The Saudi-Egypt stumbling block to ceasefire for Gaza

Most observers of the Israeli Palestinian conflict have come to the conclusion that Israeli expansionist ideologies can be viewed from a myriad of perspectives. At the one extreme, there is opportunism where the priority lies in geographic expansion, and at the other extreme there is the desire for a pacifist occupied Palestine. It was the failure to achieve either of these goals that resulted in the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. The occupation could not reap any more fertile land nor was it possible to keep the Palestinians in Gaza subdued. In economic terms it was no longer cost effective.

Since 2005 Israel has imposed a blockade and launched a number of military assaults – Summer Rain, Autumn Clouds, Hot Winter, Cast Lead and Pillar of Defence. These assaults are indicative of Israel’s abject failure to achieve its objectives, including its primary goal to subdue resistance and dislodge Hamas. The ferocity of Protective Edge, on-going for 5 weeks, has been unprecedented. Over 2,000 civilians are now dead, entire neighbourhoods lie in ruins, 40,000 homes are destroyed or damaged, 43,000 artillery shells and 39,000 tank shells have been fired and enough bullets have been used to account for every resident of Gaza twice over. Yet Israel is no nearer in achieving any of its objectives.

It must be evident to even the staunchest of Israeli stalwarts that military action has failed to achieve Israeli goals. One would assume that Israel would now pursue a pragmatic path, taking actions to serve its own long term interests.

From a Zionist ideological perspective, it is clear that Israel must forcibly dissociate Gaza from both Israel and the Palestinian hinterland of the West Bank. This could be achieved by allowing sea and air ports to be built, thereby ending the blockade in exchange for a long-term guaranteed truce which would ensure Israel’s security. These are the main conditions Hamas are demanding. By accepting, Israel would at once change the trajectory of their conflict with the Palestinians.

If viewed from the Zionist ideals, Gaza would be divorced from the West Bank, reducing Israeli demographic concerns and undermining Palestinian unitary national aspirations. It would thus free Israel to negotiate with the pliable Abbas and Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) over the West Bank and Jerusalem in particular.

The geographical fracturing of Palestine would be politically enhanced. Gaza would become an independent enclave and even if they were to amass weapons, an economically appeased and free population would have no appetite to support a leadership that wished to confront the superpower of the region.

If the creation of an independent Gaza enclave appears to fit a Zionist political model, why is Israel reluctant to make concessions over any ceasefire agreement? The answer lies in the emerging geo-political allegiances with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Despite the lack of overt action, the oil rich Saudi Kingdom has indirectly invested billions of dollars to ensure a pivotal role in the negotiations. Any influences which are a danger to the Saudi royal family’s future heavily affects the political outlook of the region. The Saudi’s are apprehensive of dangers from four specific quarters.

Iran and Shia populations in the region have become their arch-enemy as they send shock waves across the Middle East and their influence in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain and Lebanon increases. The Sunday Times reported in November 2013 that Saudi had put aside their historical differences with their erstwhile enemy Israel over Iran and had opened avenues for their respective secret services to collaborate. To neutralise their common foe Saudi would further allow Israel use of their air space and provide drones, rescue helicopters and tanker planes.

Saudi assisted the Lebanese government in response to the strong Shia Hezbollah base, to the tune of $1billion on 20th August 2014 to supplement the $3 billion already supplied in December 2013. According to most media reports, this assisted the Lebanese government’s fight against the ‘Islamic State’ terrorists along its Syrian borders with Syria. However, Mr Hariri, a Sunni political leader in Lebanon, was quoted as saying Saudi’s new aid pledge was aimed at preserving the ‘security and stability of Lebanon’, in other words to curb Hezbollah’s growth.

The second threat emanates from the Takfiri (al-Qaeda) affiliates’ whose ascendency in Syria and Iraq has led Saudi to deploy an increased number of troops along its borders. The third challenge is the rise of Muslim Brotherhood through democratic channels presenting an ideological and political test. The coup against elected Egyptian President Mursi was in part successful because it was cushioned by Tel Aviv and Washington and financed by Saudi and the United Arab Emirates to the tune of $12 billion within a week of the coup. The political democratic triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region is a poisoned chalice that could destabilise the autocratic Saudi kingdom.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in Palestine should be viewed in the context of the potential threat to Saudi and geo-politics at play in the Middle East. This was evident in the initial Saudi indifference to the Israeli attacks on Gaza. It took a full three weeks before King Abdullah condemned the attacks on Gaza but he did not condemn Israel and failed to mention Hamas at all.As the custodian of the two Holy Mosques, he asked the United Nations to investigate the attacks on Gaza rather than asking the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

The internally disenfranchised Saudis empowered by the victories of the Muslim Brotherhood, Takfiris and Shia (who constitute around 15 per cent of the Saudi population) are a great cause for concern. In particular the young and educated Saudis eager to see victory for the Palestinians are creating concern about the possibility of internal discontent spilling on to the street. Saudi has responded by imprisoning thousands of Muslim scholars and activists and donating $100 million to the UN Counter-Terrorism Centre.

This was reinforced by a fatwa issued by the monarch Grand Mufti Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik that extremism and the ideologies of groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda are Islam’s number one enemy. He went further and said that we would argue with that, ‘Saudi Arabia’s king and crown prince needs to avoid the type of chaos seen elsewhere in the region.’ This is the same Mufti who a few weeks earlier decreed Palestinian solidarity marches a’ demagogic act’.

There is a call for common political allegiances in the interests of the political survival of Saudi and the other gulf kingdoms which outweighs any ties to the Muslim Ummah. In light of this, it is unsurprising that Saudi’s support for General al-Sisi and their allegiance with Israel over Gaza has materialised; but this reflects the case that my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

General al-Sisi has complied with the needs of his financial backers in Riyadh, for which King Abdullah awarded him the highest medal of honour, but al-Sisi has his own vested interests. Over the years, Egypt has financially and geo-politically reaped dividends from the siege and attacks on Gaza. The conflict between Israel and Palestine has given it a broker’s role projecting a position well beyond its capacity, while reaping economic gains from aid agencies. Egypt coerces charities to purchase provisions from within Egypt in the interest of a speedy crossing through Rafah.

Added to this are the golden handshakes of bakshish (bribery) that are sought from major donors by top level Egyptian bureaucrats to facilitate the trickle of provisions into Gaza. A ceasefire that is a victory for Hamas could potentially empower the Egyptian masses to once again spill out onto the streets. Hence, as reported in Haaretz, Egypt, supported by Saudi, are demanding that Israel imposes a precondition to any ceasefire or end to the blockade- that being the return of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to Gaza. This would marginalise Hamas, which shares the same ideology as the Muslim Brotherhood.

While the notion of creating a single authority and leadership for Palestine, even as compliant as Abbas, counters the Israeli colonialist strategy of divide and rule, in a bizarre twist of events, it appears this has become one of the stumbling blocks. Israel is now drawn deep into the new arc of alliance forged between Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Cairo, and this has become the nightmare for innocent civilians in Gaza. However, it may yet become a precarious political quagmire for Israel.

The author is chair of Friends of Al-Aqsa; his twitter handle is @ismailAdamPatel

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.