Arab leaders have only one interest and it is not the Ummah. It is money.
Radwan Murtada is a Beirut-based journalist who has written for Al Akhbar since 2007 and has contributed to many foreign media outlets on political, criminal, social and judiciary affairs in Lebanon and the wider region
Cross-posted from Scheer Post
Photo: Wikipedia (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
In the aftermath of the Israeli war on Lebanon, a whisper began circulating in political corridors: the possibility that Lebanon might join the Abraham Accords. This surfaced even before US envoy Tom Barrack floated direct negotiations with Israel – a proposition Beirut rejected in favor of the established “mechanism” of indirect talks mediated by Washington.
Today, the evidence shows that Washington is not pushing for immediate normalization with Tel Aviv, but rather for direct negotiations over an “American paper” as a first step on the so‑called “peace” road. The paradox is stark; these calls for peace ignore the reality on the ground with continued acts of aggression.
Israel has yet to honor a ceasefire, while voices in Lebanon are calling for peace with a party that remains at war. That contradiction traps advocates of “diplomatic solutions” in a genuine dilemma.
Indeed, Lebanon’s army commander, Rudolphe Haikal, found himself forced to order fire on Israeli drones violating Lebanese airspace, before the president instructed him to respond to any ground incursion following the incident in which Israeli troops stormed the southern village of Blida, and killed a civilian municipality employee in his sleep.
When ‘peace’ equals ‘surrender’
Two years on from the launch of Operation Al‑Aqsa Flood in October 2023, after the Israel’s atrocious massacres and genocidal war on Gaza that killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, and the war on Lebanon that also killed thousands of Lebanese, the question of peace resurfaces in Arab discourse. Amid renewed calls for peace with Israel from Arab states and media, one truth is unavoidable: peace from a position of weakness does not end domination; rather, it often enshrines it.
Peace under those terms does not reverse the equation of power unless the strong acknowledges a partner of equal standing. That is not Israel’s agenda. Tel Aviv does not seek equal peace; it seeks domination and expansion.
The late, martyred Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani captured this succinctly when asked why he rejected dialogue with Israel. His response:
“What is the point of dialogue between the sword and the neck?”
What kind of dialogue exists when the strong alone hold the decision‑making power while the weak simply ask?
The more accurate question is: is Israel even seeking a just settlement that ends occupation and establishes sustainable peace – or is it instead forging security–economic arrangements that cement its superiority and require Arab and Palestinian submission in return for what is misleadingly called “peace”?
On 21 January 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over all the territory west of the Jordan [River],” which directly contradicts the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state.
This political posture coincides with unprecedented settlement acceleration. Reports by European and UN agencies show that 2023–2024 recorded record levels of settlement and land seizure in the occupied West Bank, erasing even the possibility of the two‑state solution.
In the Arab world today – especially in Lebanon – media lines now say: “We want peace”; “It’s not a crime to ask for peace”; “Breaking the taboos is a duty.”
Lebanese broadcaster Marcel Ghanem declared in his program opener: “Break the taboos … we cannot endure more procrastination … Yes, we demand peace. It’s not a crime to demand peace.” Makram Rabah, managing editor at Now Lebanon and an Assistant Professor at the American University of Beirut (AUB), opined that “There is no shame in peace when peace is made by a sovereign people. The only shame is to keep dying for the wars of others.”
The desire for peace is not in itself misguided. But what if the other party views peace only as a tool to deepen its dominance, further subjugate the region’s people, and seize their wealth and land? When ‘peace agreements’ are signed by a weak actor conceding massively while the strong retains its colonial structure, then peace becomes absolute surrender. That dynamic reinforces the notion that Israel loses far more in peace than in war – hence “peace,” properly defined, is a threat to Israel.
The Qatar model of mediator-enabled domination
Far from the frontlines, the state of Qatar invested in its role as an international broker with ties to Washington and indirectly to Israel. The UN in March 2022 designated Qatar as a “Major Non‑NATO Ally” (MNNA).
On paper, such a status grants Doha special defense and security privileges. Qatar sponsored talks, funded aid to Gaza, invested in Israeli business ventures, and maintained strong relations with the US, which uses Al‑Udeid Air Base as a major forward hub.
The irony: despite this strategic positioning, Qatar still found itself targeted by Israel. On 9 September 2025, Israel carried out a strike in Doha targeting members of a Hamas negotiation delegation inside Qatar. That raises a foundational question: as long as Israel attacks even a mediator with no record of fighting it, can its aggressive nature ever change?
Qatar’s experience shows: for “peace” to have meaning, it cannot simply be the weaker party’s initiative – it must be sought and accepted by the strong. Otherwise, it is meaningless.
Consider the example of the Palestinian Authority (PA) led by Mahmoud Abbas. Over decades, it has become a security partner to Israel – coordinating in the occupied West Bank, detaining resistance cadres, handing over lists, and cooperating under the label of “security coordination.”
Yet Israel accuses it of “funding terrorism” because of prisoner stipends. Even full collaboration, it seems, does not guarantee peace; submission remains the default.
In contrast, the model of the UAE shows a different dynamic: normalization with Israel based on economy and investment, not justice or the end of hegemony. When the weaker becomes an economic partner, “peace” turns into a lucrative commodity for the strong – peace defined as “a service to the strong in return for temporary stability.”
In Sudan, the third Arab state to join the Abraham Accords, Israel never saw Khartoum as a strategic partner; it was a security outpost to monitor the Red Sea and trafficking routes. Normalization came “from above,” not from equal partners.
This shows that Israel is not opposed to peace – but it is opposed to ‘equal’ peace, or peace that transforms power relations.
Historic peace treaties, but no justice
Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in March 1979, which mandated Israel’s full withdrawal from the Sinai within three years, and created security arrangements and demilitarized zones. Despite formal normalization since 1980, the relationship is widely described as a “cold peace.” The maxim remains: Arab state signatures do not equate to popular normalization.
On the ground, rare but illuminating security incidents illustrate the fragility, such as June 2023 and May 2024 near Rafah. Meanwhile, energy cooperation deepened: Egypt, Israel, and the EU signed an agreement on 15 June 2022 to expand Egyptian gas exports via liquefaction plants.
The reality is a dual image of security–energy partnership coupled with popular resistance. That balance illustrates how “peace” as currently structured serves Tel Aviv’s security and energy needs – not Palestinian justice.
Jordan offers another case. Its 26 October 1994 treaty set water and border frameworks. But 30 years on, peace remains elusive. In November 2023, Amman recalled its ambassador over the Gaza war; it froze the signing of a “Water-for-Energy” project.
Yet practical cooperation continues: water, gas, security channels remain open. Jordan even opened its airspace to the Israeli Air Force to intercept Iranian drone/missile threats –showing Israel offers token arrangements to capitals that serve its interests, without political resolution of the Palestinian issue.
In Syria, the new Al-Qaeda-rooted government offered “goodwill” gestures, returning the remains of Israeli spy Eli Cohen, declaring hostility to Iran, and intercepting weapons bound for Hezbollah’s fight with Israel.
Yet Israel never engaged in real peace talks. Instead, it occupied more territory, struck Damascus airport, seized Mount Hermon, water resources, and declared it would never leave. Israel does not want strong states – it wants them weak enough to act as border police for its own security, not to defend their land.
In Lebanon, the daily killings, massacres, and occupation will not be forgotten easily. How can Lebanon be asked to sign a peace that ignores justice? Israel killed thousands of Lebanese and continues bombing villages and assassinating people daily.
How can peace be demanded on soil where war crimes remain unaddressed and the blood still flows? How can arms be surrendered to an enemy that has never shown goodwill?
Though Lebanon’s prime minister, president, and most ministers share a stance against non-state weapons, they also confirm that Israel never honored what Lebanon did. How then can negotiations be discussed while the enemy has not even respected the ceasefire that Lebanon upheld?
And what of the voices now advocating peace as if it is a possible salvation, coming only after the Lebanese state wins full sovereignty and monopolizes arms? These voices ignore that the presidency and government in Lebanon, despite internal dispute, agree: Israel is not after peace but limitless gains.
Syria was ravaged, sans firing a single bullet at Israel – and yet Israeli assaults persist. What is the difference then between Lebanon and Syria? The issue is not about the resistance movement, Hezbollah, but Israel’s continual appetite for expansion and control.
These ambitions were revealed in the maritime border deal, where Tel Aviv aimed to maximize gains, then cancelled it after the assassination of Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah. Territorial greed surfaced again when Netanyahu held up a “new Middle East” map at the UN that omitted Lebanon and Syria.
That map belonged to the “Greater Israel” fantasy – not political reality. Echoing this, Tom Barrack in Damascus claimed Lebanon and Syria are “one country, not two” in eerie synchrony with Israeli discourse that erases borders and redraws the region to its liking.
Those demanding peace today arrived decades late, over 30 years after the 1991 Madrid Conference, which Israel rejected.
What does Israel mean by “peace”?
Combine the preceding elements – perpetual security control west of the Jordan, accelerated settlements, pushing Arab capitals into bilateral cooperation detached from final resolution or the Palestinian question – and you arrive at the definition of “peace” as Israel sees it. A system of deterrence and subjugation that neutralizes states while perpetuating control over Palestinians.
Netanyahu’s own statements rejecting a Palestinian state after the war and his government’s West Bank policies confirm this conclusion politically and practically.
Peace demanded from a position of weakness is not sufficient. Real peace begins when the strong is compelled to treat the other side as an equal – not a subordinate. Israel sees itself as the “master,” and the rest as its created subordinates.
This is the core of its thinking – driven by the myth of a Greater Israel. Weak states cannot rely merely on claiming peace; they must create power equations that enforce respect and force recognition of their rights.
The risk here is that Arab appeals for peace become a pact of submission – branded “peace,” yet in reality a continuation of hegemony.
The first step toward genuine peace is not a signature or press release – but this simple question:
Does this “peace” change reality – or does it legitimize ongoing submission? Is the strong side willing to surrender occupation and aggression?
It is not enough for us only to say “we don’t want peace.” If the other side wants only domination in the name of peace, then our calling for peace is from one side a mere wish, from another side a reward for genocide.
Demonizing the resistance
For years, a massive Arab and western media machine has generated methodical propaganda to reframe the moral map in Arab consciousness. Iran, Hezbollah, and anyone who resists the US-Israeli project are presented as the root of regional collapse – while invaders and their allied regimes are portrayed as champions of peace and stability.
Every day, the memory of the people is cleansed through one-sided discourse about the “Iran threat,” the “Hezbollah expansion,” the “Shia crescent” – while the crimes committed under the banners of “freedom” and “democracy” by western alliances or Arab proxies are hidden.
The truth remains, it was not the resistance that destroyed Lebanon, it was those who surrendered. Those who colluded with the siege, facilitated the invasion, and funded the media-political-military degradation that swept the region in the name of modernity and enlightenment.
For two decades, Arab and western media have constructed a distorted narrative that made Iran and Hezbollah public enemy number one – and muffled the real causes of our tragedies.
When Afghanistan was devastated under US occupation, no one asked how many were killed or how many millions suffered under the “war on terror.”
When Iraq was illegally invaded in 2003, hundreds of thousands died, infrastructure collapsed, and chaos reigned – all branded “a march to democracy.”
Lebanon is repeatedly targeted by Israeli aggression, and forbidden from building a genuine independent state – because its independence threatened Israel’s “superiority.” Yet media campaigns portrayed the resistance as the source of crises, ignoring those who imposed siege, funded division, and shot the economy.
In Syria, the destruction was not caused by “Iranian influence” as popularized, but by an international project that mobilized thousands of fighters from ISIS, the Nusra Front, and other groups with Persian Gulf funding and western complicity. Iran was one of the few powers that helped prevent Damascus’s collapse. The government eventually fell under crushing economic siege, not from Iranian projection.
As for Yemen, the war was not a proxy conflict, as simplified by the media, but direct aggression by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, backed by Washington, turning the country into one enduring some of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the 21st century.
In Palestine, people have been slaughtered and killed by bombs and siege for decades, yet their resistance movements are demonized more than the perpetrators. The mainstream media denies the occupied people’s right to self–defense, demonizing their rockets while ignoring the occupation’s fighter jets that annihilate families and destroy cities.
In Sudan, systematic ethnic cleansing is unfolding – led by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Darfur, accused of mass killings, forced displacement, and genocide. Militias regionally backed by the UAE and Israel are implicated. The mainstream treats the conflict as a marginal crisis.
The propaganda effort has flipped the narrative on its head – those who invade and occupy are cast as peacemakers, while those who resist them are branded as threats. If Arab appeals for “peace” continue on these terms, they will read not as a quest for justice, but as a quiet signal of submission.
Be the first to comment