Afrasianet - Hani al, Masri - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "We are already changing the Middle East, Syria is no longer what it was, Lebanon is no longer what it was, Gaza is no longer what it was, Iran is the head of the axis, it felt the weight of our strength, and I spoke with Trump about the need to complete victory."
Netanyahu is already changing the Middle East, and he is seeking to complete the change, which raises the possibility of attacking Iran to strike the nuclear reactor, continue the genocidal war in Gaza, and begin to annex the West Bank.
But the beginning of this change is not credited to him, because the change in the Middle East began in 1977, after the visit of the then Egyptian President Mohamed Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem and the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1981, without resolving the Palestinian issue at its expense, which is supposed to be the central issue for all Arabs.
The consequences of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Wadi Araba Treaty in 1994, the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the Arab Spring in 2011, which turned upside down in the fall and toppled several Arab countries, and the Abraham Accords in 2020. We are expected to witness another wave of normalization involving a number of Arab and Muslim countries.
It is noticeable that the change in the Middle East is not done in a straight and continuous line of time, but there are ebdes and flows, and there is strong resistance at times and weak at other times, but it is continuous and will remain, because this region is Arab and will remain Arab, and this explains why we are witnessing a march in the opposite direction to normalization, as happened when the Lebanese resistance was able to liberate the south in 2000, as well as the faltering efforts of Arab-Israeli normalization after the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000. Condoleezza Rice, the former US Secretary of State, also did not succeed in Achieving the change it called for in the Middle East after the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in 2006 .
It is noteworthy that the new Middle East can only be achieved through the marginalization of the Palestinian cause and at its expense, as it is no longer the central issue of the Arab regimes, as well as the implementation of Netanyahu's goal of achieving regional peace on the basis of "peace for peace", "security for peace" and "peace for the economy" instead of "land for peace", and on the basis of jumping from the Palestinian issue, where peace is concluded with Arab countries, individually or collectively, without reaching peace or a solution to the Palestinian track. Israel's integration into the region and its increasing role toward hegemony.
This helps and encourages Israeli governments to continue their efforts to liquidate the Palestinian cause and establish a "Greater Israel", so the Arab Peace Initiative, which came without fangs and no plan for implementation and was approved at the Beirut Summit in 2002, and stipulated a complete peace in exchange for a complete withdrawal, was an atonement for the events of September 11, and represented a retreat from the decisions of the Khartoum Summit in 1967, which raised the slogans of "no peace, no recognition, no negotiations" with Israel.
The Abraham Accords came in a new retreat from the Arab Peace Initiative, because they embarked on normalization without being accompanied by an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, and they did not encourage Israel to follow the path of peace, but rather continued on the path of war, expansionism and racism.
The creation of a new Middle East cannot be achieved without leaping from the reality of the region as a single Arab region, whose peoples are united by historical, cultural, political, economic and national ties, which necessitates its fragmentation and division into sects, sects and minorities, because if its unity is achieved, it means the birth of a major country that has all the elements of the ability to compete with the major countries that share interests and influence in the Arab region and compete for the leadership of the world.
In the context of Western efforts to prevent the unity of the Arab peoples into a single state, or even to create a kind of integration and solidarity, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed in 1916, which drew and divided the Arab states, and then the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, to separate the Arabs in Asia from their brothers in Africa, and to play a functional role aimed at keeping the Arab region captive to colonial domination through the continuation of dependency, backwardness, fragmentation, and poverty.
Despite the Israeli successes achieved in Gaza and Lebanon, especially after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's regime, the occupying power, as stated by its Minister of War, Yisrael Katz, still feels the existing and potential threats. Israel is concerned despite the moderate statements of the new rulers of Damascus, and despite the division of Syria among a number of local, regional and international actors, including Israel, which not only annexed the Golan, but also occupied the summit of Mount Sheikh and other areas under the pretext of filling the vacuum, amid a declaration that it will remain for a while, and that it It will not withdraw until a number of conditions are met that ensure that Syria remains weak and divided and accepts normalization, as well as Israel's integration into the region.
Israel will not be able to achieve its dream of being the dominant central state in the region, because there are regional countries competing with it, such as Iran and Turkey, which will find themselves in confrontation with it sooner or later, and if Israeli hegemony is achieved, it will not last long, because the Israeli era will not last long, especially since it is based on the calculation of the rights, interests and aspirations of the Arab and non-Arab peoples for freedom, independence, development, justice and democracy.
What exacerbates the rise of the Arab genie is the arrogance of power and the blindness of nationalist and religious extremism that dominates the right-wing Israeli government that rules Tel Aviv, which believes that what power does not achieve, it achieves more power and that its expansionist ambitions have no limits.
Will the Syrian people forget the humiliation that their country suffered when Israel took advantage of the moment of weakness it is going through to completely destroy the capabilities of the Syrian army despite the collapse of the regime of Bashar al-Assad? What the occupying power is doing these days will be a pretext for the next Israeli-Syrian war, if only after a while.
Will the Syrian people forget what Israel did by occupying about 300 square kilometers of Syrian territory, despite the new Syrian leader's statement that what happened was in the interest of all the countries of the region, and that the new regime was not in the mood for conflict with Israel, and despite the fact that it did not condemn Israel for what it did, and only sent a memorandum to the United Nations several days after it began to destroy the Syrian army and occupy new parts of Syrian territory? This indicates that the Israeli goal was It is still Syria and keeping it weak and divided, not the collapsed regime.
Will the Israeli government be able to dominate the region for a long time? Will it be able to resolve the conflict and settle the Palestinian cause through annexation, displacement and Judaization, or will the Palestinian people (as they have done for more than 100 years) continue to stand firm and remain on their land, and keep their cause alive by fighting in all forms until conditions change and mature to achieve victory?
Certainly, the annexation that the Israeli government plans to implement during the years of Donald Trump's rule is not a viable solution. If it succeeds, it is not sustainable. It is neither the goal nor the national option at this stage, as some Palestinians and Arabs imagine, but such ideas represent a kind of surrender of another kind of "revolutionary, nationalist or academic."
Annexation does not make it easier to achieve Palestinian goals, because its stability requires direct occupation, expansion of land confiscation and colonization, displacement of Palestinians from all communities of the Palestinian people (the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the 1948 territories), and keeping those who remain in populated enclaves, isolated from each other, competing with each other, and under Israeli sovereignty.
A response to the Zionist colonial plan and its defeat is possible, and it can include adopting the discourse of rights instead of the discourse of the two-state solution in the face of the complete absence and Israeli rejection of Palestinian rights, even minimal ones, and all settlements, in addition to focusing on stopping the extermination, displacement and annexation, providing relief and reconstruction requirements, and a reasonable prisoner exchange deal, as well as ending the occupation and embodying independence as a central goal on the way to achieving the rest of the Palestinian goals.
All of the above must be based on adherence to the unity of the cause, the land and the people, the historical narrative and the comprehensive radical solution as the ultimate goal, without placing a contradiction between it and any gain that can be achieved now or at any stage, even if it takes the form of an interim solution, provided that the price does not come at the cost of relinquishing historical, legal and political rights and the right to continue the resistance until all the goals of the Palestinian people are achieved.
Yes to changing the adopted Palestinian approaches that contributed to our reaching the deadlock, including to fighting, as is happening these days in Jenin, despite the disparity and difference in the degree of error and danger of this or that approach, and to adopt a new comprehensive approach based on a new vision that combines the various forms of resistance, and does not establish a conflict between what can be achieved in the immediate term and what can be achieved in the long term, and opens the way for change and unity that the Palestinian leadership and factions have not achieved despite the From genocide and the existential danger that threatens the cause, the people and the land.