كان لافتاً خلال قمة النقب نهاية مارس الماضي، والتي ضمّت كلاً من وزراء خارجية كل من مصر والإمارات والبحرين والولايات المتحدة، ذلك التجهم الذي كان يقيم على وجه وزير الخارجية المصري سامح شكري، خلافاً لزملائه، وتجلّى ذلك بالصورة التذكارية التي تم التقاطها لهم وهم يمسكون بأيدي بعضهم البعض تعبيراً عن التضامن، إذ اختصرت ابتسامة سامح شكري المواربة، الكثير من المعاني التي لا ينبغي القفز عنها في هذه المناسبة.

تبدو مصر عير منسجمة مع المشهد العام في هذه القمة، لأنّ مصالحها كدولة كبيرة في المنطقة تتعارض في كثير من الأحيان مع مصالح إسرائيل، فالقاهرة تعتبر نفسها زعيمة العالم العربي، ولذا لا يسرها أن يبادر الطرف الإسرائيلي للعب هذا الدور والذي تعدّه من أهم حقوقها وامتيازاتها، فالسلام المصري كان سلامًا يرمي إلى دفع مضار إسرائيل المتمثلة بالاستنزاف الدائم من خلال الحروب ولإرضاءً أكبر قوة في العالم “الولايات المتحدة”، وليس من أجل تمكينها من رقبة المنطقة، ولذا كان سلامًا باردًا على الدوام.

بالمقابل فإنّ السلام الإماراتي والبحريني يرمي إلى الاستفادة من قوة إسرائيل العسكرية في مواجهة إيران، بالإضافة إلى حضورها لدى الإدارة الأمريكية وقدرتها على التأثير على القرار الأمريكي المتصل بالشرق الأوسط لصالح هذه الدول، ولذا فهي معنية بعلاقة أكثر دفئًا من تلك التي نسجتها مصر.

إنّ الإسرائيليين يتحدثون عن التهديد النووي الإيراني منذ بداية التسعينيات من القرن الماضي، وحتى هذا اليوم لم نر لهذا التهديد المزعوم أي أثر في الواقع، بينما يُعتقد على نطاق واسع أنّ إسرائيل هي الوحيدة التي تمتلك السلاح النووي في الشرق الأوسط.

لقد نجحت إسرائيل من قبل بتخريب الاتفاق الدولي النووي مع إيران بقيادة الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية، ورغم ذلك لم تتراجع القوة الإيرانية، بل على العكس فقد أدخل الحصار الأمريكي لإيران، حلفاء الولايات المتحدة الذين يعتمدون على النفط الإيراني، في مصاعب اقتصادية دون جدوى، وها هي إسرائيل مرة أخرى تحاول وضع العصي في الدواليب وهي ترى أن الاتفاق النووي مع إيران على الأبواب.

إنّ إسرائيل تحاول اللعب على كل الحبال كما هو الحال دائماً، وقد رأينا كيف اتبعت سياسة زلقة في المواجهة الروسية الأوكرانية الأخيرة، محاولة عدم إغضاب أي من الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية أو روسيا أو أكورانيا، وهي أيضاً تعلم بأنّ التهديد الأكبر من وجهة النظر الأمريكية هو التهديد الصيني وليس الروسي، مع ذلك فإنّها تتبع نفس الأسلوب في علاقتها مع الصين.

إنّ المصالح المزعومة بين إسرائيل والخليجيين ليست مصالح اقتصادية بكل تأكيد، فهذه الدول وخصوصاً الإمارات لديها من القدرة الاقتصادية ما يجعلها بغنى عن الاستثمارات والأموال المتوقع جنيها من إسرائيل، بل هي مصالح أمنيّة بالمقام الأول والأخير، وذلك بسبب استشعار هذه الدول انحسار الاهتمام الأمريكي بالمنطقة، وخوفهم من ارتفاع المظلة الأمريكية الأمنيّة عنها، ولذا شهدنا تحولاً في سياستها تجاه كل من الصين وروسيا، والتي أصبحت أكثر دفئاً في الآونة الأخيرة، وهنا نفهم كيف ولماذا تجتمع هذه الدول مع إسرائيل. إنّ ما يجمع هذه الأطراف هو نفس الشعور بالقلق من منطقة ليست تحت الحماية الأمريكية، تهيمن عليها دول إقليمية كبيرة مثل إيران، بينما لا نجد نفس القلق لدى مصر والتي عبرت عن هذا الموقف بوضوح.

رغم اختيار قادة الدول الثلاث التركيز على التهديد الإيراني، اختار المصري المخالفة والتأكيد أن مصالحه لا تنسجم بالضرورة مع مصالح إسرائيل والإمارات والبحرين، ولذا أكّد أنّه لم يأت لبناء تحالفات ضد أحد.

كان من الملحوظ غياب الأطراف المعنية بالعلاقة مع إسرائيل عن اللقاء، إذا استثنينا مصر، فسوريا ولبنان بطبيعة الحال لم يكن لهما يومًا علاقة مع إسرائيل، ولكن الملفت أن تغيب الأردن صاحبة أطول خط حدود مع إسرائيل، والسلطة الفلسطينية صاحبة العلاقة المباشرة عن اللقاء، بل أنّ السلطة على لسان رئيس وزرائها محمد اشتية وجهت انتقادات حادة للدول العربية المشاركة في القمة.

كما أنّ مصر عملت منذ بداية الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، على محاولة جعل نفسها البوابة الحصرية للموضوع الفلسطيني وخاضت من أجل هذا صراعات مع الفصائل الفلسطينية نفسها والدول المجاورة، وهي ترى أن هذا الملف من الأوراق الهامة المتبقية في يدها في ظل تراجع تأثيرها في إفريقيا والإقليم.

إذن لماذا جاء سامح شكري إلى اللقاء رغم كل هذه الاعتبارات التي تم ذكرها؟

يمكن القول بأنّ نظام الرئيس عبد الفتاح السيسي، قد تجاوز أزمة الشرعية التي واجهته بداية حكمه، وأصبح خصومه من الإخوان المسلمين وبقية قوى الثورة ذكرى من الماضي أو يكادون، ولكن التحدي الأول اليوم أمام الدولة المصرية هو تحدي التنمية والرخاء الاقتصادي الذي طالما وعد به السيسي الشعب المصري، ورغم الإنجازات الملحوظة التي حققها نظام السيسي في مجال الطرق والبنية التحتية فإنّ الاقتصاد المصري ما زال اقتصادًا هشًا بحاجة إلى الدعم الخارجي والذي يأتي عادة من دول الخليج.

لقد كانت فترة وباء كورونا قاسية على كثير من الاقتصادات وجاءت المواجهة العسكرية في أوكرانيا لتزيد الطين بلة، فارتفعت فاتورة الطاقة والغذاء بشكل كبير مما أثر على سعر الجنيه المصري، فبادرت دول الخليج وعلى رأسها السعودية والإمارات إلى دعم الاقتصاد المصري بالودائع وشراء أسهم بعض الشركات المصرية، في ظل وضع من هذا النوع يمكن أن يضرب الاستقرار في مصر، فإنّ الموقف المصري المتحفّظ تجاه إسرائيل وطبيعية توزع الأدوار في المنطقة بالعادة، يحتمل هذا النوع من المناورة الممزوجة بالامتعاض.

لا شك بأنّ الخليجيين والإسرائيليين يدركون أنّ مصر ليست عاجزة عن إعادة التموضع في أي وقت، وإعادة خلط الأوراق الكثيرة التي بين يديها، وخصوصًا ورقة العلاقة مع تركيا والتي لها طموحات كبيرة في شرق المتوسط يمكن أن تلتقي بسهولة مع المصالح المصرية.

إذن هل يمكن التعويل إسرائيلياً على الدور الخليجي والمغربي، أم أنّ العنوان الصحيح ما زال في مصر وتركيا؟ لا بدّ أنّ الإسرائيليين يعرفون ما يجري بدقة على المستوى الإقليمي والمحلي، وأنّ إعادة توزيع الأدوار يمكن أن تحصل في أي وقت ولن تكون في صالحهم على الأرجح، ولكنهم يعتقدون فيما يبدو أنّ ما زال لديهم بعض الوقت قبل انتهاء لعبة المشي على الحبل المشدود.

المصدر: المركز الفلسطيني للإعلام

t was noticeable during the Negev Summit, which took place at the end March, that frown on the face of the Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, unlike his colleagues, from the UAE, Bahrain and the United States, particularly in the memorial photo while they were holding each other’s hands as an expression of solidarity. Sameh Shoukry’s equivocal smile summed up many meanings that should not be skipped.

Egypt appears inconsistent with the general scene, because its interests as a major state in the region often conflict with Israel. Cairo considers itself the leader of the Arab world, and therefore it is not pleased that the Israeli side takes the initiative to play this role, which it considers one of its most important rights and privileges. The Egyptian peace was a peace aimed at repelling Israel’s harms represented by permanent attrition through wars and to satisfy the largest power in the world “the United States”, and not to make it the master of the region, and therefore it was always a cold peace.

Are the Israelis ready to fight the wars of others?
On the other hand, the Emirati and Bahraini peace aims to benefit from Israel’s military power in the face of Iran, in addition to its preference with the American administration and its ability to influence the American decision related to the Middle East in favor of these countries. Therefore, they are interested in a warmer relationship than the one that Egypt has forged.

The Israelis have been talking about the Iranian nuclear threat since the beginning of the nineties of the last century, and to this day we have not seen this alleged threat in reality, while it is widely believed that Israel is the only one possessing nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Israel had succeeded before in sabotaging the international nuclear agreement with Iran led by the United States of America, and despite that, Iranian power did not retreat. On the contrary, the American blockade of Iran made the allies of the United States who depend on Iranian oil, suffer from economic difficulties, and here is Israel once again, trying to put sticks in the wheels, as she believes that the nuclear agreement with Iran is at the door.

Israel is trying to play on all the ropes as always, as we have seen how it followed a slippery policy in the recent Russian-Ukrainian confrontation, trying not to anger any of the United States of America, Russia or Ukraine, and it also follows the same method in its relationship with China.

The alleged interests between Israel and the Gulf states are certainly not economic interests. These countries, especially the UAE, have the economic capacity, which makes them not in need for the investments and money expected to be reaped from Israel. Rather, they are security interests in the first and last place, due to these countries’ sense of the decline in American interest in the region, and their fear from the disappearance of the American security umbrella. This might explain why we witnessed a shift in their policy towards both China and Russia, which have become warmer recently, and here we understand how and why these countries meet with Israel. What unites these countries is the same concern about a region that is not under American protection, dominated by large regional countries such as Iran, while we do not find the same concern in Egypt, which clearly expressed this position.

Although the leaders of the three countries chose to focus on the Iranian threat, the Egyptian foreign minister chose to disagree and assert that his interests do not necessarily coincide with the interests of Israel, the UAE and Bahrain, and therefore he stressed that he did not come to build alliances against anyone.

It was noticeable that the parties concerned with the relationship with Israel were absent from the meeting, if we exclude Egypt. Syria and Lebanon, of course, had never had a relationship with Israel. However, it is noteworthy that Jordan, which has the longest border line with Israel, and the Palestinian Authority, which is the first concerned, were absent from the meeting. The Palestinian Authority, in the words of its Prime Minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, sharply criticized the Arab countries participating in the summit.

Moreover, since the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Egypt has tried to make itself the exclusive gateway to the Palestinian issue, and for this purpose it has waged conflicts with the Palestinian factions themselves and the neighboring countries. It considers this file as one of the important papers left in its hand in light of the decline in its influence in Africa and the region.

So why did Sameh Shoukry come to the meeting despite all these considerations that were mentioned?
It can be said that the regime of President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has overcome the legitimacy crisis that faced him at the beginning of his rule, and his opponents from the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest of the revolution forces have become a memory from the past or almost, but the first challenge today before the Egyptian state is the challenge of development and economic prosperity that Sisi has always promised the people Despite the remarkable achievements made by the Sisi regime in the field of roads and infrastructure, the Egyptian economy is still a fragile economy that needs external support, which usually comes from the Gulf countries.

The period of the Corona epidemic was harsh for many economies, and the military confrontation in Ukraine came to make matters worse, so the energy and food bills rose significantly, which affected the price of the Egyptian pound. In light of a situation of this kind that could destabilize Egypt, the conservative Egyptian stance towards Israel and the roles major states play in the region, tolerates this kind of maneuvering mixed with resentment.

There is no doubt that the Gulf states and the Israelis are aware that Egypt is not incapable of repositioning at any time, and re-mixing the many cards in its hands, especially the card of the relationship with Turkey, which has great ambitions in the eastern Mediterranean, and could easily meet with Egyptian interests.

So, is it possible to rely on the Gulf and Moroccan role, or is the correct title still in Egypt and Turkey? The Israelis must know exactly what is going on at the regional and local level, and that the redistribution of roles can happen at any time and is not likely to be in their favor, but they seem to think that they still have some time before the tightrope game is over.

According to Reuters, France summoned the Russian ambassador last week over a cartoon on Twitter that “mocked Europe”. The cartoon which angered the French government depicted Europe as a body on a table with characters representing the US and EU jabbing needles into it. It was the French, remember, who lectured 1.5 billion Muslims on free speech in the face of the scandalous Charlie Hebdo magazine publishing offensive cartoons supposedly of the Prophet of Islam. The same government described the Russian social media post as “unacceptable” and “completely inappropriate”.

This incident is one of many that reflect the hypocrisy of the West. Indeed, amidst the tragedies of the war in Ukraine, those who have been treated as sub-humans by Western governments and media, especially Muslims and Palestinians, can now say with confidence that they feel vindicated for complaining about such double standards over many years.

For the past three centuries, Europe has been able to paint the whole world with its own brush, judging everyone according to European culture, standards and needs. In this Europeanised world, all those who follow the European model are regarded as modern and civilised, while those who maintain a modicum of self-respect and desire to live by their own standards and cultures are labelled as backward and savages; human beings still in the making. This much was evident in the mainstream Western media and comments by politicians, not all from the far right, about the situation in Ukraine.

One of the issues which was followed closely in the Middle East is how warmly Ukrainian refugees have been received by European officials and people. Refugees from other parts of the world, especially those from Syria and Iraq, have been discriminated against by those same governments, which call them backward and potential criminals and terrorists. Ukrainian refugees are highly educated and well-trained, we are told.

The absurd claim has been made that Europe is not used to such scenes of war and destruction, which are more suited to places like the Middle East. Where did most of the fighting take place during World War One? And World War Two? Do the people of Europe really have such short memories?

All of this creates a lot of bitterness in the hearts of people in the Arab world. For many years, the tragedies in the region have been caused, stoked and made worse by Western aggression stemming from a colonialist mindset that worked systematically to block any political reforms by supporting autocrats and tyrants who derive their legitimacy from foreign support rather than democratic elections.

Arabs and Muslims were not responsible for the major human tragedies in history, such as the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism, the two World Wars, the Holocaust and the use of nuclear bombs against Japan. And yet they have always been presented as inherently violent and evil. The Arab and Muslim lands are not recognised as the birthplace of major human civilisations, but as a natural battlefield for perpetual and ultimately futile wars in the interest of Western powers.

In the “war against terrorism”, it is overlooked that Muslims in the Middle East have been the main victims of terrorist acts, which many believe have been stage-managed and financed by Western intelligence agencies. It can be argued that Arab Muslims are double victims of terrorism: first when their children have been radicalised at the cost of their future, and again when the same children are taught to turn their guns on their own people and kill men, women and children indiscriminately, even in mosques and hospitals. This is not Islam, unless you believe all that you see and hear from Western politicians and media.

The arrogance of the “post-Enlightenment” West produced the vanity of Francis Fukuyama’s The End of the History and the Last Man, which is no less than late-20th century cultural Darwinism. Such thinking is not an exception; it is inherent within Western culture and media. We in the Middle East did not need the late Edward Said to tell us that, because we have been living it and dealing with its destructive consequences for the past three centuries.

The mixed feeling of sympathy and schadenfreude cannot escape the eye. Sympathy with the Ukrainian men, women and children who have lost their homes and loved ones; who share the same tragedies as so many Arabs and Muslims, such as the Palestinians, the Afghans, the Syrians, the Yemenis and the Iraqis. They are not alone. And schadenfreude for the tormenters, the usurpers and hypocritical Western policy makers. The feeling that it’s time for all those who have played the game of divide and rule with us, and encouraged aggression against us, to jump on each other’s throats as they have done many times over the centuries and leave us alone.

I am not sure where the military confrontation in Ukraine is heading. To a new world order, as many tend to think; European civil war; or a limited confrontation that will soon end with a peace of sorts imposed? My own hope is that it will be an opportunity for those who still see the world through colonialist eyes to revise their foreign policies and create an even better chance for peace in Europe and beyond.

SOURCE:
Middle East Monitor