia. On the 14^th of August, the King of Bahrain offered high praises to the benefits of the Emirati-Israeli Agreement for the peace, security and stability of the Middle East, but not for the solution for the Palestinian issue based on the “two state” vision. We will not refrain from appreciating that the small Bahraini kingdom is the Arab country that President Trump had in mind when he stated that in a very near future “another Arab country will follow Abu Dhabi’s example concerning the normalization of relations with Israel”.

***

According to the principles and norms of international law, and also the logic of the relations within the international community, it is worth mentioning at least two things. We are firstly referring to the fact that among the rights and functions of a country is first and foremost the sovereign right to choose how and with whom a country establishes its cooperation, coexistence and dialogue. The promotion of this principle is the decisive factor that exchanges conflict and war for conciliation and peace. This is the equation that has been ignored for centuries and that has maintained the Middle East in its long and damaging abnormality known to our world’s history as the “Arab-Israeli conflict”.

From this point of view, the decision taken by the UAE cannot be but welcome to the peaceful, stable and prosperous future of the Middle East in its entirety.

Secondly, we are referring to the principle, which became a custom, according to which any peace and any normal relation between countries should be accepted and promoted willingly, should be equitable and durable and not in the least should it damage the interests and rights of others.

Provided that before its signing in the beginning of the September, the American-Israeli-Emirati tripartite agreement will be more thoroughly read in order to achieve perfection, we must draw attention to a few aspects regarding its present shortcomings, which left unattended would risk turning this agreement into what the Arabs call a “limping goose” – waza ‘arja.

1. During the centuries that were marked by the “conflict in the Middle East”, the Arab community had two reference points that governed the attitude of unity in matters of peace and war – the principle of the “common Arab initiative” that defines the role and the purpose of the Arab League – and the “Arab peace initiative” established by Saudi Arabia during the summit of the Arab League that took place in Beirut in 2002. This initiative meant that the entire Arab world recognised Israel as an independent country and established global peace relations in exchange for the latter agreeing to recognise the rights of the Palestinians to have their own independent country. The Saudi proposals were not literally agreed upon by the Israelis, and the current tripartite agreement was the exclusive result of mediation coming from the Trump Administration, without taking into account the “common Arab initiative” and that of the Arab League, a symbol of Arab unity. Is the entire Arab nation ready to follow the example of the Emiratis? To what extent can we even refer to an Arab unity in a more and more divided world?
2. Official, officious and public comments on the tripartite agreement assiduously highlighted the concept that its occurrence was possible only because the UAE asked Israel that in exchange for normal relations, it would be willing to end the plans of the Netanyahu government to impose Israeli sovereignty on the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the Jordan Valley and some other territories in the north of the Dead Sea, which meant their annexation. The tripartite communiqué on the 13^th of October dedicates the following paragraph to this issue: “Thanks to this diplomatic action, upon the request of President Trump and with the support of the United Arab Emirates, Israel will suspend declaring sovereignty over the territories described in the document referred to as Donald Trump’s vision for a comprehensive peace agreement and will concentrate its efforts towards enhancing its cooperation with other Arab and Muslim countries.”

It is difficult to believe that the Palestinians are mainly interested in Israel’s enhancing the relations with the Arab-Muslim world, so long as the “good-will” of the Jewish state comes down not to giving up annexing the Palestinian territories, but postponing this action. This fact was confirmed by the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, who stated that they “were referring to temporarily delaying our programmes concerning the territories”.

Perhaps during the three weeks before the official signing of the agreement, the parties will shed necessary light on how the so-designed Emirati-Israeli normalization “will establish peace and implement the vision of the two countries” as a fair instrument for finding a solution to the Palestinian brief.

As far as we are concerned, we welcome the third Arab-Israeli peace and we keep on waiting for a Godot who can explain how a bilateral relations document will be able to deliver the Palestinians their long-promised country.