The Dynamics of the U.S. Shaky Landscape and its Implications for the Middle East

Ahmed Mostafa

Benjamin Netanyahu’s relationship with the U.S. administration and Congress, despite the gravity of accusations against him, including potential war crimes as outlined by the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding his actions in Gaza, presents a complex interplay of political alignment, strategic interests, and diplomatic maneuvering.

Netanyahu has long positioned himself as a key ally in the Middle East for the United States, often leveraging Israel’s strategic importance in a region marked by instability and conflict. This relationship has seen bipartisan support, historically rooted in shared democratic values and significant military and economic interests.

Despite the ICC’s stance labeling some of his actions as genocidal, which raises profound ethical and legal questions, many American lawmakers remain cautious in their approach, often prioritizing national security and geopolitical considerations over human rights violations. The political landscape in Washington is further complicated by the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups, which wield considerable power in shaping U.S. foreign policy. These groups advocate for continued support of Israel, framing it as essential to U.S. interests in the region.

Moreover, Netanyahu skillfully navigates these circumstances by emphasizing common threats, such as terrorism, and showcasing Israel as a critical partner in combating these dangers, which helps to deflect scrutiny of his government’s military actions. The interplay of these factors creates a situation where, despite serious allegations and legal ramifications from international bodies, Netanyahu continues to receive support and engagement from significant sectors of the American political establishment.

His ability to articulate a narrative that aligns Israel’s security needs with U.S. strategic interests often prevails over the moral and legal implications of his actions, reflecting the complexities and contradictions inherent in international relations and foreign policy decision-making. This dynamic raises unsettling questions about accountability, justice, and the role of international legal norms in the face of political expediency, ultimately highlighting a troubling aspect of global governance where power and alliances can overshadow the pursuit of justice for those affected by war crimes.

Is the presence of Netanyahu in the USA and Congress’s invitation to him to give a speech a moral or legal action?

The question regarding the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the USA and his subsequent invitation to address Congress invites a complex discussion on the realms of morality and legality. The answer to whether such actions are both moral and legal cannot be easily distilled into a simple yes or no. Instead, it necessitates a deeper examination of the context, historical precedents, and impact on diplomatic relations and domestic politics.

Legally, the invitation of foreign dignitaries to speak before Congress falls under the purview of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the right to regulate its proceedings. Under this umbrella, the House of Representatives and the Senate have the authority to invite individuals to address joint sessions. The procedures for such invitations do not explicitly require the consent of the executive branch. This means that as long as an invitation is extended following internal congressional protocols, it can be considered legal within the framework of U.S. law.

However, the morality of such an invitation is more nuanced. When considering the moral implications, one must take into account the potential domestic and international repercussions. The U.S. is often seen as a neutral mediator in Middle East peace negotiations, and inviting a high-ranking foreign political figure, especially one with controversial policies, can potentially bias the perception of America’s role. This could lead to strained diplomatic relations with other nations in the region, potentially impacting ongoing negotiations and peaceful resolutions.

Moreover, the issue of morality also intersects with the democratic principles and values that the U.S. purports to uphold. An invitation that appears to interfere with the domestic politics of another country or one that is seen as an overtly partisan act can be criticized as a breach of international norms and ethics. For instance, if the invitation is perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of an election in a foreign country, it could be morally questionable, especially if such actions could destabilize the democratic processes in that nation.

Furthermore, the content of the speech itself can raise moral questions. If the themes discussed touch on issues that are sensitive to certain groups or perpetuate narratives that are divisive or harmful, the moral dimension of the invitation becomes increasingly significant. The role of Congress as a representative body demands that its actions adhere to a standard that promotes unity, human rights, and international cooperation.

What should the Arab and Islamic Worlds do to confront the USA and Israel? What are the possible scenarios to follow in terms of procedures and alliances?

The Arab and Islamic worlds are currently facing significant challenges in their endeavor to confront the policies of the United States and Israel. This confrontation is multifaceted, encompassing political, economic, and military dimensions. Considering the power asymmetry between the Arab and Islamic countries on one side and the United States and Israel on the other, the need for strategic planning and alliances becomes crucial to mitigate the consequences of potential conflicts and safeguard territorial sovereignty.

One key aspect of the strategy would be the strengthening of political unity and coherence among Arab and Islamic states. This would entail fostering a common understanding through frequent intergovernmental dialogues and summits. These forums could be used for the establishment of consensus and the drafting of a unified position towards various issues such as Palestine, the nuclear question, and regional conflicts. This political cohesion would greatly enhance their bargaining power on the global stage and provide them with a clear voice in international forums like the United Nations.

Economically, Arab and Islamic states can seek diversification and cooperation in various sectors. For example, the OPEC countries can mobilize their collective influence on oil prices, potentially using it as leverage in the international arena. Enhancing economic interdependence among Muslim-majority countries could also increase their overall resilience to external pressures. Developing industries in areas like technology, manufacturing, and agriculture could reduce their dependence on Western markets, while economic cooperation could lead to the creation of new trade blocs and strengthen their bargaining power.

Military alliances are also a significant factor. Boosting their military capabilities with a significant investment in defense and strategic partnerships with countries like Russia and China could offset the military supremacy of the U.S. and Israel to a certain extent. Collaborative defense systems, shared intelligence, and joint military exercises would strengthen the defensive posture of Arab and Islamic nations, dissuading overt aggression from adversarial powers.

Moreover, soft power diplomacy should be prioritized. The promotion of Islamic culture, education, and diplomacy could create a positive image of the Arab and Islamic worlds. Activities like language and culture exchange programs with Western states could foster better understanding and reduce Western animosity towards Arab and Islamic states. International legal actions and advocacy at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) could also be utilized against human rights violations.

Concerning alliances, it is essential to strengthen ties with countries that share common interests. Potential bilateral and multilateral relations could be established with Iran, Turkey, and other Islamic countries, alongside China, Russia, and potentially even non-allied states that have issues with Western hegemony. These alliances could be formal moral support or practical security and military alliances.

Nonetheless, while building coalitions and structures for strategic defense, the importance of keeping the humanitarian aspect in mind cannot be overlooked. Thus, large-scale development projects in areas under threat or with significant Muslim populations could help mitigate the impacts of conflict.

Lastly, they should aim to engage in diplomatic negotiations. While establishing strong countries and alliances is important, engaging in diplomacy to foster peaceful solutions to conflict would be the most advantageous path of confrontation. The approaches should aim to open discussions, not just to negotiate agreements, but to also try to understand the motives and concerns of their counterparts. This would enable the Arab and Islamic countries to present their counter-narratives more convincingly in the international forums.

China did a magnificent job concerning the latest Palestinian reconciliation between the factions

China’s diplomatic skills have indeed made a significant impact on the volatile global political landscape, particularly in the Middle East. In the context of the Palestinian reconciliation efforts, China’s diplomatic overtures have effectively facilitated breakthroughs in ongoing political rifts, demonstrating their prowess in international mediation. Much like its role in fostering dialogue between Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), China has risen to the occasion, applying a sophisticated understanding of regional dynamics whilst simultaneously respecting national sovereignty and the complex web of historical enmities and alliances.

The Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, have been confronting each other in a decades-long dispute that has weakened the Palestinian cause on the international stage. This rancor has not only distracted from the central issue—namely the Israeli occupation—but also undermined the efficacy of the Palestinian claim to statehood. China’s involvement in reconciling these factions has been crucial, allowing for a more united front against the formidable challenges posed by Israel and the United States.

Through a combination of strategic dialogue and economic diplomacy, China has not only strengthened its position as a key player in regional affairs but also indirectly bolstered the Arab stance. This is particularly noteworthy in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, where the traditionally unwavering support of the U.S. for Israel often tilts the balance significantly away from an equitable resolution. In such a scenario, China’s diplomatic successes in the region not only act as a counterweight to U.S. influence but also demonstrate the potential for multilateral diplomacy to ease tensions in the Middle East.

When we compare China’s role in the reconciliation of Iran and KSA, the parallels become obvious. Both these nations have been bitter rivals in the region, with the Sunni-Shia divide fueling their discord. China’s ability to bring these archenemies to the negotiating table and forge a tentative path for rapprochement is exceedingly commendable. This success, in turn, underscores China’s growing clout as a diplomatic broker and highlights its potential in resolving seemingly intractable conflicts.

In both instances, notably in the Palestinian reconciliation and the Iran-KSA dialogue, China has favored a stance that promotes dialogue and mutual respect rather than imposing conditions or taking a confrontational approach. This diplomatic finesse not only earns China goodwill in the region but also creates a favorable international image as a responsible and constructive global player. Moreover, this strategy contributes indirectly to the Arab cause by pushing back against U.S. and Israeli pressure while allowing for greater regional autonomy in settling their disputes.

At a deeper level, China’s involvement in these regions signals a shift in the geopolitical balance of power. As China asserts itself, the role of the U.S. and its dominion in the Middle East may diminish, leading to new power dynamics and, potentially, to a more balanced environment for conflict resolution. This shift reflects the importance of having multiple players in the field of international diplomacy, each bringing its unique perspectives, influences, and competencies to the table, thereby fostering a more diverse and potentially fairer approach to global politics.

In Conclusion, The US Constitution allows foreign leaders to address Congress, but the moral implications are complex and require a careful evaluation of their alignment with the country’s commitment to international diplomacy, democracy, and ethical standards. Arab and Islamic nations may employ a multi-pronged defense strategy, including political unity, economic self-reliance, strategic military alliances, soft power diplomacy, and international legal action, to confront the US and Israel. China’s growing influence in the Middle East, particularly in mediating between Iran and Saudi Arabia, demonstrates its growing influence and the need for the global order to adapt to changing power dynamics.