Arab League Summit or Israeli Summit?

An emergency Arab League Summit was scheduled to be held in Cairo on 28 February to respond to Donald Trump’s proposal to displace the people of Gaza to Egypt and Jordan. The aim was to create a united Arab position against the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, which is what this crazy proposal intends.

Suddenly, though, the summit has been postponed. It’s not surprising. We are entitled to know whether it was an Arab League Summit or an Israeli Summit.

And since when have Arab leaders ever taken a unified position, and since when have their decisions — that are prepared in advance in any case — had any value, apart from the 1991 Cairo Summit after Iraq invaded Kuwait on American orders?

Where was the Arab League during the Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip for 15 months, when Gaza was being completely destroyed; Palestinians were being killed in cold blood; and the genocide was being committed live on social media for the whole world to see? The organisation did not even dare to issue its usual bland statements of condemnation.

No one cares about these summits; they are useless events put on by a body that was pronounced dead after the US-led 2003invasion of Iraq; and buried during the Syrian revolution, the Russian-Iranian occupation of Syria, the Saudi invasion of Yemen, and the violent conflict in Libya. It has sat idly by and watched the ongoing Zionist aggression against the Palestinians; the Israeli desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque and Judaisation of Jerusalem; and normalisation with the occupation regime by some of its members following in the footsteps of Egypt and Jordan. The Arab League said nothing about such normalisation, because the dead don’t speak, and now the rulers of the Arab Zionist regimes control its remains. Palestine has been sold cheaply.

It’s a fact that the Arab League has never been known for its effectiveness on any Arab issue.

It held no firm position on Trump’s recognition of a unified Jerusalem as the “eternal capital” of the Zionist entity, and his move of the US Embassy to the city. It kept quiet when the same entity annexed the Syrian Golan Heights, a move endorsed by Trump. It also failed to resolve any internal disputes between the Arab states. Instead, it exacerbated the disputes and ignited Arab conflicts, according to the policy of the axes that controls it, and the superiority or dominance of one axis over another, especially after the “counter-revolution” axis became dominant, allowing Saudi Arabia and the UAE to use their money to control the organisation and its decisions.

READ: Trump shares AI video of his vision for Gaza’s future

True to the saying “money is power”, the standards and balances of power have been changed. The League’s compass deviated from its constants, and the term “Zionist enemy” was erased from its dictionary. Now we have reached the point where we miss the empty condemnations once issued after every Zionist transgression.

The Arab League was, in theory, a unifying body for the Arab countries, despite its ineffectiveness when it came to any of the vital issues concerning the Arab people. It was a living expression of the Arab conscience, of which the Palestinian cause was the strongest pillar and most important constant and principle, since its establishment, which predated the Palestinian Nakba by just over three years. Palestine was the main pillar of its structure, and it is credited with its continued survival for years, before it was assassinated by the Arab neo-Zionists who seized control of the organisation.

The League was not a body for the Arab people; it was for their regimes.

As such, it was never a thorn in the side of our enemies since its creation in March 1945, under the watch of the British mandate occupation, and at the hands of UK Foreign Minister Anthony Eden. He told the British House of Commons in February 1943 that the British government “shows sympathetic consideration to all action between the Arabs that aims to achieve their economic, cultural and political unity.” In a 1941 speech, he had called on the Arab world to help His Majesty’s government to strengthen the cultural, economic and political ties between the Arab countries.

Eden wanted to bribe the Arab countries during World War II to stand by the Allies through establishing a series of national entities of their own, far from their great Islamic entity, using or exploiting the instinct of races and ethnicities in people’s nature, to weaken and fragment the Islamic nation. He presented them with tempting promises of complete independence and the right to self-determination, which disappeared quickly as soon as Germany was defeated.

There is a big difference between Eden’s sympathetic view and Balfour’s sympathy for the “Jewish people”, despite them being cut from the same British cloth. They served the same cause, though; Balfour’s sympathy led to the establishment of the occupation state of Israel, while Eden’s tore the heart out of the Islamic nation. In the end, the Palestinian cause was lost in the corridors of power, despite the Islamic sanctities it involves, most notably Al-Aqsa Mosque.

With hindsight, we know that Britain didn’t help to create the occupation state and the Arab League out of any love for the Jews and the Arabs.

It was all to serve the interests of Britain and the West.

They needed watchdogs in the Middle East to protect oil supplies. Hence, the kingdoms and emirates and even the nominal republics, all of which act as representatives of the Crusader West in exchange for preserving their thrones.

If Eden’s League is escorted to its final resting place without any regrets, then his tyrannical regimes will also follow soon once the Arab people regain their revolutions and are liberated from the two occupations of their land: the usurper regimes in the Arab capitals and the Zionist usurper of Palestine.

The victory is near, God willing.

OPINION: Israel’s West Bank offensive looks very much like a prelude to annexation

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