A review of normalization with the occupation and its promised final episodes

It will be that the certain news will come, even after a while, and this time everyone is waiting for the certainty of the known and felt news from Umm al-Qura, the Qibla of the Muslims, the masters of the ancient house, and it may be taken for granted, as if it is the coming reality in light of the restructuring and shaping of the regional political map, specifically the Arab one, and the issuance of normalization agreements. Reconciliation, reconciliation, and the conclusion of military and security agreements in joint cooperation with the Hebrew state by some Arab regimes and many official and unofficial Arab institutions to rush towards the normalization of political, security, cultural, sports, and tourism relations with the occupying entity. There is a phenomenon that must be stopped, and which I believe has begun to control The Arab societal path, with its system of awareness and the creation of its concepts in one way or another, where a new political promotion in the form of a liberal approach has become frequent after the failure of the pan-Arab nationalist forces and the factions of Palestinian national action in all their classical forms has been demonstrated or they have been thwarted and their theses have been thwarted and removed from the circle of influence in one way or another among the Those who are preoccupied with public political affairs, which now threatens the pillars of the system of national concepts within its entire Arab nationalist framework.

The philosophy of normalization is based on accepting the logic of defeat, surrendering to the logic of the enemy’s power according to its conditions and desires, accepting everything related to rights and rights, and thus submitting to the equation of defeat and the defeatist conditions it imposes that have a great impact on the future of the people with all its components and making the enemy have the upper hand, in the calculations of interests, which is what We are witnessing it in the current situation in light of the wave of normalization and the growing trend of what is called Arab political realism, which is based primarily on intersections to preserve the interests of the ruling Arab elites and what they represent and the interests of the occupying state in the region. These intersections were reflected through the agreements signed by some Arab regimes and the distant Hebrew state. A far cry from the concept of bringing peace to the Middle East...

The philosophy of normalization is based on demolishing the pillars of society from within, by sowing discord and undermining its beliefs and heritage history based on historical rights and Arab interests themselves, and protecting them from targeting the other, regardless of who this other is, and at various levels with the aim of casting doubt on everything related to the Arab nationalist belief and its implications. Thus, demolishing it and replacing it with other beliefs that do not relate to Arab national history and its accumulations.

Perhaps the act of normalization took its primary extent through the agreement to cross into the Arab arena through the Oslo Accords and its annexes, and its adaptation in accordance with the desires of the rulers of Tel Aviv, mainly security coordination, which came as a dramatic turning point for the demolition of national action in all its forms. From here, the concept of normalization took another and different form, as it Cooperation and full integration into the system of concepts and perceptions that influenced the course of the entire political process, which helped promote the concept of Arab political realism in general and Palestinian realism in particular.

This promotion, which has become based on what is called political realism and the necessity of looking at interactive matters and developments in the region through the prism of realism, dealing with them and accepting their results, and thus abandoning the political discourse based on national national constants and the historical rights of the Palestinian Arab people, so that the supporters of new realism have become their view of political realities based on What is proposed Israelily and internationally through the American portal and any other language that would oppose and resist the American tide and resist Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories, specifically towards an issue such as the Jerusalem issue or the refugee issue, is described by these realists as rigid, wooden speeches that do not enrich or satiate hunger, knowing that The current Palestinian discourse and its current circumstance, which has expressed and is expressing itself through the thesis of a Palestinian state on the June 4 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, within the framework of the two-state solution, is considered the pinnacle of new realism and engagement with public international affairs in light of international and regional developments that have imposed themselves on various decision makers. Palestinian politics over the last two decades. In my opinion, this constitutes the minimum level of national and national discourse. Without that, it is considered negligence and not in harmony with the international and regional reality.

The supporters of neo-realism see all forms of resistance, not necessarily armed or violent, against the occupation policies, as a departure from the stereotype of this realism and a sabotage of the political vision that they are trying to adopt and its results on the ground, such as saying, for example, that an issue like the issue of Jerusalem is too big for us to impose any Palestinian facts or facts on it. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with what is proposed on the ground, and for supporters of adherence to constants to abandon the “wooden language” regarding the issue of Jerusalem, and that the call for steadfastness and strengthening the reasons for Arab and national steadfastness in it in light of the circumstances of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership and the challenges that impose themselves on this leadership is considered a rhetorical escalation. Against this leadership or the embarrassment of such a leadership that is contradictory to itself and its discourse, (as many supporters of the thesis of political realism have infiltrated its existence and the basic characteristic of the form of Palestinian leadership has become contradiction, confusion, and going into the unknown), knowing that the reasons for steadfastness do not have to be only material, with the importance of support. Moreover, the political vision towards Jerusalem, defining the principled language and vocabulary, and including them in the official Palestinian discourse, based on clearly defined and applicable program plans according to a scientific and practical approach at the same time, would strengthen the Arab steadfastness in Jerusalem, and at least confront it. To Israeli policies or to disrupt their paths of action, sabotage and change their Arab features and cultural identity, and thus a discourse that is usually described in the language of these realists as wooden and illogical in light of the circumstances of power.

In light of the struggle between the language of neo-realism and its supporters with the Arab national language based on the historical national and Arab right, we find these realists trying to bet on the international thesis through the portal of the American empire and its policies in the region, only to find, through the margins of these policies, some crumbs on which to subsist to practice political speech and the art of realistic theorizing about... The necessities of the stage and its requirements, the civilization of political engagement and the ethics of the American era in managing diplomatic affairs on the basis of taking into account interests and spheres of influence, and the necessity of making the required concessions so that we can take our place in the club of new Arab liberals who agree with the new conservatives in Uncle Sam’s country, and so that we can be in contact with the capitals of the so-called. With Arab moderation.

One of the most important conditions for this club’s membership is that what they call the “wooden language” in national and national issues such as the Jerusalem issue and the refugee issue is abandoned. Most importantly, resistance in all its forms and types, from stone-throwing, sit-ins, demonstrations, and even expressing a point of view, is rejected. In other words, we must dialogue with the other. In the conflict equation, and to accept the principle of dialogue and dialogue over every Israeli practice, and they have the right to do whatever they want without us having the right to simply strengthen the reasons for steadfastness and steadfastness.

The White House administration has the right to hold consultations and discussions with Arab foreign ministers and intelligence directors of countries that influence the regional equation, to give them its instructions and orders on how to prepare the regional stage for the next, ongoing American action towards and in the region. What is required of us, based on realism, is to acknowledge such facts.

In the context of the official regional political engagement, which is programmed to some extent by the United States in the form of an international character, there are observations that must be highlighted to the pioneers of new political realism in the region and the pioneers of normalization and its promotion. Perhaps the most important of these observations can be summarized as follows:
The White House administration does not believe that the time has come to resolve the issues of the so-called final stage regarding the Palestinian issue, which is of course meant by the issues of Jerusalem, refugees, and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Creating a general political and diplomatic atmosphere in the region by the White House and the Israeli government in cooperation with the new Arab and Palestinian realists, considering that the region is not prepared for the so-called settlement peace, and this fully expresses the Israeli position.

An attempt to establish and consolidate the concept of the border dispute on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is at least what the American-Israeli theses carry and demonstrate, and this is clearly evident in the Israeli view of the peace process, which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders that negotiates with the Israeli side on the disputed issues, which is What supporters of political realism promote under the slogan of “accomplishing what can be accomplished,” meaning that what is required is to make concessions on the part of the Arab side, and the Arab side, of course, is not stingy in making such concessions.

An attempt to consolidate the concept of an axis of moderate Arab countries (the apparent Sunni...) in the face of the Shiite tide... (the Iranian threat...) to create a new political scarecrow in front of the official Arab regime in the service of American interests in the region in the face of the Arab nationalist tide based on resistance and resistance.

There is an American political failure in the region and there are attempts to manipulate the policies of the White House, through public relations management around the Palestinian issue.

An attempt to change the concept of Arab national security, change its compass towards Iran, and reduce the Israeli threat to Arab national security as a whole.

There are attempts to domesticate the forces of resistance and rejection of American, and therefore Israeli, policies in the region, and this is what we see and feel in the current circumstance.

In this way, I see that realistic engagement with the issues at hand is in the service of American and Israeli diplomacy, which at best is no more than a public relations matter, the various paths of which are being worked on circumstantially in accordance with the American regional agenda in the region and its requirements.