A trend of missed opportunities to resolve the Palestinian issue, the latest of which was the boycott of the Bahrain Economic Peace Conference on June 25-26, which the Palestinian Authority made no attempt to engage with, makes us wonder whether Palestinian leaders are really serious about the liberation and establishment of an independent Palestinian state or whether partisan and personal interests are more important.

The Arab Gulf States endure continued flak from the Palestinians, from the burning of their flags and pictures of their rulers to the repeated accusation of treason despite the billions of dollars spent by these countries in support of the Palestinians.  

Let us pause for thought: Is liberation in such a hostile climate in the interests of the Arab Gulf States or will it produce a system similar to Saddam Hussein, the mullah regime or a Muslim Brotherhood government, which could threaten national security in the Arab Gulf States?

Given the litany of insults and lack of sound judgement and political wisdom, it is extremely surprising that Palestinian academics such as Mohammed S. Dajani Daoudi consider “Arab oil-producing countries” obliged to fund the Palestinian quest for sovereignty, which he refers to in his article “From Paralysis to Action: A Peace Plan for Palestinians and Israelis to Consider.” Some might wonder whether it should be compulsory for “Arab oil-producing countries” to continue supporting the Palestinians given these assaults, alliances with their enemies and a continued rejection of any solution. 

Want to tell your story? Now you can! We’re open to general submissions. Please visit our submission guidelines for details! https://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/contribute/

The Palestinian Authority (PA) and other political forces defended their decision not to attend the Bahrain Conference by saying that political matters needed to first be resolved before discussions could be had about economic issues. But history shows us that many conferences focused on the economy have taken place where political differences had not first been resolved.

For instance, on April 21, 1965, Tunisian President Habib Bourguiba presented a peace proposal on the basis of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Bourguiba explained in a speech in Jericho on March 3, 1965 that what was needed was a “policy of stages” to achieve the aims of the Palestinians rather than adopting a policy of “all or nothing.” Essentially he was advocating a bit more “take and demand.”

Bourguiba was accused of liquidating the Palestinian issue and Gamal Abdel Nasser attacked him for being a “traitor and maniac.” There is a long history of Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, attacking each and every reasoned proposal and applauding slogans. A direct result of this was the Six-Day War of 1967, in which Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, Jordan lost the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Syria lost the Golan Heights.

At the Camp David Summit in 2000, US President Bill Clinton brought together Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat. The Summit’s proposal included the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state covering approximately 92 per cent of the West Bank and 100 per cent of the Gaza Strip with some regional compensation for Palestinians. The proposals also included some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from Israeli territory, the dismantling of most settlements, the establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, the return of refugees to a potential Palestinian state and the international community’s commitment to an expansive refugee rehabilitation program. 

However, Arafat rejected all these proposals because a policy of “all or nothing” has long dominated the Palestinian leadership.

This repeated rejection of solutions on account of following an “all or nothing” policy, despite all the defeats and losses, leads us to analyze the ideologies of the Palestinian factions, which we find are divided into two camps: one is dominated by Arab nationalism and also includes leftist and communist ideologies, the other by political Islam, such as that espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The factions that belong to the Arab nationalist and leftist camp are: Fatah, Force 17 (Palestine), Tanzim (Palestine), Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The factions that belong to the Political Islam camp are Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine.

We find that both camps are revolutionary and are not consistent with the pragmatic approach of the Arab Gulf States, which tends to be more focused on development and peace-building.  

Another key difference is that the Arab nationalist camp is more devious. For example, Yasser Arafat pretended that he was aligned with the Arab Gulf States, but he supported Saddam Hussein during the invasion of Kuwait. There is the same tendency with Mahmoud Abbas, head of the PA, who delivers conference speeches glorifying the Arab Gulf States, but does nothing when the flags of Arab Gulf States are burned and Arab Gulf rulers are insulted by Palestinians in mosques and even at weddings. In contrast, Abbas vociferously opposed the Bahrain Conference, accusing it of being a “big lie” and declaring any Palestinian participant in the Conference to be a spy. This complete lack of diplomacy has served only to insult Bahrain and all the Arab Gulf States who participated in the Conference.

Moreover, the PA’s security pursued those Palestinian businessmen that participated in the Conference, such as Ashraf Al-Jabari, Ashraf Ghanem, Khaldoun al-Husseini, Saleh Abu Mayyaleh, Marwan al-Zubaidi and Jeris al-Taweel. This prompted some of them to flee the Palestinian territories for fear of arrest if they returned.

Against this backdrop of antagonism with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab Gulf States, a delegation of the Hamas leadership visited Iran despite all the escalation and provocations carried out by the Iranian regime in the Arab Gulf region. What worries many citizens of the Arab Gulf States (Khaleejis) is the fate of the Al-Aqsa Mosque if it is run by leaders allied to hostile regimes that support armed militias.

In fact, we can see that these ideologically militant factions, whether nationalist or Islamist, are not interested in the establishment of a state or the liberation of a homeland, striving instead only for those who support their ideologies and interests. This might explain the hatred towards the Arab Gulf States despite the billions of dollars in financial aid given to the Palestinian cause and the lack of any diplomatic relations with Israel.  

In contrast, countries with diplomatic ties with Israel such as Turkey or regimes that have given the Palestinian issue only empty words and used it to their advantage, such as the mullahs in Iran and the Ba’athist nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad, have received praise from Palestinian factions and their followers.

The only Arab Gulf state that has understood this game is Qatar, or, more precisely, the ideological Hammadin regime that serves those factions and supports their path. Qatar supports Hamas not to help them liberate Palestine, but to promulgate the ideology of political Islam especially that of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ideology is more important to Hamas than patriotism.

There is widespread disbelief among many Khaleejis that Qatar, which maintains ties with Israel both openly and secretly and which helps Israel construct settlements, receives nothing but praise from Palestinian factions, while the rest of the Arab Gulf States boycott Israel but are insulted and hated no matter what. Understanding the importance of ideology in Palestinian politics helps explain this.

It is clear that the Arab Gulf States cannot continue to support the Palestinians under this corrupt leadership and with these ideological factions. There must be alternative Palestinian parties that include businessmen and practitioners whose vision is compatible with the Arab Gulf States’ pragmatic vision of state-building.

This hatred towards Arab Gulf States has shaken the confidence of many Arab Gulf intellectuals and officials. Although the States have historically made excuses for the Palestinians’ insults and lack of gratitude, their patience has begun to dwindle.

Sami al-Nesf, a former Kuwaiti Information Minister, tweeted on July 22:

“One is puzzled to understand what some are doing because it is completely contrary to common sense. For example, those who complain about the occupation should not cheer for Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait, which is one million times worse than their occupation. It is also assumed that those who complain of being deprived of visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque sometimes not to deprive others of the visit and abuse them [referring here to the Saudi blogger who visited Al-Aqsa Mosque and was attacked by Palestinians with Saudi Arabia also being insulted, although it was a private visit].”

Another Saudi journalist, Mohammed Al-Sheikh, tweeted:

“If Abu Mazen seriously pursued those who are against us in Gaza and the West Bank, those attackers would think a thousand times over before spreading their insults, but as they say, “I did not command it and it did not bother me.”

Most Khaleejis question the fate of the billions spent on this issue and why Saudi Arabia pays the salaries of Palestinian diplomats around the world, with only insults and machinations in return. A recent official apology from the PA for insults against Saudi Arabia was more of a diplomatic gesture, because what is happening on the ground demonstrates that the problem runs deeper than mere insults with a hateful ideology against the Arab Gulf States permeating Palestinian education, the media and every child’s upbringing.

Therefore, the most important thing that the Arab Gulf States must do is to find a sincerely pragmatic Palestinian group that is free of ideology and partisan interests that can cooperate with them to formulate a state-building strategy. Palestine was never an independent state in its history even before 1948. It was under the rule of the Ottomans before it came under a British Mandate, so the concept of an independent Palestinian state has been absent throughout history. The significance then of the Bahrain Conference was not only to promote peace for prosperity, but also to remove the militia mentality from the Palestinian public conscience and to start establishing state institutions.

Therefore, the Arab Gulf States should seriously look for alternative Palestinian parties to resolve the Palestinian question because the current leadership and factions are not genuine in their commitments. So-called “Arab oil-producing countries” should not be taken advantage of by corrupt leaders, who have no intention of building a Palestinian state.

History has taught us that ideological factions do not understand the meaning of patriotism and that their personal interests are prioritized above all else. Therefore, support from the Arab Gulf States for such a corrupt leadership is not in the interests of national security and will certainly not lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state before the Day of Judgment.

Want to tell your story? Now you can! We’re open to general submissions. Please visit our submission guidelines for details! https://www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/contribute/

Najat AlSaied is a Saudi academic and a graduate in media studies from the University of Westminster, London-UK (October 2013). Follow her on Twitter @Najat_AlSaeed. Read other articles by Najat.